HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-02; Planning Commission; ; MP 139G|CT 98-03|CP 98-01 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE ACity of CARLSBAD Planning Departntartnffit
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: September 2, 1998
Application complete date: February 20. 1998
Project Planner: Brian Hunter
Project Engineer: Mike Shirey
SUBJECT. MP 139(GVCT 98-03/CP 98-01 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE A -
Request for the approval of a Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Map, and a
Condominium Permit. The Master Plan Amendment will provide underlying
zoning for the entire Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and will modify specific design
criteria for Village A. The Tentative Map and Condominium Permit will allow for
the development of 169 multi-family attached condominium units on a 11.5 acre
site (Village A of Rancho Carrillo) on property generally located south of Palomar
Airport Road and north of Poinsettia Lane, between Melrose Drive and the eastern
City boundary in the P-C Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 18.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4384
APPROVING MP 139(G) and Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4382, and 4383,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of CT 98-03 and CP 98-01, based upon the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
II.INTRODUCTION
The project proposes to amend the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan in two ways: 1) to provide
underlying zoning for the entire master plan, and 2) to modify specific design criteria in Village
A. The project also proposes a tentative map and condominium permit to develop the 11.5 acre
Village A site with 169 condominium units on one lot. As designed and conditioned, the project
is in conformance with the General Plan, the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan as amended, the
Rancho Carrillo Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 91-04), the Rancho Carrillo Hillside
Development Permit (HDP 91-17), and the relevant Zoning Chapters of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code, including the Subdivision Ordinance and the Planned Development Ordinance.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval of a Master Plan Amendment to the 690 acre Rancho Carrillo
Master Plan and a tentative map and condominium permit for 11.5 acres of Rancho Carrillo's
Village A. A substantial portion of the Master Plan, including Village A, has been graded in
conformance with the existing Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. Land uses surrounding the Master
Plan include agricultural and native vegetation to the west, single and multi family residential to
the south, the Carlsbad Raceway and fallow agricultural to the north, and single family residential,
MP139(G)/CT98-<
September 2, 1998
Page 2
03/CpWoi - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAttA
fallow agriculture, and native vegetation to the east. The Master Plan is located in the P-C Zone
and Local Facilities Management Zone 18.
The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan was originally adopted by the City Council in 1972 and
subsequently amended in 1973, 1982, 1984, 1993, and 1997. The existing Master Plan, which
was approved by City Council on October 21, 1997, includes residential, open space, school, and
park land uses and allows for 1,816 dwelling units to be constructed. The purpose of the Master
Plan is to provide for the orderly development of the Rancho Carrillo site, while preserving the
environmental resources of the area. Grading for the entire Master Plan area was approved under
Hillside Development Permit HDP 91-17. For planning purposes, the Rancho Carrillo Master
Plan is divided into 19 planning areas. The Master Plan identifies the allowable type and
intensity of land uses in each village and provides general development and design standards,
requirements, and the method by which the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan will be implemented.
There are two parts to the Master Plan Amendment described as follows:
1) Introducing underlying zoning to the entire Master Plan.
Per the requirements of Section 21.38.060(1)(B) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code which
details the required contents of a Master Plan, the proposed Master Plan Amendment will
create underlying Zoning for the entire Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. The existing zoning
of Planned Community (P-C) does not include development standards. While the
existing Master Plan does include general development standards, it does not include
specific development standards by village to address the full range of typical zoning
considerations. The proposed underlying zoning will address items such as building
height, lot coverage, standards for accessory structures, etc., as determined by the
underlying Zone for each Village. The Master Plan text will be revised on page 23
(Section II.E.l 1), as will Exhibits 4 and 5 of the Master Plan.
AND
2) Modifying the Special Design Criteria for Village A.
The proposed Master Plan Amendment would also allow for revisions to the Village A
design criteria to include the following additional text which is essentially an amendment
to the requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance:
1. The units may have a minimum setback of 10 feet from internal private streets.
2. Motor court driveway access may be 20' in width.
A tentative map and condominium permit are also proposed for the 11.5 acre parcel
identified as Village A in the Master Plan. Village A sits adjacent to Melrose Drive on
the northeast corner of the first intersection south of Palomar Airport Road in the northern
portion of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. The site has already been rough graded in
conformance with HDP 91-17.
MP 139(G)/CT 98-03/CP?S-01 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLA(
September 2, 1998
Page 3
Village A consists of 1 multi-family lot. The proposed condominium permit will allow for the
development of 169 multi-family attached condominium units as air space units on this lot. As
shown on the attached exhibits, the project contains 16 separate buildings. The units will be
developed typically in twelve-plex buildings (although there are 6, 7, 8, and 9 unit multi family
buildings also proposed) containing a mixture of 29 foot tall two-story town home and carriage
units. The units will include two to three bedrooms, will range in size from approximately 1.200
to 1,490 square feet, and will include two car garages designed around internal motor courts.
This design will screen garages from motorists on the internal streets.
The public roads surrounding the project vary from Melrose Drive, a prime arterial at a right of
way width of 126 feet to the west, "A-A" Street, a collector street with a right-of-way of 68 feet
to the south, and local street "A-C" with a right of way width of 60 feet to the east. Entering the
project is private street "A" with a right-of-way of width of 65 feet, to include an 8 foot median,
two 24 foot travel lanes and two 4.5 foot sidewalks. Private street "B", which services the
internal transportation needs of the project via a circular configuration, varies in width from 36.5
to 40.5 feet, depending on whether parking is on one or both sides, includes a 4.5 foot sidewalk
along its inner measure. The project proposes 66 guest parking spaces, including 14 provided as
compact parking in bays adjacent to the structures, and the remainder provided as parallel spaces
on the private streets.
The common active recreation area on-site is 17,424 square feet (including a pool, spa, and other
recreation amenities). The remaining common passive open space on site is 185,130 square feet.
The architecture is in conformance with the Master Plan as a California Mediterranean style
characterized by barrel tile roofs, recessed openings, and a sense of mass and solidity. The
exterior materials are smooth or textured stucco with predominately lighter colors and wrought
iron rails and wood shutters.
Staff has reviewed the plans for CT 98-03 and CP 98-01 and has traveled to a recently
constructed and occupied project which is similar to the proposed project. Based on the field trip
to the existing project and review of the plans for the proposed project, staff recommends support
of the project.
Pursuant to the City's adopted Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, 15% of the base dwelling units
must be provided for lower income households. The inclusionary requirement for Village A, as
well as the majority of the entire master plan, will be provided in Village B. All of the required
three bedroom inclusionary units will be provided in Village B.
The project is subject to the following land use plans, policies, programs and zoning regulations:
A. General Plan
B. Rancho Carrillo Master Plan (MP-139F)
C. Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance)
MP139(G)/CT98-
September2, 1998
Paee4
03/CPWC - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGER
D. Inclusionary Housing (Chapters 21.85 and 21.53 of the Zoning Ordinance)
E. Growth Management Ordinance
F. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code).
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project's
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and
tables.
A. General Plan
1. Village "A"
The proposed project for Village A is consistent with the applicable policies and
programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the proposed multiple family
residential community abutting a prime circulation arterial roadway are the Land Use,
Housing, Circulation, and Noise Elements of the General Plan. Table 1 summarizes the
project's compliance with the applicable element of the General Plan.
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT USE CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM
PROPOSED USES AND
IMPROVEMENTS
COMPLIANCE
Land Use RH(15-23duyac)
Characterized by 2 and 3 story
condominium and apartment
development
Encourage the provision of low
income dwelling units to meet
the objectives of the Housing
Element.
Ensure that all hillside
development is designed to
preserve the visual quality of the
pre-existing topography.
Multi-family residential
community at a density of
14.7 du/ac
2 story condominium
The project provides its
required inclusionary
units in Village B of the
Master Plan.
The grading design is
consistent with the
approved Hillside
Development Permit
HDP 91-17 for the
Rancho Carrillo Master
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
MP139(G)/CT98-03/CP
September 2, 1998
Page 5
r-01 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLA<
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT USE CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM
PROPOSED USES AND
IMPROVEMENTS
COMPLIANCE
Permit the approval of
discretionary actions and the
development of land only after
adequate provision has been
made for public facilities and
services in accordance with the
Growth Management public
facility standards.
Locate multi family uses near
major transportation corridors.
Plan.
The project is
conditioned to
construct/install all public
facilities necessary to
serve the subdivision.
Citywide and quadrant-
wide public facilities are
adequate to satisfy the
additional demand;
therefore, the project is
consistent with the Zone
18LFMP.
Project is located near the
intersection of Palomar
Airport Road and
Melrose Drive
Yes
Yes
Housing Ensure that master planned
communities and all qualified
subdivisions provide a range of
housing for all economic income
ranges. A minimum of 15% of
all units approved in master plan
communities shall be affordable
to lower income households.
The project is subject to
an affordable housing
agreement. The project's
share of affordable units
will be provided in
Village B of the Rancho
Carrillo Master Plan.
Yes
Circulation Require new development to
construct all roadways necessary
to development prior to or
concurrent with need.
The project is
conditioned to complete
all necessary street
improvements prior to
occupancy of any unit in
each phase.
Yes
Noise 60 dBA CNEL is the exterior
noise level and 45 dBA CNEL is
the interior noise level to which
all residential units should be
mitigated.
The project is
conditioned to comply
with the 45 dBA interior
noise standard.
Yes
2.Master Plan Amendment
The Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan by regulating the distribution and
•WoMP 139(G)/CT 98-03/CP o\ - RANCHO CARRILLO
September 2, 1998
Page 6
intensity of land uses in such categories as residential, commercial, and industrial.
Written regulations establish standards for minimum lot size, building height and set back
limits, fence heights, parking, and other development parameters within each land use.
The contents of a Master Plan (Section 21.38.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) shall
include the location of the various land uses indicated by the use of zone designations of
development zones as provided within the Zoning Ordinance. This amendment will
make the Master Plan consistent with this requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The
Master Plan Amendment will therefore be consistent with the General Plan
B. Rancho Carrillo Master Plan
1. Master Plan Amendment
As previously stated, the proposed Master Plan Amendment will create underlying
zoning for the entire Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. The incorporation of underlying
zoning into the Master Plan is consistent with the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. The
underlying zoning will address standards, which were not previously addressed in the
Master Plan, such as building height, lot coverage, standards for accessory structures,
etc., as determined by the underlying Zone for each Village. The underlying zoning for
the Master Plan Villages is either R-l for standard 7500 square foot and greater single
family lots or RD-M for Master Plan Villages that contain single family lots less than
7500 square feet or multi-family lots. This Master Plan Amendment will also add Open
Space zoning to be consistent with the General Plan.
the Master Plan Amendment that is requested, as regards Village A, is specific to
requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance, it is discussed in Section C below.
Master Plan amendments are classified as either "major" or "minor". Pursuant to Section
21.38.120 (CMC) a "minor" amendment cannot change densities, master plan boundaries,
add uses or rearrange uses.
Staff recommends that the proposed Master Plan amendments are "minor" for the
following reasons:
A. The addition of zoning designations merely clarifies the underlying regulations
for each planning area. This action does not change boundaries or impact uses.
Densities within the Master Plan are currently regulated by General Plan
designation and specific restrictions for each planning area.
B. The addition of two modifications to the development regulations for Village A
will not affect allowable density. The Master Plan permits 195 units, and 169
units are proposed. Boundary or use changes are not being proposed.
If the Planning Commission determines that the amendments are "minor" and otherwise
don't require a public hearing, then the proposed graphics and text changes can be
incorporated into the Master Plan without either a public hearing or further City action. It
MP 139(G)/CT 98-03/Cpffoi - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGFA
September 2, 1998
Page?
should be noted that the project, including the amendments is being considered in a
public hearing context. Therefore, conversely if the Commission determines that the
amendments are "major" or otherwise a matter requiring a public hearing, its action
would be to forward a recommendation on both the project and the amendments to the
City Council.
2. Village A Consistency
As described below, Village A complies with the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan General
Community Development Standards and the Village A requirements including: a)
product type and density; b) approved Hillside Development Permit HDP 91-17; and c)
Master Plan infrastructure requirements. The proposed Master Plan Amendment would
modify some of the design criteria for Village A to allow for the development of the
proposed project.
a) The Master Plan designates Village A for multi-family development with a
density range of 15-23 dwelling units/acre. The proposed project consists of the
development of 169 multi-family condominium units on 1 multi-family lot at a
density of 14.7 dwelling units per acre (11.5 unconstrained acres). Since Village
A will be developed with ownership condominium units, a Tentative Map and a
Condominium Permit Application have been submitted.
b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the approved Hillside Development
Permit (HDP 91-17) in that the subdivision grading design which will include
only finish pad grading is consistent with the approved mass grading design.
c) The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan requires a 50' setback along Melrose Drive to
screen the units from the roadway and to mitigate traffic noise. The proposed
landscaping within this setback area is consistent with the Master Plan landscape
guidelines. Streetscape landscaping, community theme walls and fences, village
fences, as well as village entry monumentation into the project are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan.
d) The project is conditioned to require that all public facilities necessary to serve the
project are provided prior to, or concurrent with, development in accordance with
the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan.
The circulation system for Village A has been laid out in accordance with the requirements of the
approved Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. The streets have been designed to City Standards and
will consist of curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The tentative map shows how Village A will gain
access from a public street via Melrose Drive. The streets within Village A will be private
streets.
C. Planned Development Ordinance
The proposed Tentative Map for Village A consists of 1 multi-family lot with 169 air space
•WoMP 139(G)/CT 98-03/CP W-Ql - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLA
September 2, 1998
PageS
condominium units on 11.5 acres. Notwithstanding the Master Plan Amendments discussed
below, the balance of the project is in compliance with the Planned Development Ordinance as
summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 - Planned Development Ordinance Compliance
Required
The number of dwelling units in a planned
development shall not exceed the density
permitted by the underlying zone. RH General
Plan allows a Growth Management Control
Point of 19 dwelling units per acre.
Prime Arterial setback = 50 feet
Dwelling Unit Front yard setback = 20 feet
Resident parking = 2 full sized covered spaces
Guest parking = (169 - 10)x .25+5 =45 (44.75)
Common Active Recreation Space = 16,900
square feet
Street pavement width of 30 feet with no
parking allowed
Lighting adequate for pedestrian and vehicular
safety
Utilities separate for each unit
Recreational Vehicle Storage (169 x 20 square
feet)=3380 square feet
Storage Space of 392 cubic feet per unit if all
of the storage for each unit is provided in one
area
Antennas - No individual antennas may be
permitted.
Proposed
14.7 dwelling units per acre
50 feet or greater
3 of the 1 69 units have setbacks less than 20
feet (two of which are carriage units)
All units have two car garages with dimensions
varying from 43 1 to 482 square feet
66
17,424 square feet
32 feet with parking on one side, 36 feet with
parking on two sides
Site plan indicates street lights at four corners
of private Street "B"
Proposed as required.
Developments located in a Master Plan will
satisfy this requirement by the common
recreational vehicle storage area provided by
the Master Plan.
Proposed as required.
Proposed as required.
(SsMP 139(G)/CT 98-03/CP W-01 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLA
September 2, 1998
Page 9
The project design is consistent with design criteria specified by the Planned Development
Ordinance with the exceptions discussed below. The proposed internal circulation pattern, which
includes 32' to 65' wide private streets, is designed to provide access to motorcourt entries which
will provide access to clustered units. The architecture will be consistent with approved and/or
proposed development in the surrounding Rancho Carrillo villages.
1. Amendments
As previously discussed, the applicant is requesting two Master Plan design guideline
amendments. These requested standards amendments in effect are reductions from existing
standards of the Planned Development Ordinance. A description of each amendment and
justification for each is provided below.
A. Frontyard Setback
Subsection 21.45.090 (2)(B) of the Planned Development Ordinance specifies that
"All multifamily units fronting on a public or private street shall maintain a
minimum of a twenty foot front yard setback". With the exception of 3 of the
169 dwelling units, the proposed units comply with this standard. One of the
carriage Unit "A"s from Building 1 maintains a 14' unit frontyard setback from
Private Street "A", one of the carriage Unit "A"s from Building 10 has a 16'
frontyard setback from Private Street "A", and one of the Unit "C"s from Building
12 has a 12' frontyard setback from private Street "B". Three of the 169 units do
not comply with the strict wording of the ordinance.
Review of the architecture and site plan for the project indicates that these setback
areas are not intended as private usable space and that the buildings exhibit great
variety and interest due to the variation designed into the footprint and the
individual skewing of the placement of the buildings so that they are not in rank
order. Requiring these three spaces to meet the strict requirements of the
ordinance will only provide a measurement conformance to the ordinance rather
than enhance the livability of the project. As such staff supports the design
standard requested.
B. "Driveway" Width
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.45.090 (h)(l) of the Planned Development
Ordinance states the following "Pavement widths between curbs of private streets
shall be not less than the following:...Multi-Family Attached Private Driveways
30 feet". The project is proposing a 20' motorcourt access. The internal auto
courtyards of this project are more analogous to underground parking rather than
typical surface parking. It is staffs belief that these motorcourt entries are no
more "driveways", within the meaning contained within the zoning code, than are
the individual driveways serving single family homes, which are also not required
to be 30' in width. In this case, only vehicles of the residents of the building will
traverse this area due to the design characteristics of these motorcourts, which has
MP 139(G)/CT 98-03/CpW-Ol - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLA<S\
September 2, 1998
Page 10
the pedestrian and guest traffic on the outside and the resident motor traffic
internalized. It is this distinction that separates this project from typical surface
parked multi-family projects, and even standard single family projects, which
typically have pedestrian access included as part of the driveway. All of the
garages will have automatic garage door openers and guest parking is distributed
outside of the motorcourts along the private streets and within parking bays.
Staff believes overall that the design of the project and the potential selling price of the units
justify the changes requested by the Master Plan Amendment. This project is the largest attached
ownership project that has been processed by the City in the past decade. There has been a
significant lack of new attached ownership projects in Carlsbad. Housing advocates agree that
the most practical method of providing homes that are affordable to first time homebuyers is
through the use of an attached product type.
The site is designated for high density residential development by the Rancho Carrillo Master
Plan. The Planning Commission and City Council both recognized that this is an appropriate
location for higher density residential when they approved the most recent amendment to the
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. The proposed density of the project at 14.7 dwelling units per acre
is slightly below this site's RH General Plan designation of 15-23 dwelling units per acre. The
project applicant, Shea Homes, has attempted to get as close to the density allowed by the RH
General Plan designation, while still providing a product type that is acceptable to the market and
the City. This project will provide a logical transition between the higher density units in Village
B to the north and the small lot single family units in Village D to the south and east.
As previously stated, each unit will have a two car garage, with direct access from the garage to
the living unit. This is often difficult to achieve in higher density projects. Residents will take
access to these garages via an internal motorcourt. This design will eliminate the view of the
garage doors for the majority of the units. Garage doors are usually one of the most dominant
features in higher density townhome projects. In this project garage doors are only visible to
residents looking into the motorcourts. This will increase the aesthetics of the project as viewed
from off site as well as from the internal street system since garage doors and driveways will not
be a conspicuous feature of the project.
Another important feature of this project are the internal pedestrian courtyards between the
buildings. Walkways through these internal courtyards will provide convenient, aesthetic, non
auto threatened pedestrian access between the units. Many of the units will have balconies or
patios facing onto these courtyards which will create a favorable atmosphere for neighborhood
interaction. Approximately 40% of the site will consist of open space, which is a significantly
higher amount of open space than most projects of this density provide.
Rancho Carrillo's affordable housing requirement will be fulfilled by apartment and ownership
units in Village B and second units in some of the larger single family villages pending approval
of a Site Development Plan and modification to the approved Affordable Housing Agreement.
Shea Homes' goal with this project is to provide a product that will be affordable to first time
homebuyers. Although not required by the Master Plan or the Housing Element of the General
Plan, there is a strong possibility that the units being provided could be affordable to moderate
MP 139(G)/CT 98-03/CP W-Ol - RANCHO CARRILLO
September 2, 1998
Page 11
income households.
This is not an untested product. Planning and Engineering Department staff has visited an
existing project that was built using this same product type with the same internal motorcourt
system in Tustin, California. This visit enabled staff to verify that the proposed design actually
works and provides an attractive higher density living environment. Copies of the photos taken
during that trip are attached to the staff report. The project being proposed by Shea Homes in
Village "A" will have larger garages and a more refined floor plan, and generally has greater
separation between structures than the existing project in Tustin.
As stated earlier, the applicant is requesting a Master Plan Amendment to add text to the Rancho
Carrillo Master Plan to allow this project at this specific location to be developed. These
modifications would allow for a 20 foot in width motor court access and allow a few of the units
to have a front yard setback of less than 20 feet from the internal street system. Staff believes
that these modifications are justified and will have no adverse impact on people living in this
project nor will approving these requested modifications establish an undesirable precedent.
This is a unique project that can be judged on its own merit.
D. Inclusionary Housing (Chapters 21.85 and 21.53 of the Zoning Ordinance)
The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan requires project compliance with the City's Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance; therefore, 15% of the total number of proposed units must be affordable to
low income households. Additionally, 10% of the required affordable units must be three
bedroom units. The required findings include consistency with General Plan goals and policies,
adequacy of the site and street system, and a determination that the affordable units are
compatible with surrounding uses, and will not adversely impact the site or surrounding areas
including traffic circulation.
As mentioned previously, these units, including the three bedroom units, will be provided in the
previously approved affordable project in Village B as multi-family apartments. Village B is
located adjacent to the intersection of Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road. This location
puts it in proximity to jobs along the industrial corridor of Palomar Airport Road and bus stops
on Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road.
E. Growth Management Ordinance - Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan
The project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 18 in the City's southwest
quadrant and is subject to the conditions of the Zone 18 LFMP. The 169 condominium units
proposed for Village A are 26 units below the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance of
195 units. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with the
adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
MP139(G)/CT98-i
September 2, 1998
Page 12
03/CPW--01 - RANCHO CARRILLO
TABLE 3 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
Standard
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water
Impacts/Standards
588 sq. ft.
3 13 sq.ft.
169EDU
1 .2 acres
PLDAD
Stations #2, 5 and 6
189.9 acres (Master Plan
Performance Standard OS)
San Marcos USD
169EDU
35,490 GPD
Compliance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
F. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the CMC)
The Carlsbad Municipal Code requires a subdivision map to be filed in accordance with Title 20
for any subdivision project. As conditioned, the proposed tentative map is in compliance with
the City's Subdivision Ordinance in that the lots are in accordance with the provisions of Title 21
(Planned Development Ordinance) and all of the necessary infrastructure improvements will be
provided. The findings required by Title 20 can be made for this project and are contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4382, dated September 2, 1998.
Sewer service to this project will be provided by public sewer lines that will tie into a 12" sewer
main installed to serve the entire Rancho Carrillo development. The sewer lines for this project
will drain by gravity flow along Melrose Drive and then along Poinsettia Lane. This sewer main
will then connect with an offsite pump station, which will pump sewage to the existing
Buena/San Marcos Interceptor system presently located on El Camino Real. The project will be
conditioned to guarantee sewer line improvements prior to issuance of building permits.
Domestic water will be provided to the project from the 12" water main beneath Melrose Drive.
The 12" water main was installed concurrently with the construction of Melrose Drive. An 8"
reclaimed water line installed in Melrose Drive will be tapped for irrigation of the slope areas.
The project will be conditioned to guarantee water line improvements prior to approval of any
final map.
Surface drainage will be conveyed by standard curb and gutter to drain to an underground storm
drain system, with various approved outlet areas. A broader drainage issue associated with the
entire Rancho Carrillo development is to provide drainage improvements to mitigate onsite
runoff upstream of this project to prevent adverse effects to downstream onsite and offsite
MP 139(G)/CT 98-03/CP o\ - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAOWl
September 2, 1998
Page 13
properties. A condition of this project will specify that construction of drainage mitigation
improvements be guaranteed prior to approval of any final map.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is located within the boundaries of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan (MP-139(F))
which regulates the entire 680 acre site. The direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental
impact from development within the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan have been analyzed in the
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 91-04) certified by the City Council on July 27, 1993.
Additional project level studies have been conducted including a supplemental noise analysis and
soils contamination assessment. These studies provide more focused and detailed project level
analysis and indicate that additional environmental impacts beyond what was analyzed in Final
EIR 91-04 would not result from implementation of the project. This project qualifies as
subsequent development to both the Rancho Carrillo EIR and the City's MEIR as identified in
Section 21083.3 of the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, the Planning Director
issued a Notice of Prior Environment Compliance on August 19, 1998. The applicable
mitigation measures of Final EIR 91-04 and MEIR 94-01 are included as conditions of approval
for this project. With regard to air quality and circulation impacts, the City's MEIR found the
cumulative impacts of the implementation of projects consistent with the General Plan are
significant and adverse due to regional factors, therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of
overriding considerations. The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those effects,
no additional environmental document is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4384 (MP 139(G))
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4382 (CT 98-03)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4383 (CP 98-01)
4. Location Map
5. Background Data Sheet
6. Disclosure Statement
7. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
8. Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance dated August 19, 1998
9. Environmental Impact Assessment Form, Part II
10. Reduced Exhibits
11. Exhibits "A" - "G", dated September 2, 1998
Exhibit "MP 139(G)"
September 2, 1998
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
RANCHO CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
MP139(G)
the Master Plan that are not impacted by the challenged condition shall be allowed
to proceed with development.
8. DEDICATIONS
All land and/or easements indicated in this Master Plan for public streets, open
space, recreational purposes and public utility purposes shall be granted to the City
of Carlsbad without cost to the City and free of all liens and encumbrances as
conditioned by the appropriate discretionary approval.
9. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES
Approval of this plan does not constitute any guarantee that individual
developments within the Master Plan area will be approved nor that the availability
of public facilities and services will necessarily coincide with the Developer's
timetable for construction. Availability of public services will be evaluated in the
context of subsequent individual approvals.
10. PUBLIC FACILITIES
To ensure that all development areas of the Master Plan shall be adequately served,
the developers of the Master Plan or portions thereof shall be required to provide
for their share of the construction or funding of all necessary public facilities
pursuant to the approved Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan.
11. ZONING
Pursuant to the powers of Chapter 21.38 of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance (P-C
Zone), this Master Plan shall constitute the zoning for all lands within the Master
Plan. No person shall use or develop contrary to the provisions of the Master Plan
any land located within the boundaries defined by the Master Plan. All provisions
of the Master Plan are imposed as a condition of zoning. Approval of this
document does not excuse compliance with all other applicable City ordinances in
effect at the time building permits are issued. Unless modified by this Master
Plan or approval of a Planned Development Permit all development shall
comply with the requirements of the underlying zone as shown by Exhibits 4
and 5.
12. FISCAL IMPACTS
The fiscal impacts of the proposed project have been analyzed by the applicant and
reviewed by the City of Carlsbad Finance Department. The analysis has
determined that revenues from the proposed development will essentially match the
23
?;;S~~' - *•" "*•' -" ^v. xg/~ iiifn Q^ .ss^^-^f^.a^^^S
RANCH Villages and
Underlying Zoning
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: MP 139(GVCT 98-03/CP 98-01
CASE NAME: Rancho Carrillo Village A
APPLICANT: Shea Homes Limited Partnership
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for the approval of a Master Plan Amendment.
Tentative Map, and Condominium Permit. The Master Plan Amendment will provide underlying
zoning for the entire Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and will modify some of the design criteria for
Village A. The Tentative Map and Condominium Permit will allow for development of 169
multi-family attached condominium units on the 11.5 acre Rancho Carrillo Village "A" site on
property generally located within the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, south of Palomar Airport
Road. East of Melrose Drive and West of the eastern City boundary in the P-C zone and Local
Facilities Management Zone 18.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Those portions of Section 13. Township 12 South. Range 4
West. San Bernardino Meridian and a portion of Section 18. Township 12 South. Range 3 West.
San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego. State of California
APN: 221-012-13 Acres: CT and CP - 11.5 acres. MPA = 680 acres Proposed No. of
Lots/Units: 1/169
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RH
Density Allowed: 19 dwelling units per acre Density Proposed: 14.7 dwelling units per acre
Existing Zone: Planned Community Proposed Zone: Planned Community
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site Planned Community vacant
North Planned Community vacant and raceway
South Planned Community single and multi-family housing
East Planned Community vacant and single family housing
West Planned Community vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: San Marcos Unified Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District Sewer
District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 169
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: 1-23-98
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration^ issued
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated.
Other, Prior Compliance
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all
applications which will require discretionary action on the pan of the City
Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. APPLICANT
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the
application.
Shea Homes
10721 Treena Street. Suite 200
San Diego. CA 92131
OWNER
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the
property involved.
Continental Ranch, Inc.
12636 High Bluff Drive. Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership,
list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares
in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of
the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust.
N/A
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894
5. Have you had nWe Than $250 worth of business trarisacted with any memoe-
City staff. Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within tne oas: tweive
(12) months?
j | Yes | X| No If yes, please indicate personls):.
Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club
fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, cnv
and county, city municipality, district or other political .subdivision or any other group or
combination acting as a unit."
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
Signature of owner/date 1/20/98 Signature of applicant/date
DAVID A. LOTHER
Prim or type name of owner Print or Type name of applicant
Disclosure Statement 10/96
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Rancho Carrillo Village "A". MP 139(GVCT 98-03/CP 98-01
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 18 GENERAL PLAN: RH
ZONING: PC
DEVELOPER'S NAME: Shea Homes Limited Partnership
ADDRESS: 10721 Treena Street. Suite 200. San Diego. CA 92131
PHONE NO.: (619)5493156 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 221-012-13
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 680 acres for Master Plan.
11.5 acres for Village "A"
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: none
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
City Administrative Facilities:
Library:
Demand in Square Footage = 588
Demand in Square Footage = 313
169
1.2
D
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identity Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2, 5 and 6
1352
K.
L.
Open Space: Acreage Provided =
Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer:
Interceptor
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD =
252
Demands in EDU
Identify Sub Basin =
San Marcos Unified
169
Buena/San Marcos
35.490
The project is 26 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the
project described below have already been considered in conjunction with
previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional
environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed.
Project Title:
Project Location:
Project Description:
Rancho Carrillo Village A (MP 139(G)/CT 98-03/CP 98-01)
South of Palomar Airport Road, West of Eastern City
Boundary, North of Alga Road, East of Bressi Ranch
The Master Plan Amendment will provide underlying zoning
for the entire Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and will modify
specific design criteria in Village A relating to setbacks and
driveway widths. The Tentative Map and Condominium
Permit will allow for the development of a one lot, 169 unit
multi-family attached condominium project located east of
Melrose Drive at the first intersection south of Palomar
Airport Road.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las
Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited.
Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of
date of publication.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
AUGUST 19, 1998
MP 139(G)/CT 98-03/CP 98-01
RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE A
PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 19, 1998
W(UJ2w^
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
2O75 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: MP 139(GVCT 98-03/CP 98-01
DATE: August 11. 1998
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Rancho Carrillo Master Plan Amendment 139 (GVRancho Carrillo Village "A"
2. APPLICANT: Shea Homes Limited Partnership
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 10721 Treena Street. Suite 200. San
Diego. CA 92131 (619)5493156
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 1-23-98
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Master Plan Amendment. Tentative Map,
and a Condominium Permit. The Master Plan Amendment will provide underlying zoning for
the entire Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and will modify specific design criteria for Village "A" as
it relates to setbacks and driveway widths. The Tentative Map and Condominium Permit will
allow for the development of 169 multi-family attached condominium units on 11.5 acres within
Village "A".
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 | | Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services
| | Population and Housing | [ Biological Resources [ | Utilities & Service Systems
| | Geological Problems [ | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics
| | Water [~] Hazards [ [ Cultural Resources
| | Air Quality | | Noise [ | Recreation
[ | Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
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.
| | 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 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.
Q I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
P<] 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 Date
Planning Directors Sfg^ature Date
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 ElA-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
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (Potentially significant unless
mitigated)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (No impact; 1; p. 122-144)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (see I.b above)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (see I.b. above)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (see I.b above)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (No impact: 1; p. 247)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (see II a above)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (see II a above)
D
D
D
D
D
D
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (No impact; 1; p. 107)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (No impact; 1; p. 102 -
109)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(No impact: 1; p. 99-101)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (No impact;
1; Appendix E)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (No impact; 1; p. 107-
111)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (No
impact: 1; page 99-101 and 106-111)
g) Subsidence of the land? (No impact: 1; Appendix
E)
Expansive soils? (No impact; 1; p. 102-111)h)
i)Unique geologic or physical features? (No impact;
1 p. Appendix E))
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
IV.WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (No impact;
1; p. 96-100)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (see a.)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (No impact, 1; p. 99 and
101)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (see a.)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (see a.)
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? (No impact; 1; p. 95-100)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(see f.)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (see f.)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (see f.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (No
impact: 1; p 120 and 228. see attached
explanation)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (No
impact: l;p 112-120)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (see b.)
d) Create objectionable odors? (see b.)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (No
impact; 1; p. 164-188, see explanation attached)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (see a.)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (see a.)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(see a.)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(see a.)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (see a.)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (see a.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
No
Impac;
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? (No impact; 1; p. 54-
81)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(No impact, 1; Appendix B)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (No impact; 1; p. 54-
81)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (No impact; 1; p. 54-81)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (see a.)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(No impact; 1; p. 247)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (see a.)
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? (see a.)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
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)? (No
impact: 1; p. 247)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No impact; 1;
p. 248)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (see b.)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (see a.)
o e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (No impact; 2; p. IV.F1-F3)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (No impact; 1;
p. 189-207)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (see a.)
D
D
D
D
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
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Fire protection? (No impact; 1; p. 218 and 220)
b) Police protection? (No impact; 1; p. 218)
c) Schools? (No impact; 1; p. 219 and 221)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(No impact; 1; p. 220-221)
e) Other governmental services? (No impact; 1; p.
218-221)
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? (No impact; 1; p.247)
b) Communications systems? (No impact; 1; p. 249-
250)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (No impact; 1;; p.219-221)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (see c.)
e) Storm water drainage? (No impact; 1; p. 99-100)
f) Solid waste disposal? (No impact; 1; p.224)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (see c.)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (No
impact; 1; p. 156)
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
(No impact: l;p. 156 and 161-163)
c) Create light or glare? (No impact; 1; p. 247)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (No impact; 1;
p. 82-92)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (see a.)
c) Affect historical resources? (see a.)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(see a.)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (see a.)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (No impact;
1; p. 218 and 220)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (No
impact; 1; p. 208-221)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
.D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
n IEIn IEIn IEIn IEI
n B
n IEIn IEI
n IEI
n IEIn KIn IEIn B
n IEI
n IEI
n IEI
n IEI
n IEIn C3n IEI
n IEI
n IEI
n IEI
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D D D
D D
D D D
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR. or other CEQA
process, one or 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 the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) 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.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated." describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan is located on approximately 690 acres north of Alga Road,
south of Palomar Airport Road, east of Bressi Ranch, and west of the City of San Marcos. The
last revision to the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan was made in October of 1997.
This project is the request for an amendment to the Master Plan to place underlying zoning on
the property as required by the Zoning Ordinance, as well as allow specific design modifications
to Village "A" as regards setbacks from private streets and driveway widths. There is a
subdivision and condominium permit also proposed for a 169 dwelling unit project on Village
"A"
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan was evaluated in the "Rancho Carrillo Environmental Impact
Report" (EIR 91-04) approved by the City Council on July 27, 1993. EIR 91-04 analyzed the
following environmental issue areas: Agriculture, Biology, Cultural Resources, Paleontological
Resources. Hydrology, Water Quality, Geology, Soils. Air Quality. Land Use, Visual Aesthetics.
Grading, Circulation. Noise, Public Facilities. Solid Waste Disposal, and Cumulative Effects. A
Mitigation and Monitoring Program has been approved for the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and
all mitigation measures applicable have been incorporated into the project design or are required
as conditions of approval for the project. The proposed Master Plan amendment will not alter
any mitigation measures previously determined for the Master Plan. The proposed development
is less intense than what is allowed by the Master Plan.
Applicable references are provided next to each item on this environmental impact assessment
form. A few of the items required further explanation:
LAND USE
A Master Plan Amendment is being processed as part of this application and will result in the
project being consistent with the City's General Plan as the Zoning Code implements the General
Plan and it requires underlying zoning for the Master Plan.
AIR QUALITY:
The Previously certified EIR for the existing Rancho Carrillo Master Plan made the finding that
if the Master Plan incorporated the recommended mitigation measures that direct impacts to air
quality would be mitigated to below a level of significance. Subsequent to the certification of
that EIR, the City of Carlsbad prepared a Master EIR for the 1994 update of the General Plan.
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
10 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
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 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 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
11 Rev. 03/28/96
• *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.
Minor revisions to the internal circulation system of the Master Plan will delete the public street
connections between Villages F and G. A public street connection has been established between
Villages K and p to provide a second access into the northeast corner of the Master Plan. The
Traffic Study Update prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. for the previous General Plan
and Master Plan Amendment approved by the City Council in October of 1997 address the
proposed closure of the access between Villages F and G and concludes that it will have no
adverse impact on circulation within the Master Plan.
Source Documents
All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive.
Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (760) 4381161.
1. "Rancho Carrillo Environmental Impact Report" (EIR 91-04) certified by the Carlsbad
City Council on July 27, 1993.
2. "Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update" March 1994.
3. "Traffic Study Update for the proposed Rancho Carrillo Master Plan Amendment'"
prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. January 1997.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
12 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.
Date Signature
13 Rev. 03/28/96
D,7)IX)3)J_Ji 2
LJU
co 8UJcrUJUJO =; jl|!i ? *s ss I 1:- r=S £ Z "^ ?" - Is; ?:?.?- ^ s| jg s |;;' -i!?1 = ?!,^ » z*| *]Z §f:; Z -s,iUJO SSS--<O!3 CO 5-E |?!iro IS?i5oSQOUJ EC S^Sll -8!" i £ i- S coi XSL9 £o
Q
Z
LLJ
UJ
>
Ml! .oil! 'e | M * ? T {S s ? i B ,Sh - | ! i i
*
-5
I"
s
r
Off
S*
5*
ss
5
E
2
*>
-
Ss
1
rn
„
IB
,
"
£
s»
^
-
s
a
5
=:
?,
-
J
S
£•
2
s
.
hi
S*
?T
S
8
0
|
i
S!8
!-*a
5
CD
stfu
1
fi
V->
|:
93
B,
D,J
j^
j
•
-
i
5
'
s
-i
„
s
=
0
s
5
S
s
"
f. ^
15
B?
S?
0.
5
CO
UJCC
O =" DS--
§ "C
~ s
9 1,a s* ,.
i
K
vv
V ".' ? K
S N
UJ
.-'\
UJUJCC
II£^
UJIT
CCgti
uj!
3;
i £i • UJi UJ? CC
i ujffl
ll
v/^Jr"\J";^fer.Csv £r^<~-v ^ ~-->'' rwf
' ••' •'••.-»**i-iM V^^5^P^^(:
f^r.';^Elp•V /,„ /"-/.•.JT /• ./' ^; •-/ « '•t, / Jii/t/»-_ / .' / - .7 '•"" '•= 7> .
053D
111
I
O
IT
UJ
O
^ COo;c3
!
I \LU
UJ
O
|
CD
1
CH LU
X<
v aovniA - OTIIHHVONVld IdaONOD adVDSQMVl I:
I P I! !« I fill
I 11111P!!?£ f<> HB ?HS5fSi
! !
I -iP 1 *\I iy j iiI - "- I -