HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 48081
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. 4808
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TO CONSTRUCT A SHOPPING CENTER, INCLUDING TWO
SPECIALTY RETAIL BUILDINGS AND A DRIVE THROUGH
DRUG STORE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCH0 SANTE FE ROAD
AND LA COSTA AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 11.
CASE NAME: RANCH0 LA COSTA VILLAGE
CASE NO.: SDP 99-07kIDP 99-l l/CUP 00-22
WHEREAS, Cynthia Bell & Associates, Inc., “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by La Costa Village, Inc.,
“Owners,” described as:
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 12586, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, recorded on
February 25,1983 as tile/page No. 83-060578 of official records
in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 2nd day of August, 2000, 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 testimony
and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
t
i
8
9
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Findings
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES the Mitigated Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein
identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the project, on file in the
Planning Department, prior to APPROVING the project.
The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the
City of Carlsbad.
The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
The Planning Commission finds that based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon,
there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Ranch0 La Costa
Village mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience
as “fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions.
If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code
Section 66020(a), and tile the protest and any other required information with the City
Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030.
Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review,
set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been
given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously
otherwise expired.
PC RESO NO. 4808 -2-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of August, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compaq Commissioners Heineman L’Heureux,
Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Baker and Nielsen
10 ABSTAIN:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairper&
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4808
cite of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Southeast corner of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue
Project Description: A neighborhood commercial center with approximately 27,384
square feet of retail space on a 4.18 acre parcel located on Planning
Area SE 15 of the La Costa Master Plan. A .57 acre remainder
parcel located within the Planning Area is under separate
ownership and will be developed and a future date
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 tile 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 Anne Hysong in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4622.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
JUNE 8,200O
SDP 99-07
RANCH0 LA COSTA VILLAGE
JUNE 8,200O
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602.4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 99-07
DATE: February 26,200O
Revised June 1,200O
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Rancho La Costa Village
2. APPLICANT: Cvnthia Bell & Associates. Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 19 Cal&, Newport Beach, CA 92657
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 18, 1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a neighborhood commercial center with
approximately 27,384 square feet of retail space on a 4.18 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of
Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue in the P-C Zone (La Costa Master Plan - Planning Area
SE-15). Also included in Planning Area SE 15 is a .57 acre remainder parcel. The .57 acre parcel is
under separate ownership and will be developed at a future date as part of SDP 99-07.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summaty 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.
q Land Use and Planning q Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
q Population and Housing [XI Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
q Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
q Water
q Air Quality
q Hazards q Cultural Resources
[7 Noise q Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03128196
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
q
q
q
El
q
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fmd 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
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 Mitigated Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
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 EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature
Iii+-a0
Date
Date
2 Rev. 03128196
-.
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.
. “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.
. “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.
. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
. Based on an “EL4-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but &I 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).
. 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 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.
Rev. 03128196
. If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an ElR 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 & 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 EL&Part II 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.
Rev. 03/28/96
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El
q
q Ix1
El q
q
q
cl
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:,
=I
b)
Cl
d)
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l -5.6-1X; #2
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18; #2)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
4
b)
C)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l 5.5-6)
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-l -
5.5-6)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or . .
a)
b)
C)
4
e)
f-l
9)
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15)
Seismicgroundshaking?(#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
Seiche, tsun&i, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l
5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15; #4)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1-l; #4)
Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; #4)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l
5.1-15)
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-l 5.2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as floodine? (#l:Pes 5.2-l 5.2-11)
c) Discharge into-s&face-waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1)
Signiticari Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El q
q
El
El q
q
q
q
-
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El
q
q q
El q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
8)
h)
i)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11)
Changes in curxnts, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11)
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-l - 5.2-11; #2)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11; #2)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5.2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
=)
b)
Cl
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
=I
b)
C)
4
e)
cl
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2; #3)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2)
Inadequate emergency acce.ss or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2)
InsuffIcient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22;#2)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22; #2)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22)
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-l - 5.4-24; #2)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2)
q
q
q
!xl
q
q
q
IXI
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
IXI
!z
El
IXI
El
[XI
q
El
Esl
El
q
EJ
[XI
El
IXI
[XI
El
q
[XI
El
6 Rev. 03/2X/96
Potentially
Significant
1tTpKt
q
q
q
Potentially Significant
UllkSS
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
q
q
Less Than
Significanl
IlllpCt
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d)
e)
VIII.
=I
b)
Cl
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24; #2)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-S &5.13-l - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -5.12.1-5 & 5.13.
I - 5.13-9)
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-l 5.12.1-5
&5.13-l - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
=)
b)
Cl
4
e)
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-l 5.10.1-5;
w Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l
5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5; #2)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Increase fue hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l 5.9.
15; #2)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15; #2)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
4
b)
Cl
4
e)
. upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-l 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-l - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l)
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -
5.12.8-7)
Potentially
significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El q
B
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El
H q
Less Than
jigniticant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El q
El
NO
Impact
XKUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
7 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
b)
C)
4
e)
f-l
8)
XIII.
4
b)
C)
XIV.
=)
b)
Cl
4
e)
xv.
=)
b)
XVI.
4
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-l - 5.13-9)
Communications systems? (#l)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-I - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-S)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-l 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l -5.11-5;#2)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-I - 5.11-5;#2)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l 5.1 l-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.X-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8-
10; #2)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-l -
5.12.8-7; #2)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l :Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
1
q
H q
q
q
q
q
q
B
q
q
q
q
-~
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q
El
El q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
1
El
El
q
q
q
q
q
1
q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
Rev. 03/2X/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 OI indirectly?
Potentially Significant
Impact
cl
q
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
Less Than
Significant Impact
q
q
NO Impact
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, OI other CEQA process, one OI
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify tlx following on attached sheets:
a)
b)
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
Cl Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures which wwe incorporated or refmed from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result from the build-out of
the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued development to build-out as
proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and
electric power consumption and vehicle miles trawled. 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 build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant
impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minim&z the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, 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 %on-
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 projects
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is
available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result from the
build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued development to
build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will
be adequate to accommodate build-out 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 C&bad 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 build-out.
To lessen or minimix the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, numerous mitigation
measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. 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
build-out 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 projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR. This project is within the scope
of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning Department.
In addition, the City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report The Report has
10 Rev. 03/28196
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 hvo dual right turn lanes (northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound). This project has
agreed to a condition to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements” thereby guaranteeing
mitigation to a level of insignificance.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Previous biological resource surveys performed for a formerly approved commercial project on
the disturbed site revealed that 1.7 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat along with a single
pair of California gnatcatchers occupied the site. A later survey revealed that only .65 acres of
CSS habitat existed with no gnatcatchers observed. Mitigation for disturbance of the original
1.7 acres observed at the site at a 1:l ratio was required and a 4d Permit was approved by the
City of Carlsbad and the USFWS and CDFG resource agencies in 1998. The project approval
and 4d Permit have since expired. The proposed Ranch0 La Costa Village project would also
disturb the CSS habitat. The applicant proposes to mitigate this disturbance by: 1) obtaining a
permit from the USFWS and CDFG to allow disturbance to CSS habitat and to either purchase
1.7 credits in a habitat management bank acceptable to the City and resource agencies or
purchase 1.7 acres of equal quality CSS habitat acceptable to the City within the City limits for
preservation; or 3) should the City Council adopt the Habitat Management Plan and Habitat In-
Lieu Mitigation fee to implement the HMP and the project is subject to the fee, the developer
shall pay the Habitat Management Fee established by the City Council.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on tile in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4622.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93.Ol),
dated March 1994, City of C&bad Planning Department.
Mitigated Negative Declaration dated February 8, 1996 and Part II Environmental Impact Assessment
dated January 29, 1996 for SDP 86-03(A) La Costa Village.
Transportation Analysis for Ranch0 La Costa Village prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. dated
April 3,200O.
“Update Soil and Geologic Investigation - La Costa Village Retail Cater, Carlsbad, California” prepared
by Geocon, Inc. dated December 1997.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. 1.7 acres of unoccupied Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat will be directly impacted by
this project. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
the Developer shall: 1) consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
regarding the impacts of the Project and obtain any permits required by the USWFS for the
purchase of 1.7 credits in a habitat management bank acceptable to the City and resource
agencies or purchase 1.7 acres of equal quality CSS habitat in the City for preservation; or 2)
should the City Council adopt the Habitat Management Plan and Habitat In-Lieu Mitigation fee
to implement the HMP and the project is subject to the fee, the developer shall pay the Habitat
Management Fee established by the City Council.
11 Rev. 03128196
.-
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
12 Rev. 03128196
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVJEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE h&WJRES TO THE PRO3ECT.
c ywhw B3.51 k RsSoei/PitZ, -TA
A sA-t”---;-w+
4. 020 LJO -k+c&u&L Date vsi
* cymfisl -aiLL
Ir53@ES ,-;Se An--
ENVIRONMENTAL MITI~TION MONITORING CHECKLIST: dge 1 of 1