HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 99-09; Rancho Carrillo Village N; Tentative Map (CT) (37)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: MP 139(TD/CT 99-09/CP 99-06
DATE:7-25-99
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Rancho Carrillo Village "N"
2. APPLICANT: Hofman Planning Associates
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5900 Pasteur Court. Carlsbad CA 92008
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 24. 1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site is Village N of the Rancho Carrillo Master
Plan located at the southern boundary of the master plan just west of Melrose Drive and
to the north of Alga Road in the southeast quadrant of the City. The site has been
previously disturbed as part of the Master Plan mass grading that established the
boundaries of the various planning areas. The existing terraced pads range in elevation
from 446' to 480' from north to south and the proposed grading design would create one
large pad which increases the pad elevations along the northern and western project
boundaries and reduces the pad elevations along the eastern and southern boundaries.
The project consists of 35 three-unit triplexes, each with two three-story units and one
two-story unit ranging in size from 1,349 to 1,544 square feet, for a total of 105 units.
The project also includes an amendment to the Village "N" Master Plan development
standards to reduce required building setbacks to a minimum of 10' and to reduce private
driveways to a minimum of 24'.
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.
Land Use and Planning X Transportation/Circulation Public Services
I Population and Housing | Biological Resources | (Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems | | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics
Water | | Hazards | | Cultural Resources
XI Air Quality X Noise | | Recreation
| Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
C
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X] 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 a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. The project site is Village N of the Rancho
Carrillo Master Plan located at the southern boundary of the master plan just west of Melrose
Drive and to the north of Alga Road in the southeast quadrant of the City. The site has been
previously disturbed as part of the Master Plan mass grading that established the boundaries of
the various planning areas. The existing terraced pads range in elevation from 446' to 480'
from north to south and the proposed grading design would create one large pad which increases
the pad elevations along the northern and western project boundaries and reduces the pad
elevations along the eastern and southern boundaries. The proposed pad ranges in elevation
from 463' to 470'. The adjacent development to the north and west is approximately 80' - 90'
below the proposed development and the adjacent development to the south is approximately 38'
- 40' above the proposed development. The project consists of 35 three-unit triplexes, each with
two three-story units and one two-story unit ranging in size from 1,349 to 1,544 square feet, for a
total of 105 units. All units are three bedroom. The triplexes are designed around auto
courtyards that provide access to a two car garage and two one car garages on each side of the
courtyard. Each triplex has an additional two car garage that is accessible from the street outside
of the courtyard. The project also includes an amendment to the Village "N" Master Plan
development standards to reduce required building setbacks to a minimum of 10' and to reduce
private driveways to a minimum of 24'.
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.
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.
Planner Signature 0 /T Date
Planning Directorial Signature Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
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 "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• 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. 03/28/96
• 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 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
zoning?
or
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18, #2 Pg. 122-143)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans
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?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18 #2 Pg. 122-143)
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)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
II. 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.
122-143)
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 -
5.5-6 #2 Pg. 122-143)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6 #2 Pg. 122-143)D
III. 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
102-111)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1-5.1.15, #2 Pgs 102-111)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-111)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2
Pgs 102-111)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 -5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-111)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 Pgs
102-111)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-
111)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15, #2 Pgs 102-111)
n
D
D
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)
Rev. 03/28/96
pIssues (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
95-101)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 Pgs 95-101)
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?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 Pgs 95-101)
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
5.2-1-5..2-11, #2 Pgs 95-101)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
n
D
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-
1 -5.3-12, #2 Pgs 112-121)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
-5.3-12, #2 Pgs 112-121)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12, #2 Pgs
112-121)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12, #2
Pgs 112-121)
D
n
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
164-188)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22, #2 Pgs 164-188)
n D
n
n
n
n
n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
pIssues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
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-
81)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2 Pgs 54-81)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2
Pgs 54-81)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2 Pgs 54-81)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
-5.4-24, #2 Pgs 54-81)D
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
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)
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 -
5.10.1-5, #2 Pgs 218)
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)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
15, #2 Pgs 189-207)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1-5.9-15, #4)
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:
Rev. 03/28/96
c
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6, #2 Pgs
208-221)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4, #2 Pgs
208-221)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5, #2 Pgs 208-221)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,
pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7, #2 Pgs 208-221)
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7, #2 Pgs 208-221)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
I 1
D
x
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 &
5.13-1-5.13-9, #2 Pgs 208-221)
b) Communications systems? (#1; 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? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8, #2 Pgs 208-221)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3, #2
Pgs 222-224)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7, #2 Pgs 219)
n
D
D
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1-5.11-5, #2 Pgs 145-163)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1-5.11-5, #2 Pgs 145-163)
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5, #2 Pgs
145-163)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10, #2 Pg 93, 94)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10, #2 Pg 82-93)
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #2
Pg 82-93)
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
82-93)
D
D
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional I I
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7, #2 Pgs 210)
D
8 Rev. 03/28/96
c
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7, #2 Pgs 210)
o
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
n
Rev. 03/28/96
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 Village N of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan located at the southern boundary
of the master plan just west of Melrose Drive and to the north of Alga Road in the southeast
quadrant of the City. The site has been previously disturbed as part of the Master Plan mass
grading that established the boundaries of the various planning areas. The existing terraced pads
range in elevation from 446' to 480' from north to south and the proposed grading design would
create one large pad which increases the pad elevations along the northern and western project
boundaries and reduces the pad elevations along the eastern and southern boundaries. The
proposed pad ranges in elevation from 463' to 470'. The adjacent development to the north
and west is approximately 80' - 90' below the proposed development and the adjacent
development to the south is approximately 38' - 40' above the proposed development. The
project consists of 35 three-unit triplexes, each with two three-story units and one two-story unit
ranging in size from 1,349 to 1,544 square feet, for a total of 105 units. All units are three
bedroom. The triplexes are designed around auto courtyards that provide access to a two car
garage and two one car garages on each side of the courtyard. Each triplex has an additional two
car garage that is accessible from the street outside of the courtyard. The project also includes an
amendment to the Village "N" Master Plan development standards to reduce required building
setbacks to a minimum of 10' and to reduce private driveways to a minimum of 24'.
II. 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.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
Transportation/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-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
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
c o
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.
Noise
Noise levels along Melrose Drive adjacent to Units 1 through 6 and 23 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 N" prepared by RECON dated May 12, 1999 and
letter dated July 12, 1999, noise levels will be reduced to the City's standard through
construction of noise barriers that are 10' in height for Units 1 through 6 and 7' in height for Unit
23. Mitigation for this impact includes a combination of berm and 6' noise walls, as shown on
the tentative map, to attenuate noise at these locations to the City's 60 dBA CNEL standard.
III. 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) 438-1161, extension 4447.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact 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 Carrillo 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.
4. "Noise Technical Report for Rancho Carrillo Village N" prepared by RECON dated May 12,
1999 and letter dated July 12, 1999.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
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.
2. The developer shall construct and ensure maintenance of the combination berm and
maximum 6' high noise walls as shown on the approved Rancho Carrillo Village "N"
tentative map.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE^)
See Attached
13 Rev. 03/28/96
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 _ .
Date ' SignafSre
14 Rev. 03/28/96