The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-02-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 4721e 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 I 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4721 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO SUBDIVIDE 5.3 ACRES INTO 84 AIRSPACE EASTERN CORNER OF MELROSE DRIVE AND CARRILLO WAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18. CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE L CASE NO.: MP 139(I)/CT 99-1 1/CP 99-08 WHEREAS, D. R. Horton San Diego Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verifi CONDOMINIUM UNITS LOCATED ON THE NORTH- application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by D. R. Horton San Die Holding Company, Inc., a California Corporation, “Owner”, described as Lot 240 of Carlsbad Tract No. 93-04 Rancho Carrillo Villages “L and M” in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 13838 filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County August 23, 1999 as file no. 1999-582013 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring a1 Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of February, 20( hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimo and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, a considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fact1 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporti Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plannj Commission as follows: & 0 0 - 1 2 3 4 4 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plm Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negat Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according Exhibit “ND” dated January 4, 2000, and “PII” dated December 23, 19 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: -J It 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findinm: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the environmental impa therein identified for this project, and any comments thereon prior RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporti Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the Califor Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmen Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City Carlsbad; and D. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evider the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Condition: 1. The developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Rancho Carril Village L Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... I PC RES0 NO. 4721 -2- 11 - - 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 Plannil Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of February 2000, by f following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Nielsen, Trigas and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpkrson ~ CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director ~ ~ PC RES0 NO. 4721 -3- - 0 0 - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddressLocation: Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, Village “L”, located on the northeast comer of Melrose Drive and Canillo Way, Carlsbad ,CA property is also identified by APN 222-010-44 Project Description: Project consists of developing a pre-graded 5.3 acre site with 84 multi-family condominium units on the northeast comer of Melrose Drive and Carrillo Way withm Village L of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. Proposed are 11 two- and three-story buildings with five six-plex, three eight-plex, and three ten-plex buildings and common recreation facilities which consist of yards areas and swimming pool. Project is requesting an amendment to the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan to reduce the front yard setbacks and to allow for reduced driveway widths to 24 feet. 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, the 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 the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department: A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the 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 Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4447. DATED: JANUARY 4,2000 CASE NO: MP 139(I)/ CT99-11/ CP 99-08 CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE “L” PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY,4,2000 €@I@+A Planning L irector . ~OL?MI@ER 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 - 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: MP 139(I)/ CT99-11/ CP 99-08 DATE: December 23, 1999 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE “L” 2. APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5900 Pasteur Court. Suite 150, Carlsbad CA 92008 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Auril 19,1999 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proiect consists of develouing a me-graded 5.3 acre site with 82 multi-family condominium units on the northeast corner of Melrose Drive and Carrillo Way within Village L of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. Prouosed are 11 two- and three-stow buildinvs with five six-dex, three eight-ulex. and three ten-ulex buildings and common recreation facilities which consist of yards areas and swimming uool. Proiect is reauesting an amendment to the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan to reduce the front yard setbacks and to allow for reduced driveway widths to 24 feet, Proiect will include frontage immovements to Carrillo Wav. 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. n Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCircuIation Public Services Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources Utilities LQ Service Systems [7 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics 0 Water UHazards ’ Cultural Resources rn Air Quality Noise [7 Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 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. 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environmint, 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. A 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 earlier Master Environmental Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) and the Ranch Carrillo Master Plan EIR 91-04 pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MER 93-01) and Ranch Carrillo 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. 12-27-94 Date /2-28-77 Date / 2 Rev. 03128196 0 e 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. a 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. a “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. a “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. a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. a Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but &l 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). a 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. 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. 03128196 0 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 Ovemding 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 significant 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. 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? 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. 1221143) (Source #(SI: (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18, #2 Pg. 122-143) ' (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18 #2 Pg. 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? (#1 :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? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - #3) 102-1 11, #3) 5.1-1 - 5.1.15, #2 PgS 102-111, #3) 5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-11 1, #3) Pgs 102-1 11, #3) 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-111, #4, #5) 102-111, #3) lll,#3,#4) 5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-1 11, #3) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- 11, #2 PgS 95-101) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 Ix1 0 5 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI 0 17 0 IXI cl cl 0 Ixl 0 IXI 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI Ixl 151 [x] La [XI La [XI IXI 0 0 0 IXI 5 Rev. 03128196 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 - X.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- 11, #2 Pgs 95-101) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 95-101, #6) 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) 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) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (XI 0 0 SI Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 IXI El 0 0 IXI 0 ‘0 lzl 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 cii31 [XI 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 cii31 0 0 (XI 0 ‘[XI VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188, #3) 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? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 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) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 PgS 164-188) 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188) [XI 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 Ix1 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI BI Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No - Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 54-81) (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2 PgS 54-81) - 5.4-24, #2 PgS 54-8 1) 0 0 0 0 17 [x1 0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI 0 0 IXI 0 0 lxl 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 BI inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 0 I7 0. IXI c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and 0 0 IXI the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 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 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: 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) 0' 0 0 IXI 1 - 5.9-15, #7) El El 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: 7 Rev. 03/28/96 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 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) o 208-221) 0 C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5, #2 Pgs 208-221) 0 0 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 P~s 208-221) 5.12.8-7, #2 PgS 208-221) 0 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, #2 Pgs 208-221) 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 Pgs 208-22 1) 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) PgS 222-224) 5.12.3-7, #2 Pgs 219) cl 0 0 0 0 a Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I7 0 El 0 0 ,XI 0 0 IXI 0 17 Ix1 0 cl 0 0 17 0- 0 0 lxl " p3 p3 p3 p3 0 I7 -w 0 0 w 0 0 Ixl 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) cl 0 0 (x1 5.11-1 - 5.11-5, #2 PgS 145-163) I7 0 o w 145-163) 0 cl Ix1 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 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which 10, #2 Pg 93,94) 0 0 IXI 10, #2 Pg 82-93) 0 0 IXI Pg 82-93) 0 0 0 IXI would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 0 0 Ixl potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #2 Pg 0 0 0 p3 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 0 0 IXI 5.12.8-7, #2 Pgs 210) 8 Rev. 03128196 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ,(#I :Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7, #2 PgS 210) 0 0 17 lxl XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? El 0 0 [x] 0 0 0 0 0 KI 9 Rev. 03128196 e 0 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Referenced in the above checklist are the earlier environmental analysis that have been 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 Report (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 Report for the Rancho Carrillo 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 unit residential master plan. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located on the northeast comer of Melrose Drive and Carrillo Way within Village “L” of the Rancho Canillo Master. The site is 5.3 acres in size and has been pre-graded with the mass grading of the master plan area. Access to the site will be via an entrance off Camllo Way, a local street. The project is bound by Melrose Drive, adjacent to the west, which is a prime circulation element roadway and Carrillo Way, a local street, to the south. To the north and east are existing 2:l manufactured slopes which fall to open space. The project consists of constructing 82 multi-family condominium units. Proposed are 11 buildings with five six-plex, three, eight-plex, and three ten-plex buildings and common recreation facilities which consist of yards areas and swimming pool. Project is requesting an amendment to the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan to reduce the front yard setbacks and to allow for reduced driveway widths to 24 feet. Project will include frontage improvements to Canillo Way. 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion Air Ouality 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 10 Rev. 03128196 0’ 0 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 7 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. Transportatiom‘Circulation 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-tra.ffic 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 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. The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Report has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 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. This project has been conditioned 11 Rev. 03128196 0 e to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements”, thereby guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance. Noise Noise levels along Melrose Drive adjacent to Units 3 through 6 are projected to exceed the City’s 60 dBA CNEL noise standard without mitigation. In accordance with the “Noise Technical Report for Rancho Carrillo Village “L” prepared by RECON dated May 28, 1999 and letter dated August 13, 1999, noise levels will be reduced to the City’s standard through construction of noise barriers that are 11 ’ in height for Units 3 through 5. Mitigation for this impact includes a combination of an earthen berm and 6’ noise wall, as shown on the tentative map, to attenuate noise at these locations to the City’s 60 dBA CNEL standard. 111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department’ located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760) 438-1 161, extension 4447. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and General Plan Amendment (EIR 91-04), dated February 8, 1993, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 3. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Rancho Camllo Villages F, G. L, M. and P, dated August 1993, Geocon Incorporated. 4. Final Report of Testing and Observation Services DurinP Site Grading, Villace L Rancho Carrillo, Carlsbad; CA, Dated October 1999, Geocon Incorporated. 5. Updated Reuort, Village L, Rancho Camllo, Carlsbad. CA, dated December 1999, Geocon Incorporated. 6. Preliminary Hydrology Study for Rancho Carrillo Village L, Dated April 15, 1999, Hunsaker and Associates. 7. Noise Technical ReDort for Rancho Camllo Village L+ Carlsbad. CA, Dated May 28, 1999. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES 1. The Developer shall pay their fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camino Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to issuance of a building permit. The amount shall be determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not limited to, 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. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e w 2. The developer shall construct and ensure maintenance of the combination earthen berm and maximum 6’ high noise wall as shown on the approved Rancho Carrillo Village “L” tentative map. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORTNG PROGRAM SEE ATTACHED 13 Rev. 03/28/96 c ENVIRONMENTAL MlTl br ION MONITORING CHECKLIST. a ge I of 1 - 03 Q, Q, 4 n 0 \ T Y &a Q)a +a 0" ern -04 Q) Fa \- - mtl a€ zs (3; m$ zn fY .. W zcj -1z WU u-a w t- (3 a k E - -I Q, m - - 5 - - .- 0 L L 0 m c 0 0 c d .. Wk za an t-a kx 5E W 21 cn ,aa $%A mcn 2; 5 €$: ,o .o 4. $gi .G { E .- -00 &) .& + + + g €5 .- c '3 20 .E Cn 5 5 :e € LE2 g II '5 -OD 9x2 gbn, a .E 9 (0% € s o"m 0 .o, a, 0 ms a? u) 5 m= oe E$+ .- a, z uEm $€ m 0 -6- b us !?a 5 SE .- C $g adf % 2 .- 3 F? A 2 E=- Q'Z U) m+ cL+ .r Qcr L bY K 000 - .- -= -0 =-+ .- z gs Y).- mcq 0% 30 3 .- .= 03 a,-u04 mo " E $2 K ,a, as 0 Eo -zmoa m 00 .- 09 -c" u) a7J !=a, ESa,O - ma0 ,m QY) 5.Q g €325 E%::: .sEma, (u 2 €2 '5 a,%& - 2 n .Fo 0 .a, .= co bg E;;; 2 5..,= I"E5z K K ac m.5 K a K K.G 3 - ! ~~~ 8; Efi .- - R 0) S C s= m Q) 3 .b- Q) 0 R n bQ)2 5+ .g E .- 2 1-1 I II 2 5; 5 Q) m.on 8 C >5.58=2 Sba, USLG Cn-0 a,c =-?+,+ = m .Poa, + - .E =- F Dd he. > g a, s*cr oa,m' " E C3co 5s z 0 2.0- 0 :e J= m *- c n =qo2 a, v) m 2 v) 5.m ma,g+ c a, l= 3 .G n .E N 0 g-z m 2 psu-u +- L 232 a, 3 L v) g v)wg mr 0 $j g 0 0 5 r c a, am:+ F 0 L 0 gq 00s .su-g .= .- Esz O+a)'Ua, " a, €2 m m-2 r m32sm'm gom v)522%g8ggg % E" Wl- SQ',.S.E != mr- E?: a, .. $2 m cU c 5 E! or%g*E i&g > =E:& o--$ a, F 2 g*ggzg- a$" 0 s1';53a, aa-5rU.E-o -- .v, Lm +" v) m+ 0 .- 5 >+C+Cv) I == a," C .- ~.-~~~~o~rO aE U II: m- E? t-ca E $ E~.EE.G I ~~"I 86, c .- - cor., GcO % .E E 0 mso E .E 5 Fmm %e 2 Err + CUU a)Kal -am> 5Eg -a)= 2-Q C-fJ (I) a5 Q SGem (' C 3.2 6225 L m v)z on n -- 22 -E== !$! 0 m"' a," 3, =aa,m a5.ZS rb+ 0- I- 0 e> bCa, omOE ="'E, 0s I' 11 I I1 L 0 0 5 d L e 0l.P 58 - kg .- e; =E a, f2 Ed p ZK v) 'ij 0 mm c .P *cn 0 g .E 520 .= m 'c mu 0 .- .E c m-0 :$ * c73T-J 2% u) 3 p .E cZ v) 0-% E0 II .- 5 .- " ;:>e $5 Eg E-Ii E -gzs z % .E 9LY LE ~g6 m E L - m 3 u r m 0 m 0, c .- ._ 8 I .- c E e 0 L - a, (0 c 0 Q v) !? i 0 c a, 0) ._ c $2 - ;; €E LjZZ@ 5.E am s 62: g $0 ; I 5 II. c .c o j E .o .e 'K u) c - -. ~~~~ k a, II .E 8 WI-2 1 ” a e w 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. I z/2 7j4ci Date i , Signature I U 14 Rev. 03/28/96