HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 47470 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4747
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 AND EAST OF MELROSE
DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18.
CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE “G”
CASE NO. : PUD 97-03(D)
WHEREAS, Continental Residential, Inc., “Owner” and “Developer”, has fil
ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS OF 39 SINGLE-FAMILY
a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding described as:
Lots 1 through 42 of Carlsbad Tract No. 97-03 Rancho
Carrillo Village “G” in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 13837
filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County
August 23,1999 as file no. 1999-581947
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a CEQA document was prepared in conjunction with said project;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of April, 2000, holc
duly noticed public meeting as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public meeting, 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 factc
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plannil
Commission as follows:
I A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public meeting, the Planni:
Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration accordi:
0 0
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
to Exhibit “ND” dated February 23, 2000, and “PII” dated February 10, 20(
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinps:
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 and the environmental impal
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior
APPROVING the project; and
B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporti:
Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the Califon
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmen
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. they reflect 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 eviden
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Rancho Carril
Village “G” Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
. ..
...
...
I 11 PC RES0 NO. 4747 -2-
0 0
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planni
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of April, 2000, by t
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners L'Heureux, Nielsen, Segal
and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Heineman and Baker
ABSTAIN:
ih!kef-&u
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperson b'
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4747 -3 -
-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: On the south side of Palomar Airport Road, east of Melrose Drive,
and east of Carrillo Way. Village “G” is within the Rancho
Carrillo Master Plan.
Project Description: The delayed architectural review of 39 single-family homes for
compliance with the architectural guidelines established for Village
“G” within the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. Property has an
approved tentative map, planned unit development permit and has
been graded to finish pad elevations.
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, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. 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) 602-4613.
DATED: FEBRUARY 23,2000
CASE NO: PUD 97-03 (D)
CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE “G”
PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 23,2000
\* ’ ..
,“9 (
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
CASE NO: PUD 97-03(D)
DATE: February 10,2000
1. CASE NAME: Rancho Carrillo Village “G”
2. APPLICANT: Hofinan Planning Associates
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5900 Pasteur Court, Carlsbad CA 92008
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 12, 1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Architectural review of 39 single familv homes for a Dreviouslv
subdivided and graded property with the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan.
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.
c] Land Use and Planning [XI TransportationlCirculation c] Public Services
0 Population and Housing [7 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
c] Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources c] Aesthetics
0 Water Hazards Cultural Resources
H 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)
[7 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
H 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.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 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. A Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. - u 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 (MEIR 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.
Jc+& 2--/6- 00
Planner Signature Date
a-/7d
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
a e
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.
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 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but fl 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
a a
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.
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 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 a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18, #2 Pg. 122-143)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18 #2 Pg. 122-143)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
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.
122-143)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18 #2 Pg. 122-143)
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
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 0
122-143)
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
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, #2 PgS 102-1 11)
5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-1 11)
Pgs 102-1 11)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2Pg~ 102-111)
102-1 11)
111)
5.1-15, #2 PgS 102-1 11)
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
I7
0
0
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)
0 0
5
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
OH
0151
0151
UIXI
UEI
UH
ow
ow
OH ow
UH om
OB
OH
om ow
OH
otxl
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 Pgs 95-
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 Pgs
95-101)
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
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)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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- Ixl
1 - 5.3-12, #2 Pgs 112-121)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
- 5.3-12, #2 PgS 112-121) 0
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12, #2 Pgs 0
112-121)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12, #2
Pgs 112-121) 0
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?
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 -
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)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 PgS 164-188)
5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188)
Ixl
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
e
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
El
I7
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
ow
om
om urn
OH
ow ow
DEI
no
ow
OH
ow
no
OH
ow
OH
OH
OBI
ow
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
0 0 OBI
0 0 UEI
0 0 OBI
OB
0 OIXI
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)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
prouosal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
"
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 I7 am
0 0 UKI
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
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
0 0 OB
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)
0
0
0
0
0
5.10.1-5, #2 Pgs 218)
0 OKI
0 OBI
UIXI
0 OH n[xI
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 ON
0 UIXI 1 - 5.9-15, #2 Pgs 189-207)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
7 Rev. 03/28/96
e
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
PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7, #2 PgS 208-221) B
5.12.8-7, #2 PgS 208-221) 0
C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5, #2 PgS 208-221)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
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 208-221)
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)
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5, #2 Pgs
5.1 1-1 - 5.11-5, #2 PgS 145-163)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5, #2 PgS 145-163) 0
145- 163) 0
0
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
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #2 Pg 82-93)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #2 Pg
10, #2 Pg 93,94)
10, #2 Pg 82-93)
Pg 82-93)
82-93)
0
0
0
0
I7
XV.RECFG3ATIONAL. 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)
8
e
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
I7
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
OBI om urn OB om
om om
OBI
OB om nEl om
om
OH
OB
OB om om om
OB
om
Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7, #2 Pgs 210) 0
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 history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? 0 17
(“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 0
either directly or indirectly?
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
OB
ON
UIXI
ow
9 Rev. 03/28/96
a 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.
10 Rev. 03128196
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This project is for the architectural review of 39 single-family homes within a pre-graded
subdivision located in Village "G" of the Ranch Carrillo Master Plan. The area is located on
18.3 acres south of Palomar Airport Road, east of Melrose Drive, and east of Cawillo Way.
11 Rev. 03128196
0 0
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Quality
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
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
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
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
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. This
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental
documentation. Pursuant to $15162 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. This 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
0 e
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 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4613.
1, Final Master Environmental ImDact Report 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 Canillo Master Plan and General Plan
Amendment (EIR 91-04), dated February 8, 1993, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
3. 1998 Traffic Monitoring Report for the City of Carlsbad, Valley Research and Planning
Associates.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
The Developer shall pay their fair share for the “short-tern improvements” to the El Camino
Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to the 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.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
See Attached
15 Rev. 03128196
e 0
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.
.n
Date $/\\ 16~ .\
16 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL MlTl a ION MONITORING CHECKLIST: cea ge I of 1
7
0 0 E8
??
Q, 2, nm
m
I-
22 2: w mi zn 3
z6
En
ww -Iz
W 2 0 != 2
c3
W c3 4 i
i s
0 -I
PC
0 I 0 3
ii+ w
za an
~a
5E
21
0> wo
oin aa
$%a
.P+ E mc-c)
.- +ma,
m
I c+ -00
-00 a, .- +
SQ
ES $ ,o .o Q
$2a,
8 €25 " c '3
PO
.v, .o, g 5 .= E LEF P 3 '5
922 250
a .v, ,o
m2 E
ptn
'E u "A - a, -= c ru
0 n$ 0 .P a,
a? m 5 ms ,o%?
.- a, ?
WQm + 56 b 02 ga g
oE .r $ a, a,5g & .o .- 3%- .
m.P5g-
5.GSZ 3% sz
E 2.2 c
.G $ 3 +
Q.= s m
-0-
Q+ .s a+ L.
hY c - .-
000
.-
e+
am
a,-ucu
~2 Q.P
0 E5 .=moa,
m3 m om .= m a,- sa,
E5a0 - m-c)g 5 Qtn
c2 €%E3 'c3Z
-$EO s s mK a, g E.2
-3 a,%& - _o -g .PO pG.=03
'E E ;;; 2 s.v,=
.-
$.E m z
Oam
m.5 c -c)
-
KSo3
FESZ
v)
m 2
5 E -
c 0 .- c 8" .- s ka) $E >32
" E.
C
!=C Ov) $? a -
anE -5 .E Q
0-l
Cgm
E E 9r .-
E$
LLFE 2
P-0-l m .- S .t: .- c 2
E -
e m .F
.s' 5+
r
L?Q
c OE-a, -0FLS
= W-E! m a,c 011" Az-1.g &sE,.& a, 'j SL'iS 3 g)"? s .-
m u4
bw yz E EgCo 55 5 a,-+
g &g z "- EO m c eQgq a, v)
5%
2 6.6 m pga %+ s 0 c $.; a, s
ZL 8 -~oSO-u .- --N m,m
g y" L. !IF52 g $j L v) v)u-l.g 0)r 0 m II 0 8 - >5c+.smya, g m 003 ."o--E! .- CI e,o-= 02 a, (rjz is z=v)v)rmm $W2k&2 gom c+ v) 52 L ;z$g"
s g,o % E.t: $+ 3o',.E.G :;; a, >smms
a, L 05 r2.E 53s > QfY -"g"" a, F n-5 0 r o ~55 g a,€ s E.?$$& mb eGo t-sa EO ~-2.Es.s
+mdpa.~ag L-
.f > 5 .G e 2
- .- -- +o
v)
e
.- g r 0 QmZs 2 L a,q
.- - 40-l
k 5
UL 92 58
0
- E$
$5
gz
$ E
Ed F
.- q C
a,
v) .= mm = .cs,
0
25- caO
P-0 v)
mo 0 .= c 3 Earn s-z a,s 0,
s: v)
II .- 6
0-$
63L
E E gS
222
==
$2;
.E ." -&$
E a, % .-
>K $E
g+p
L
- l%
5
3 0 ._
Q
0)
m
C .- 8 I .- C E
L e
P a
v) C 0 Q v)
-
$? 5
._ i:
;5 :
C a cs)
- 5 0- '
..SE ' In oy @
*e .r a, m : c 6g2
2 5 'I. c
mg,ng :
0 5 gg Y- " 0
.O '9 mz - ). 1::; 5 a, II .? 6 i
w~2 i