Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-24; Planning Commission; ; EIRS 80-08 and EIR 80-08A - CARLSBAD HIGHLANDSDATE: TO: PROM: STAFF REPORT February 24, 1982 Planning Commission Planning Department SUBJECT: EIRS 80-8 AND 80-8(A), CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS I. BACKGROUND f< £-G crz,-1 Gtv 2{/\J Environmental Impact Report 80-8 identifies and discusses the impacts associated with a proposed 813-unit Planned Unit Develop- ment on approximately 263 acres located 1/3 mile south of Lake Calavera, as shown on the attached map. EIR 80-8 also addressed impacts associated with extending Cannon Road (from El Camino Real), and all utilities to the project. During the processing of EIR 80-8 the following changes in the location of peveral off- -site improvements occurred: 1. Cannon Road would only be extended from the project to its intersection with future College Boulevard. 2. College Boulevard would be constructed between Cannon Road and El Camino Real. 3. Elm Avenue would be extended from its terminus in Lake Cala- vera Hills to the project's· western boundary. 4. A sewer line would be extended from the northwest portion of the site to tie-in with.the proposed sewer line connection to the Lake Calavera Hills sewer treatment facility. Since these changes were not addressed in EIR 80-8, a supple- mental EIR 80-8lA) was required. EIR 80-8(A) also addresses sev- eral project design changes. None of the design changes result in any significant impacts. II. MAJOR IMPACTS 1. Biology -Project implementation would result in the loss of approximately 122 acres of the 142 acres of natural habitat on the site. The habitat loss represents an incremental contribution to a cumulatively significant impact on re- gional biological resources. The loss of habitat not only means the removal_of natural vegetation, it also means the elimination of most of th~ burrowing species of animals from the site as well as the displacement of the larger verti- b~ate species to adjacent sites. It is not known whether adjacent natural areas can eupport the displaced wildlife. Included in the elimination of most of the natural habitat on the site would be the loss of the .willow portion of the riparian habitat located in the southerly corner of the site. The loss of the willow portion of the riparian would be the result of the construction of Cannon Road. This is an unavoidable impact since the alignment of Cannon Road is fixed on the eastern boundary of the project by an approved tract in Oceanside. Also included in the habitat loss would be the elimination from the site of three observed sensitive plant species: pigmy spikemoss (Selaginella cinerascens): adolphia (Adelphia California): Western dichondra (Dichondra occentalis). The loss of natural habitat cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance except by project redesign or by selection of the "no project" alternative. Therefore, a finding of over- riding consideration will be necessary to approve the pro- ject. 2. Topography and Visual Aesthetics The project proposes to grade approximately 4,800,000 cubic yards of earth materials (half is cut, half is fill). This figure does not include the grading necessary for the off- -site improvements. Project grading will involve over 90% of the site. The major impacts relative to the project grading would be habitat loss (covered in the Biology sec- tion above)~ potential erosion and siltation problems, and loss of the natural and rural characters of the area. The EIR propos~s measures that would reduce some of the grading impacts. In particula.r, the measures recommended in the Geology and Soils section of the EIR would reduce the potential erosion and sedimentation problems to a level of insignificance. Visual impacts would partially be reduced by landscaping especially with native species and by project design which incorporates open space corridors surrounding individual development. However, the loss of natural habi- tats resulting from the grading of over 90% of the site can only be mitigated to a level of insignificance by project redesign or selection of the "no project" alternative. Therefore, a finding of overriding consideration will be necessary to approve the project with the extent of grading proposed. 3. Public Services A) Fire Protection -the project would be beyond the 5- minute response time cdnsidered acceptable by the Fire Department •. Therefore, the risk of potential damage resul- ting from a fire is significantly increased. The city pro- poses a fire station to be located in Lake Calavera Hills (LCH). A station at this location could serve the project within the 5-minute response time if College Boulevard were extended from Lake Calavera Hill.s to Cannon Road. However, -2- 4. the exact timing of the construction of the station or the· necessary access are currently unknown. The current 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) dDes not include allo- cation of funds for the purchase of the land for the fire station. Once the land is purchased the station will need to be designed, constructed, out fitted, and manned before it can provide adequate fire protection for the project (assuming the College Boulevard extension was also con- structed). The EIR indicates that the Carlsbad Fire Department rec- ommends that the applicant install sprinkler systems in the ~esidences to mitigate the potential fire hazard prior to the development of the fire station in Lake Calavera Hills. This measure would probably reduce the level of impact to insignificance. B) Police Protection -In order to maintain the preferred level of service established by the City Council, three additional offices with supporting vehicles and equipment will be necessary upon completion of the project. Funding for the equipment and vehicles would come from the CIP which would be partially financed by public facilities fees (PFF) paid by the applicant. Neither the CIP nor the PFF would provide funding for the three officers. Since police protection is provided by mobile patrol units the Police Department feels that it can serve the remote project within adequate response times. C) Utiliti~s -All utilities ar~ available and adequate to serve the project. However, it will be the responsibility of the developer to extend utilities from their existing locations to the project. Agricultural Resources -The project site contains 8 acres of prime agricultural soils. In addition, approximately 100 acres of the site was under cultivation at the time the EIR was prepared. Agriculture on the site is primarily tomatoes and it takes place alm6st exclusively on Class IV soils. Agriculture on these soils requires careful management; how- ever, the soils are suitable for a ~ariety of crops includ- ing tomatoes, flowers, truck crops and grains. The loss of farmland including the 8 acres of prime soils on the site is not considered individually significant. How- ever, the loss does represent an incremental part of a cumulatively significant impact to regional agricultural resources. -3- 5. Traffic -EIR 80-B(A) primarily addressed the ·traffic cir- culation impacts associated with implementation of the pro- ject as.well as with the proposed changes in the off-site improvements. The major project impacts are associated with the following issues: A) What are the potential problems associated with a pro- ject of 500 or less units served by a single two-lane access road about 1.5 miles in length? B) What is the impact of the project and other projects on the College Boulevard/El Camino Real intersection? When should this intersection be signalized? C) Are there potential traffic hazards associated with the 90 degree-angle intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard? D) The project proposes construction of half-widths for Cannon Road and College Boulevard off-site. When should contruction of full-width of these roadways be completed? The project proposes development of 500 units before construction of a second access. If an emergency situation should arise such as a traffic accident, a flood, a brush fire, or an earthquake, there is the potential for the access road to be completely blocked. Since all four of these hazards are a possibility, the EIR concluded that a single access to the project would result in a significant impact if one of the emergency situations _occurred. To mitigate the impact associated with a •single access the EIR recommended that a second access (Elm Street extension) be required at the onset of the project. The traffic engineers, Federhart and Associates, subcontracted by the EIR consultants recommend that the College Boulevard/El Camino Real intersection could require signalization when approx- imately 4300 average daily trips utilize the intersection. This situation could either occur when 430 units are developed by the project, or perhaps sooner if College Boulevard is extended to Lake Calavera Hills, or if Cannon Road is connected to develop- ment in Oceanside. The signal at this intersection is to be funded by the public facilities fee (PFF). However, it is not known whether PFF funds will be available concurrent with the signal need. The temporary 90 degree-angle intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard could potentially create a traffic hazard. The intersection .would occur after approximately 1/2 mile of rural r9adway. The design speed of these two major arterials will be 50 mph so that vehicle drivers may have difficulty anticipating the intersection. This problem would be accentuated when visi- bility is reduced at night, or during rain, or foggy weather. The EIR recommends a number of measures to minimize the potential -4- traffic hazard including: curve warning signs; arrows indicating curve directional changes; appropriate striping and reflective buttons; paddles within the center of the road at the curve; and a reduced speed of between 15 to 25 mph 'posted prior to the curve. In order to mitigate the potential capacity problems on the Can- non Road/College Boulevard accesses, the EIR recommends that after 538 project units have been constructed the applicant fund a traffic study to assess the ability of the accesses to accom- modate traffic generated by the remaining project units. The traffic study would recommend the phasing of full-width con- struction as well as other measures to reduce project and cum- ulative impacts on the two access roads. ·III. SUMMARY In order to approve CT 81-9/PUD-30 (Carlsbad Highlands) the City Council will need to make a finding of overriding consideration with respect to impacts related to habitat loss and landform mod- ification. It is the opinion of the environmental consultants that all other environmental impacts associated with the proposed project could be reduced to a level of insignificance when the mitigation measures recommended in EIRs 80-8 and 80-8(A) have been made con- ditions of project approval. The EIRs 80-8 and 80-8(A) have been prepared in compliance with both the city's Environmental Protection Ordinance and the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality Act, as-amended. The EIRs ade- quately identify and propose measures ~hich would mitigate the potential project impacts on the environme~t. IV. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE Resolution No. 1919, recommending to the City Council that they CERTIFY EIRs 80-8 and 80-8(A). ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1919 2. Location Map . 3. Draft EIRs 808 and 80-8(A) (previously distributed) 4. Comments and Responses on the draft EIRs 5. Copies of public notices GW:ar 2/18/82 -5- l 2 3 4 5 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1919 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS (EIR 80-8 AND 80-8(A) FOR A PROJECT GENERALLY INCLUDING: 1) A TENTATIVE TRACT; AND 2) A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. APPLICANT: BARNES CORPORATION CASE NO: EIRS 80-8 AND 80-B(A) WHEREAS, on February 24, 1982, the Planning Commission, of 7 the city of Carlsbad, held a public hearing on EI~S 80-8 and 80- 8 8(A) pursuant to the provisions of Title 19 of the Carlsbad Mun- 9 icipal Code; and 10 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered comments ll and documents of all those persons testifying at the public hearing; 12 and 13 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received EIRS 80-8 and 14 80-B(A) according to the requirements of Title 19 of the Carlsbad 15 Municipal Code; 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission 17 of the city of Carlsbad as follows: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 • 2. 3 • 4 • That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That the Environmental Impact Reports EIRS 80-8 and 80-8(A) will be amended to include the comments and documents of those tes- tifying at the public hearing and responses thereto hereby found to be in good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of the minutes of said public hearings into the report. That the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Environmental Impact Reports EIRS 80-8 and 80-B(A) have been completed in conformance with the California Environmental Qual- ity Act, the state guidelines implementing said Act, ·and the provisions of Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and that the Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and evaluated the information contained in the report. That the Environmental Impact Reports EIRS 80-8 and 80-8(A) as so amended and evaluated, are recornrnrnended for acceptance and certification as the final Environmental Impact Report and that the final Environmental Impact Reports as amended are adequate and provide reasonable information on the project and all reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto, including no pro- ject. l 5. 2 3 4 That the Environmental Impact Reports EIRS ·80-8 and 80-8 ( A) identify all of the significant environmental impacts including those impacts which cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance and would therefore require findings of overriding consideration if the project were to be approved. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the 5 Planning Commission of the city of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6 24th day of February, 1982, by the following vote, to wit: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ATTES'r: 14 15 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary 16 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 1919 VERNON J. FARROW, JR., Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION -2- ·.·~. LOCATION Calavera A·I (8) · (co) OS RA CA 5 IE N Q,.EIR 80-8/ 80-8(~~} AIPPILUCANT Barnes ___ _;;:__ ____ _ ( ' MAP I :fl t-·=1 )-. 1-'.""" \j ul 0 -v) -L & ~. L __ _ FWY78