Loading...
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 -