Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-11-01; City Council; Resolution 88-348SL I Ij 6 e €XI .h’ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ! 1 I RESOLUTION NO. 88-348 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIAAPPROVINGANEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (MELLO I1 SEGMENT), GENERAL PLAN AND AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE CONTRACT TO ALLOW A 52 ACRE LAND SWAP AND A ZONE CHANGE FOR ZONING CONSISTENCY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE AND SOUTH OF CANNON ROAD. APPLICANT: CARLTAS CARLSBAD RANCH CASE NO. : LCPA 88-1 (MELLO II)/GPA/LU 88-2/ZC 88-4, AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT 76-1B. WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 1st day of Novt 1988, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearin! considering all testimony and arguments, examining the il study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, consic any written comments received, and reviewing the recomment of the City Council considered all factors relating t Negative Declaration. THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council ( City of Carlsbad, California: 1. That the foregoing recitations are true and cor] 2. That based on the evidence presented at the I hearing, the City Council hereby recommends APPROVAL o Negative Declaration according to Exhibit l1NDI1 dated Octobc 1988 and lfPII1l, dated September 20, 1988, attached heret made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinss : 1. Although the proposed project could have a signif effect on the environment, there will not be a signif effect in this case because mitigation measures have YL I li 6 e a- 1 2 added to the project to a point where clea: significant effect would occur; and 3 4 5 Conditions : 6 7 the subject Carltas property. 2 . There is no substantial evidence that the proj conditioned may have a significant effect o environment . i The Mello I1 LCP shall be amended to incorporate the fol mitigation measures as policies pertaining to the develop1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. 2. In order to tie the eastern and western agricultural together the proposed north/south road shall incor a grade separation at its northerly portion. The separation shall be of sufficient dimensions to allc vehicles and equipment to move freely between the ee west . Concurrent with the construction of the pr north/south road the developer shall grade area Y as on Exhibit I8ABr, subject to the satisfaction of the P1 Director so as to create an area level enough to all same type of agriculture that occurs westerly of th ridge to continue around the ridge on the south slopes of said ridge. In order to ensure agricu viability the developer shall amend the soils after g the area to be equivalent to the existing Class I11 soils in capability. 17 18 3. All structures to be located in the future developabl shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the ad: area designated for agriculture. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. A solid wall or fence shall be installed around the I perimeter of the developable area. The wall (fence) be a minimum of 6 feet in height and shall be incorpl into the grading where feasible. The intent of measure is to provide a physical barrier b8 agricultural and urban uses. The wall or fence function to both restrict uncontrolled access agricultural areas and to reduce drift of dust and materials into urban areas. The perimeter wall or shall be constructed concurrent with development c property, except for, if the road is built in one 1 which would open the access through the agricultural : an appropriate barrier shall be incorporated alon roadway. Alternative forms of barriers may be cons: provided they satisfy the intent of this measure. 27 II 28 2 I ,b f I1 a 0 h, 1 2 3 4 5 5. Windbreaks (landscaped) shall be installed 01 developable portions to aid in reducing the effects a spraying and dust generation. 6. Landscape plant material in the developable area sh selected for resistance to pests, particularly a thrips, white fly and spider mites. Landscape pla shall be inspected routinely for presence of pes1 treated as required to control them. All pests sh agricultural corps. 6' eliminated by means that do not adversely 7 8 9 8. Drainage water from buildings, streets, parking are 10 landscape in the development shall be disposed of t storm drains or otherwise in a manner that will avo 11 runoff onto farming areas whether planted or fallow 12 9. If development of the proposed developable portion i water rates on the agricultural land then the dev 13 shall subsidize the water rates to the extent tha equal farm water rates. 7. Landscapingwith herbaceous plantings shall be discou since they are likely to be hosts of the pests lik invade the farm crops. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 . 11. 12 . The developer shall notify in a manner satisfactory City Attorney all tenants/users of this pr developable portion of that the area is subject to pesticides, and odors associated with adjacent operations and that the tenants/users occupy the a their own risk. The cost of the above mitigation measures shall be by the developer and shall not be passed on I agricultural operators (existing or future). Fc agricultural land that Carltas or its successor in in chooses not to farm on a yearly basis, a reasonable shall be made to offer the agricultural land for le rent at a value equal to or less than the a prevailing market rents for similarly situated c agricultural land found within a 30 mile radius Carltas property. As part of a farm operator's lease, there shall requirement to keep dirt roads watered regula] minimize dust impacts on crops as well as on ac nonagricultural uses. 26 //// I/ 27 //// I! 28 I1 3 6- $ li (i * /I - 'I/ PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of th 2 3 I Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4 day of November 1988, by the following vote, to wit 5 AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson NOES: None 6 !! ABSENT : None 7l ABSTAIN : None a 9 lo i! 11 12 ATTEST : 13 ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk 14 A 4 Rh- (SEAL) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . 4 I e 0 ,- I 2075 US PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD. CA 92009-4859 Mitg of ahtrisbab PLANNlNG DEPARTMENT CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: North of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo del h and south of Cannon Road. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Four related actions as follows: (1) Local Coastal Program Amendment to modify the location of develop portions of the property. (2)' General Plan Amendment from a combination of Residential Mediun Non-Residential Reserve to a combination of Non-Residential Res and Open Space. a land swap'of 52 acres. (3) A Zone Change from R-A-10 and E-A to E-A, OS, and L-C-Q. (4) Amendment to the Agricultural Preserve Contract No. 76-1 to 2 The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above descr project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Cal ifo Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Conditional Negative Oeclara (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Conditional Negative Declaration with supportive documents i file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Califo 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in wri to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: October 12, 1988 CASE NO: LCPA 88-1(Mello 11) P1 anning Director GPA/LU 88-2/zc 88-4 Agricultural Preserve (Will i amson) Contract Amendment 76-18 APPLICANT: Carl tas Company PUBLISH DATE: October 12, 1988 9 .- -. 0 0 t i Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 958.14 -- 916/445-0613 c I NOTICE OF CO~~LETIOY AND EYVIROYWEYTAL DOCUMENT FORM I See NOT I SCH #- I" 1. Project Title Carlsbad Ranch 2. Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad 3. Contact Person: Gary Wayne 3a. Street Address: 2075 Las Palmas 3b. City: Carlsbad 3c. County: San Dieso 3d. Zip: 92009 3e. Phone: (619) 438-1161 PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: Sen Dieao 4a. City/Community: Carlsbad 4b.(optional) Assessor's Parcel No. ---- 4c. Section: ---- Tup. "" Range ---- For Rural, Sa. Cross Streets: Palomar AirDOrt Rd/Paseo Del Norte 5b. Nearest Community: ----- 6. Within 2 miles of: a. State Hwy No. 1-5 . b. Airports Palomar c. Uaterways Par 7. DOCUMENT TYPE 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE - CEPA 01 - 01 - NOP 02 - General Plan Update 01 - Residential: Units - Ac I New Element 02 -Office: Sq. Ft. 02 - Early Cons 03 X General Plan Amendment Acres Employees , 03 X Neg Dec 04 - Master Plan 03 - Shopping/Commercial: Sq.Ft Acres Employees __ 05 - Supplement/ 06 - Specific Plan 04 - Industrial: Sq. Ft. (if so, prior SCH # 07 - Redevelopment Acres Emptoyees - 04 - Draft EIR 05 - Annexation Subsequent EIR ) 08 X Rezone 05 - Seuer: MGD - NEPA 09 - Land Division 06 - Uater: MGD (Subdivision, Parcel Map. 06 - Notice of Intent Tract Map, etc.) 07 - Transportation: Type - 07 - Envir. Assessment/ 10 - Use Permit 08 -Mineral Extraction: Minera FONSl 08 - Draft €IS 11 - Cancel Ag Preserve 09 - Power Generation: Uattage Om 12 X Other LCP Amend Type: 09 - Information Only Um. Act contract Amend 10 X Other: Won-Residential Res 10 - final Document 9 TOTAL ACRES: 440 11 - Other: 11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT 01 X Aesthet i c/Vi sua1 08 _. Geologic/Seismic 15 - Sewer Capacity 22 - U 02 X Agricultural Land 09 - Jobs/Housing Balance 16 - Soil Erosion 23 - 'm 03 - Air Quality 10 - Minerals 17 - Solid Uaste 24 - \r 04 - Archaeological/Historical/ 11 - Noise 18 - Toxic/Hazardous 25 - G Paleontological 72 - Public Services 19 - Traffic/Circulation 26 X I Schoo 1 s 20 - Vegetation 27 - c t 05 - Coastal 13 - 06 - Fire Hazard 14 - Septic Systems 21 - Uater Puality 28 - 07 - Flooding/Drainage 12 FUNDING (approx.) Federal I State 0 Total S 13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: Exclusive Agriculture and R-A-10,000 - Farming. 14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached sheet. - -\ '\ }hLC I h. L ' &(<!- \L&. \ oate: q - ?- < 8. Is 15. SIGNATURE Of LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE: 0 - NOTE: Ctearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects If a SCH Number a1 project (e.g. from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. I 0 e I* . "_. . . ~ -. "". - " K~Y LLWLN~~' Atimxs ". . .. . I - Resources- Agency - CTRPA (Cal TRPA) Air Resources Board - - Conservation TRPA (Tahce RPA) 8ay Conservation & Dt - - Fish and Game Coastal Comi sf ion Office of Historic Pr Cal trans District Native American Heri t - - Parks and Recreation - - - - - Caltrans - Planning State Lands Corn - - Gal trans - Aeronautics Pub1 ic Uti1 i ties Corn - California Hfghway Patrot Energy Corn - 8oati ng and Waterways. .- Food and Agticul tute - . ... - . " . "_ -. .. - - Forestry - Health Services - State Water Resources Control - - Statewide Health Plar Board - Headquarters - Housi ng and Conmnrnf ty - Regional Water Quality Control - Correctfons Eoard 9 Region - General Services - Division of Water Rights (SWRCS) - Offlce of Local Assis - Division of Water Quali'ty (SWRCS) Public Works Board - Oepartment of Water Resources - Of Pice of Appropri a tE - Red amati on Board - Local Government Unit - Solid GIaste Management Board ' -. . Santa Monica Mountain - Colorado River Board - Other .", - - FOR SCH USE ONLY Oate Received at SCH Catalog Number Uate Review Starts Proponent . Date to Agencies Consultant Oate to SCH Contact C1 earance Date Address ' Plots { I- * o i ECKE/CARLSBAD RANCh - Project DescriRtion 4 Components : A. General Plan Amendment (GPA) on 440 Medium Residential (RM) and Non-Resident: (NRR) to Open Space (approximately 50 acre Residential Reserve. B. Zone Change (ZC) from R-A-10,000, and Agriculture (EA), to Open Space (OS), EA, i Control (L-C) . C. Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) - Segment - Modify (or switch) locations of d property with the agricultural lands quantities. Text changes to LCP to accom boundary change also would occur. D. Williamson Act Contract Amendment approximately 52 acres from the preserve equal amount of acreage, in a different within the property, to the preserve. refers to this exchange as the "Land Swap' -9- a 0 ," c ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A88ESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. GPA/LU 88-2/2C E LCPA 88 DATE : 9/19/88 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: Carltas Development Co. 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4401 Manchester Ave. St. 206 Encinitas. CA 92024 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: 5-24-88 11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) YES MAY BE 1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 0 I- - 2. &i~ - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? .c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? -2- 0. - YES MAY BE - - .- 0 1 .” 4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d, Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ‘ d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? 7. Lisht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- . nificantly produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -3- a - YES MAYBE X X .- 0 a i - 9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of UDset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Polsulation - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transuortation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? - YES MAY BE - c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? -4- e <I 0 YES - 14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b, Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e, Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Enercrv - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? -5- MAYBE 0 0. - YES MAY BE 18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeolouical/Historical/Paleontoloqical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the txoDosed proiect such as a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site des; c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for thc e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alte; nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) The general plan amendment, zone change, LCP amendment and agricl swap are the first steps in a long-term phased development plan acre parcel. A master plan and local facilities management plan ' specific phasing at a later date. b)On the 440 acres of land, there are a number of ways to develop that area. Without mitigation of the potential impacts of the : agriculture, less impacting developable area would appear to t perimeter of the property, versus placing a '*wedge" of develog middle of the agriculture. However, mitigation is presented section of this report. c)N/A - No scale of development is proposed at this time. An area be developed, about 52 acres, is proposed to be added to the preserve and an equal amount is proposed to be removed from it. the open space designation will replace potential residential la d) Non-residential reserve essentially is a holding zone for future The designation allows for a variety of uses, such as agriculture, recreational, commercial, government and utilities. The p agriculture, is compatible within this designation as Flower compatible to open space. Alternate uses for the site, in agriculture, will be included in a future Master Plan. Mitigatic potential incompatibilities between agriculture and urban uses a in the last section of this report. -6- e 0 e) Development will occur at a future time. The land swap into an Williamson Act Preserve must occur prior to 1/1/89 and the GPA, will facilitate that contract amendment. f) There are no alternate sites for the proposed, as the Ecke propert Williamson act Contract Land within Carlsbad. g) "No project" would allow development to occur on the corner ( Norte/Palomar Airport Road and the first ridge, as currently pen Local Coastal Program. The flower fields thus could be devel preservedthrough a future Master Plan process, which foreseeably 4 development elsewhere. - --j - .- a a. - YES MAY BE 22. Mandatorv findinas of sianificance - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) .... X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X 111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION See attached Project Description 1.2.3. Earth, Air, Water - The GPA, zone change, and agricultural la have no impact on topographic features, erosion, air qualit! groundwater. The actions will ensure and increase permanenl and remove potential residential land uses from the airpc zone. -8- 0 e I ECKE/CAF!LSBAD RANCH Project DescriDtion 4 Comaonents : A. General Plan Amendment (GPA) on 440 acrc Medium Residential (RM) and Non-Residential (NRR) to Open Space (approximately 50 acres) i Residential Reserve. B. Zone Change (ZC) from R-A-10,000, and es Agriculture (EA) , to Open Space (OS) , EA, and Control (L-C) . C. Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) - M Segment --Modify (or switch) locations of deve property with "the agricultural lands in quantities. Text changes to LCP to accommod boundary change also would occur. D. Williamson Act Contract Amendment - approximately 52 acres from the preserve and equal amount of acreage, in a different 1 within the property, to the preserve. TI refers to this exchange as the "Land Swap". -9- . 0 0 .- L DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATZQN (COntlnUQd) 4. Plant Life - The area has been farmed for years, so is I natural state, thus contains no sensitive biological habit Williamson Act Contract Amendment proposes to evenly approximately 52 aces, into and out of the presenre. While t not be a reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop per land swap could have indirect impacts on agriculture, based c development. Please see the discussion on No. 8 , Land US deals with this issue in detail. 5.6.7. Animal Life. Noise, Liuht and Glare - The proposed land sw will have no impacts in these areas. The GPA to eliminate residential will have positive effects in terms of noise fl airport flight path. 8. Land Use A. General Plan Amendment (GPA) - The proposal to rex residential designation of R-M (4-8 DU/AC), to be repla NRR and OS is not adversely significant, and in facl beneficial because it would remove the potential compa conflicts of having residential uses located within the influence area of Palomar Airport. NRR (Non-Residential Reserve) is used for areas held ir for non-residential uses such as agriculture, inc recreational, commercial, governmental and utility uses. uses will be determined in a future master plan. At this point, the designation of approximately 50 acre: space for the preservation of the existing Carlsbad fields" is beneficial to the present and future c character of Carlsbad and the land use of the Ecke prop B. Zone Chanse - A zone change to facilitate the GPA will General Plan and zoning consistent. C. Local Coastal Proaram Amendment (LCPAI and Williamson Act Amendment - The "land swap" of approximately 52 acres int of the preserve could have potential impacts to the agr: viability of the remaining farmland, if certain measure: undertaken. The following discussion generally is an exc the agricultural studies which are on file in the Department: The planned development along the north-south ridge wou a significantly new situation, layingthe groundwork for 1 future impacts to both urban and agricultural uses. Agr impact to urban uses occur from a variety of Agricultural activity can be the source of complaints an impacts from dust, noise, odors, health hazards, tral -10- 1 I- @ a from farming. Besides complaining directly to the residents (or employers/employees, etc.) have been 1 protest these impacts to the agricultural commissioner. Operating costs tend to increase also when farmers adj schedules around urban areas and spraying schedules aro critical climatic factors. Crops require treatments at times that are not always coincidental with calm weather, the yield quality of crops in a subordinate position schedules. Any pesticides employed would have to be cc with urban uses, subject to stricter governmental regul Another major area of urban impacts deals with vanda theft. Vandalism occurs in terms of physically destroyir machinery, and support equipment. Losses can also oc people trespass, which they often feel is their right u perception that an agricultural field represents an ur space amenity. Neighbors out on casual walks destroy trample crops, take produce and flowers. Other urban such as using a farm site as a dump also impact farm c costs directly. Vehicular and farm equipment traffic could present some if appropriate provisions are not made to consi requirements of each. The commercial area requires paved into and through the development. Farm vehicles and G must have ready access to all cultivated land. Roadways in the farming area, unlike the developed area, be paved. Vehicle traffic plus certain farm activ cultivating can result in generation of considerable du: soils and/or surfaces are kept moist and vehicle speed Since dust can injure crops, it is in the best interest parties to minimize its occurrence. Farming practices have developed so urban dwellers wil adversely affected by nearby agriculture. These methods 0 Use of ground spray rigs rather than airplane or hc application of pesticides 0 Nonoptimal field configuration in order to minimize 0 Use of slower-acting nitrate fertilizers- rather tha~ acting organic fertilizers in order to minimize odo: 0 Adjusting work starting and quitting times to mort coincide with residential population habits 0 Transporting labor to the field in buses to minimizl and parking problems These practices raise production costs. However, fan adjusted practices and are able to continue fanninc -11- I . 0 a significantly impacting neighboring development. A less direct impact on costs is what has been terne closeout. This occurs as fields become surrounded by ur' uses. In addition to the impacts noted above, fanners more difficult to obtain Casual labor. Also, certain e inputs such as water tend to have residential rates admin and support facilities (suppliers) relocate to more dista areas See the mitigation section for measures pertaining potential impacts described above. 9.10. Natural Resources, Risk of Upset - Not applicable. 11.12. Population, Housing - The GPA eliminates approximately 106 vacant land designated for residential use, which after con constraints, would yield about 400 dwelling units. The loss units at this location is not considered significant, be accordance with the City's Growth Management Program, the reallocated and planned for somewhere else within the K quadrant of the City. 13,Transportation/Circulation - The land swap basically developable area next to Paseo Del Norte and moves it furt and creates a north-south link between Cannon Rd. and Palomal Road. A traffic report is on file in the Planning Departm states that the additional access road to Cannon Road and Airport Road will disperse the traffic from the Carlsbad RE and will not concentrate the loading to Paseo Del Nor providing access to the project area from Palomar Airp farther to the east of Paseo Del Norte than would be the c the existing General Plan, the intersection spacing and signal operation along Palomar Airport Road can be ol resulting in better overall operation. Actual trip numbers determined in more detail as part of a master plan process 14.15.16.17 Public Services, Energy, Utilities, Human Health - These ai not be impacted by the GPA, zone change, or land swa] specific project is proposed at this time. 18.Aesthetics - The designation of the existing flower field2 space will provide and preserve a scenic public view, a bt the proposal. -12- a 1' e 0 19.Recreation - If "visual" opportunities or scenic picture tak considered-recreational, the proposal would have a positive on the community. 20.Archaeo~oUical/Historical - The redesignation of the property land swap Will not impact Cultural resources since the prope been farmed for years. Any specific building plan would nece further testing for archaeological resources. 21. (Alternatives - already done) 22. Mandatorv findinss of Sisnificance - (Please see the p: discussion dealing with Land Use Compatibility issues.) A. No significant impact expected. As stated in the 1 description and previous discussion, the proposal ir disturbed agricultural lands, B, In the short-term the swap preserves 50 ac+ of existing fields (see previous discussions). However, without miti the swap could have the potential to adversely impact the term viability of agriculture on the site. (see mitigation s discussion) C. The potential impacts on the long-term viability of agric including mitigation have been noted. The Carltas pr represents a small portion of coastal land under cultivatio~ of this land is under tremendous development pressure so th actions that affect the long term viability of agriculture of the parcels could have the cumulative effect of reduci viability of coastal agriculture. However, mitigation me have been added to this project to reduce or eliminate pot adverse impacts to long-term agricultural viability. D. The use of Agricultural pesticides is highly regulated to safety. It is felt that with regulation and mitigation me, requiring buffers and fencing that risks to humans will be r' to a level of insignificance. -13- * ,b ' 0 e, 2 IV. DETERMINATION (To Be completed By The Planning Department) on the basis of this initial evaluation: - I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant ef the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prep x I find that although the proposed project could have a sign effect on the environment, there will not be a significant in this case because the mitigation measures described attached sheet have been added to the project. A Cond Negative Declaration will be proposed. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect 1 environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is requi~ .' \, I. , i .- ', "-. x. ., i~,&~,('.. , c c {G- Date Signature , 4/ZQ/@@ Date V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) A. The Mello I1 LCP shall be amended to incorporate the fol mitigation measures as policies pertaining to the developn the subject Carltas property. 'e In Order to tie the eastern and western agricultural together the Proposed nOrth/SOUth road shall incorpo grade separation at its northerly portion. The separation shall be Of sufficient dimensions to allo vehicles and equipment to move freely between the ea west. 2. Concurrent with the construction of the proposed north road the developer shall grade area Y as shown on exhi subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director sc create an area level enough to allow the same tl agriculture that occurs westerly of the west ridge to co around the ridge on the south facing slopes of said In order to ensure agricultural viability the developer amend the soils after grading the area to be equivalent existing Class I11 Marina soils in capability. 3. All structures to be located in the future developabl, shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the adjacen designated for agriculture. -14- .LL( -77 e 0 / 4. A solid wall or fence shall be installed around thc perimeter of the developable area. The wall (fence) : a minimum 6 feet in height and shall be incorporated grading where feasible. The intent of this measur provide a physical barrier between agricultural ar uses. The wall or fence shall function to both : uncontrolled access into agricultural areas and tc drift of dust and spray materials into urban area perimeter wall or fence shall be constructed concurri development of the property, except that, if the road in one phase, which would open the access thro agricultural lands, an appropriate barrier sk incorporated along the roadway. Alternative forms of: may be considered provided they satisfy the intent measure. 5. Windbreaks (landscaped) shall be installed on the dev portions to aid in reducing the effects of farm spra dust generation. 6. Landscape plant material in the developable area : selected for resistance to pests, particularly aphids, white fly and spider mites. Landscape plantings I inspected routinely for presence of pests and trc required to control them. All pests shall be elimi means that do not adversely impact agricultural crop 7. Landscaping with herbacious plantings shall be disc since they are likely to be hosts of the pests 1 invade the farm crops. 8. Drainage water from buildings, streets, parking a landscape in the development shall be disposed of storm drains or otherwise in a manner that will a runoff onto farming areas whether planted or fallow. 9. If development of the proposed developable portion water ,rates on the agricultural land then the develol subsidize the water rates to the extent that they ec water rates. 10. The developer shall notify in a manner satisfactor City attorney all tenants/users of this proposed det portion that the area is subject to dust, pestici odors associated with adjacent farm operations and tenants/users occupy the area at their own risk. 11. The cost of the above mitigation measures shall be the developer and shall not be passed on to the agr: operators (existing or future). For all agricultl that Carltas or its successor in interest chooses no on a yearly basis, a reasonable effort shall be made the agricultural land for lease or rent at a value or less than the average prevailing market rents for I -15- .rr ,% f a m, . ? situated Coastal agricultural land found Within a radius of the Carltas property. 12. As part of a farm operator's lease, there shal: requirement to keep dirt roads watered regularly to R dust impacts on crops as well as on adjacent non-agric uses. VI.APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING M AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PWEC r / - / ,' /y. "7 ,/ " 3 ,L 1 I' i' ! L~) .~ l''. 1J .: i ///(,,, . i/, r'' I k., Djite LSigna, e,/ P -1 , 1, / ?/LY -16- ,? - 4 ''111 ' . 0 LCPA 0 1 * EXIIIUIT I\ c AOUA IEOIONOA U000N PACIFIC OCEAN AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE BOUNDARY AMEND MEN'^ m Added to the Preserve (52 ac.) LFi Removed from tile PI :.......: Existing Developable Area (outside preserve) . . . . . . . .