HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-02-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 2982*' I . '. . e e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2982
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND STANDARDS VARIANCE TO DEVELOP A 42 UNIT CONDOMINIUM ON 7.8 ACRES OF LAND IN THE PC ZONE. CASE NAME: THE HAMPTONS CASE NO.: CT 89-13/PUD 89-5/SUP 89-7/SV 89-3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day 0'
1990, and on the 21st day of February, 1990, hold a duly noticed pub1
as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consi
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the i
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, th
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declarat
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Colr
fol 1 ows :
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, th Commission hereby APPROVES the Conditional Negative Declaratior to Exhibit "ND", dated November 15, 1989, and I'PII", dated 0 1989, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program outlined in Apl attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the followin and subject to the following condition:
Findinqs:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidenc project may have a significant impact on the environment pro mitigating conditions of approval are complied with.
2. The site has been previously graded.
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic general
4. There are not known sensitive resources located onsi te or loc
proposed project.
to be significantly impacted by this project.
....
W e
1
2
3
4
5
Condition
1. A monitor shall be required onsite during all grading activity have the authority to halt operations should any evidence be would indicate that an archeological resource may be present event that resources are found, a subsurface testing prograr
implemented to determine the extent of resources and evi significance of the deposit in accordance with the Califor1 Resources Code, the environmental guide1 ines appl i cab1 e to t'
Carlsbad, and Appendix K of the California Environmental Quali
~
~
tj I/ PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of tt
7/1 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21 8/1 February, 1990, by the following vote, to wit:
9
10
AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehut McFadden, Holmes & Marcus.
I1 I/ NOES : None.
12 I1 ABSENT: None.
13 I/ ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hall.
14
15
16
fi&
SHARON SCHRAMM, Chairpersc
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISS'
17 11 ATTEST: 18 ' J": -\ , 1 ,x", & ,*-:;i"": 1 ; "'i\&irt?f 2 . , ,,.1 ,. 2.
19 l+;fL&&?**, i Ld?-/{ ? >* \"* .f :Lq&"->
I MICHAEL J. HO'C'ZMILLE.8: 20 11 PLANNING DIRECTOR
21
22
23
24
25 I/
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 2982 -2-
28 /I
.. Exhibit IrND"
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Southeast corner of Marina Drive and Park Drive
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The development of 42 condominium units on 7.8 acre. land located south of Park Drive and east of Marina Drive in the PC Zone. 207-101-01
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above descr project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califo
of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Conditional Negative Declarai (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for 1 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, Calif01 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writ to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days of date of issuance.
Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the
DATED: NOVEMBER 15, 1989
CASE NO: CT 89-13/PUD 89-5
I
Planning Director
APPLICANT: H. R. REMINGTON PROPERTIES
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 15, '1989
CW: af
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 1
. - - , -. , , - - . . *. ,
-, "_ "- .-
Y(lT1CE !IF WLETIW uil) EYVIRWSYTAL -UT F a7
1 I See NOTE Be SCH It-
I
1. Project Title The Hamtons (CT 89-13/PUD 89-5)
..
2. Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad 3. Contact Person: Christer Mestman
3a. Street Address: 207'5 Las Palmas Dr. 3b. City: Carlsbad
3c. County: San Dieso 3d. Zip: 92009 3e. Phone: (619) 438-1161
PRUJECT LUCATIOM 4. County: San bieao ha. City/Cmnity: Carlsbad
4b.(optional) Assessor's Parcel No. 207-101-01 4c. Railways: AT&SF Schools Kelly Elm
5a. Cross streets: Park Drive/Marina Drive 5b. Nearest Comnunity: Carlsbad
6. Within 2 miles of: a. State Huy No. 5 b. Airports c. Uateruays Agua Hedionda Lasoc
7. DOCUMENT TYPE 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE
- CEQA 01 - General Plan Update Dl 2 Residential: Units 42 Acre
01 - NOP
02 - Early Cons
03 X Neg Dec
04 - Draft EIR
05 - Supplement/
(if so, prior SCH #
Subsequent EIR
1
- NEPA
06 - Notice of Intent
07 - Envir. Assessment/
02 - New Element
03 - General Plan Amendment
04 - Master Plan
05 - Annexation
06 - Specific Plan
07 - Redevelopnent
08 - Rezone
09 X Land Division
(Subdivision, Parcel Map.
Tract Map, etc.)
10 - Use Permit
02 - Office: Sq. Ft.
Acres Employees -
03 - Shopping/Comnercial: Sq. Ft.
Acres E~pl oyees
04 - Industrial: Sq. Ft.
Acres Employees
05 - Seuer: MGD
06 - Uater: MGD
07 - Transportation: Type
08 - Mineral Extraction: Mineral
FONSI
08 - Draft EIS 11 - Cancel Ag Preserve 09 - Power Generation: Wattage - 12 & Other Planned Unit Type: OTHER
09 - Information Only Developnent 10 - Other:
10 - Final Docunent 9 TOTAL ACRES:
11 _. Other:
11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT
01 - Aesthetic/Visual .. 08 - Geologic/Seismic 15 - Sewer Capacity 22 - Uater S
02 - Agricultural Land 09 - Jo&/Housing Balance 16 - Soil Erosion 23 X Wetland
03 - Air Quality 10 - Minerals 17 - Solid Uaste 24 - Uildlif
04 X Archaeological/Historical/ 11 - Noise 18 - Toxic/Harardous 25 - Growth
Paleontological 12 - Public Services 19 - Traffic/Circulation 26 - Incorrpa
05 X Coastal 13 - Schools 20 - Vegetation 27 - Cunulat
06 _. Fire Hazard 14 - Septic Systems 21 - Water Quality 28 - Other .
07 X Flooding/Drainage
12 FUNDING (approx.) Federal f State f Total 0
13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: VACANT/PLANNED COMNUNITY/RESIDENTIAL MEDIUH HIGH
14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 42 CONDOMINIUM UNITS UITH CAPE COD STYLE ARCHITECTURE ON 7.8 ACRES OF LAND ADJACENT TI
LAGOON.
15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE: I?]& Date: 11' 4 W V NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification nunbers for all new projects. If a SCH Nunber already exist
project (e.g. from a (Notice of Preparation or previous draft docunent) please fill it in.
w KLVIEWING AGENCIES w
Resources Agency - CTRPA (Cal TRPA)
Air Resources Board TRPA (Tahoe RPA)
Conservation
X Fish and Game
X Coastal Commission
Cal trans District
Caltrans - P1 anning
Caltrans - Aeronautics
Cal i forni a Highway Patrol
- Boating and Waterways
Forestry
State Water Resoruces Control
Board - Headquarters
Regional Water Qual i ty Control
Board, Reg i on
Division of Water Rights (SWRCS)
Division of Water Quality (SWRCB)
Department of Water Resources
- Recl amat i on Board
Solid Waste Management Board
Colorado River Board
Bay Conservation & Dev't Comm
Parks and Recreation
- X Office of Historic Preservation
Native American Heritage Comm
State Lands Comm
Public Utilities Comm
Energy Comm
Food and Agriculture
Health Services
Statewide Health P1 anning (hospital s)
Housing and Community Dev't
Corrections
General Services
Office of Local Assistance
Pub1 ic Works Board
Office of Appropriate Tech. (OPR)
Local Government Unit (OPR)
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Other
~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~
FOR SCH USE ONLY
Date Received at SCH Catalog Number
Date Review Starts Proponent
Date to Agencies Consultant
Date to SCH Contact Phone
C1 earance Date Address
Notes:
w m exnIol-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
L
CAGE NO. CT 89-13/PUD 89-
DATE : OCTOBER 25, 1985
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: H. R. Reminaton ProDerties
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 8 Monarch Bay Plaza
(619) 476-1889 Suite 202
South Lasuna, CA 92(
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED:
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
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?
- YES MAY BE
X
X
w
2. Air - 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-
- YES MAY BE
X
X
- NO
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
m
- YES
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-
MAY BE
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. PoDulation - 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. TransDortation/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?
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-
- YES MAY BE - NO
X
X
X
2
)I
)I
)I
>
-
-
-
w e
> - 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. Enerav - 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
W - - YES MAY BE NO -
18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstructi.on of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? X -
19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? X -
20. Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - Will the proposal have significant
results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or
building? X
21. Analyze viable alternatives to the DroDosed Droiect such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
a) The scope of the project does not make phasing viable. All infrastructure must be provided prior to any residential construction.
b) Alternate site designs could be developed. However the view corridor requirements would be a constraint that would not allow much variation.
c) Proposed construction could be held to single story development,
however, that would decrease the view corridor potential and potentially reduce densities below the General Plan designations.
d) The site is..intended per the General Plan and zoning for multi- family residential development.
e) The site is vacant and the soil has been disturbed. Delayed development would maintain undesirable existing conditions.
f) The site is intended for this type of development.
g) No development would maintain undesirable current conditions.
..
-6-
.' . W a
i YES MAY BE
22. Mandatorv findinss of sisnificance -
a. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life 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
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
restrict the range of a rare or en-
important- examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
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.)
c. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively con-
effects of an individual 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.)
siderable" means that the incremental
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? -.
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
EARTH - A geotechnical feasibility evaluation was prepared for tht site. The determination of that report indicated that in its prest
the southerly portion of the site is unsuitable for development. with a regrading and compaction of fill the soils would be ca
accommodating development. The report was prepared by Ninys ar January 5, 1989 project no. 101069-01.
-7-
w w DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
WATER - Because the project will introduce impervious surfaces; concret asphalt and buildings, there will be some change to the absorption rate a
surface water run-off. However, the project has extensive open space are which will mitigate any potential problem to insignificance. All stre drainage will be directed away from the lagoon. A study and Special u Permit are required to evaluate the effect of the project on the 100 ye
flood plain.
PLANT LIFE AND ANIMAL LIFE - The site has been previously graded and the is no indication of plant or animal life on the site.
NOISE - Although the site will not generate noise, it is within the thr
mile radius of the Palomar Airport. Because of the proximity to the airpo standard mitigation measures will be applied to the project.
LIGHT AND GLARE - Lighting for the project Will be of lower intensities a
will be directed inward to the project.
LAND USE - The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning a: will be compatible with existing development.
NATURAL RESOURCES - There are no known natural resources on the site.
RISK OF UPSET - There are no hazardous materials that are a part of th proposal.
POPULATION - The residential character of the proposal does not have tl potential of significantly altering location, density or distribution ( human population.
HOUSING - The project will provide housing.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUIATION - The project is estimated to general approximately 336 daily trips. Park Drive is capable of accepting ti
additional ADTs. Parking will be provided onsite.
PUBLIC SERVICES - Any services required as a result of the project will 1 provided under the City's Growth Management Program.
ENERGY - New energy sources will not be required nor will the project u: substantial amounts of fuel or energy.
UTILITIES - Utilities will be required through implementation of the City Growth Management Program.
HUMAN HEALTH - There are no health hazards related to the project.
AESTHETICS - The construction of buildings south of Park Drive will obstruc views of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The Local Coastal Program, howeve]
have been included in the design of the project. requires view corridors to allow for unobstructed views, these corridol
..
-8-
: , W 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
t
RECREATION - The project will provide for public access to the Aqua Lagoon and improve the beach front. All improvements to the lagoc the 100 feet buffer shall be done in consultation with the Depar
Fish and Game.
ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL - A cursory survey k.
are no visible archeological resources. However, the report sta
there may be subsurface artifacts.
completed for the site and an initial determination has been made tk
(1
.-
-9-
W - 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 effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
\O.Z+C!PI
Date '
I 1 I9 /0q
date Plannfig Deector
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
A monitor shall be required on site during all grading activity who would the authority to halt Operations should any evidence be found that would indj that an archeological resource may be present. In the event that resources found, a subsurface testing program would be implemented to determine the e, of resources and evaluate the significance of the deposit in accordance wit1 California Public Resources Code and the Environmental Guidelines of the Cil Carlsbad.
-10-
., zl$uwmu (ConMu.6) 0
?
VL AppLIcANT CJ mmg
THIS IS TO CERTZPY THCI'P I IihW REVIEWE GATING Mat AND CONCUR WI?SH"THE ADDITION OF THESE
Dat8 1
CWt al
, -1%-
e APPENDIX P
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING b ECKLlST
M
cn a3
> v,
h I cn a3
I
a
\
3 v,
In
0, a3
I
n 3 a \ M d I cn co
I- O
..
v, e W
z 3 z
W "I
m
H
LL
v, z 0 I- a E Q I
W I I-
W E
..
P
I- o w 3 0 E a
In
cc) cn N
0 z
0 v, w fY
2
..
O W n
a W z
"I s E I- H a z 0 O
e 0
e
W U
0 cn cn +
c h
4
> cz Q 3 Z 4 3
LLI I-
..
25
2 "I
0 E a CL Q
*C 0 e SLa,
c, rcc,
vc, v) a, m- -9 .r 7 0 7 -7 L** QV-
v)C* . as
-r v
c,ws . a, ad
-c =z-
LC a3
rc -7
0 mw-0
v)$
0 m fgY
gzzg a2.p
yEu; €50 sv5A -re2 a,
-r .Q 32 ", 473 3 s S" 0"::
wv g=
6% z.2 2 &:%
$z=z
g?j 5:
7 mu != s >suo
L c,
v)o 0
m- a,
c -r
7
a- sn- S'C; a,a
u" v)o a, ma3
La,
L a, w-r o am 0- a, SmEh 'I- P
0 rn 242 E gzz:
v) :-.-
0, nz 0
2- 4
zg-$
% $5
m4
2.: Ec,
a, a" w E+= a
SQ -
.r s
m-r v) a? -r>a,3
-Q sc, "a,rd" E VQ -a,= a, w.I- =
e* m -r SE
Qc, w-r ESLX swsu ow v) a,
s .r .I" 2
L+r a L -- Q) ZPF a, rd s-I-
m-.- -r 0 mo L
.I- .r 6 .I- sc,c,c,
3 E mg 0 -I- - oc, E
7 c, -7
?LE.?
a,u vc, a,= b
c L rd-r I- 0 wo
c, S E
QE a,. L
nu a, -r
Y fd v) OL L +O 6L E ow Q, c,-= e .r -7 SL
E-0 07
S
b .r
0
a)+
" (6 ++ .I- s kg >a,
n E
7
H
v) S m
a
S 0
S
7
z c v,
~
m S D
L S
0. S
*I-
-I-
QQ
on
-7 a 5 sa,
r.
7 a
c,
a, V
a a, r: 0 L +a
v) a, V
LS L
00 rcv) a, Le a0 & -r -7 3 +o
00 m EO v,
E a, E-
wa, 0
s c,m 0 .r e
-7 v) v c, SL m OQ
.r c,
z+ -r
W W
L) rd W
W S rd
a, .a, -73
LW- 3a)m
v) c, -r m rdc, a, w " ES
ss s w -7 .
ordao
-0u c, m wl- a
.r n .I-
mrr E " m -r L 4.4 32
.r c, E-r s s
L-I- =I s E-r
I-woa, rd I-L
3-0 vt V -r- v) 0 c,
c, 7 -r L-rc L m 3c, 0 Q rc S- rd €b L suo my A
-I-vww L EL Ov)a,S
E"0 r n
c,.r- v) -rt Qrd sc, E w 0 -I- E
LSWO
%,-a4 0 rd a,"
Evrss
a, %l% - s rd-r a OLc, .- " bsa,€ S3L oosm ne v) s
v) v) rd-r a, a0 LWEm -r s
?a, 0
- so
v L-l-rc s Sc, 0 wwm * mm mv)
E++
-I- L .r rd c, 0 s €4
I- -*I- S rdov)
Sc,c, a, m € s me s 3 a, m3-I- v E-r L?
-L.r L c, c, II -7
w mrdEsv sa ow s -r a, S-r a,
Y w-r X
.I- ona,ro w 0, La rd s 113QL a0 I a II w- EO
rC @Qv)Ord v a, sr- w
-r) -E< 0 ma- il C, Q-rSU
II 0 -r Y Loam
c, s* L
7 a,-r 3-7 rd as 0 LE
w I-zv,>e ?or a, a,
-+ E .I LS
an m CZL a X -0 S a, a n ? n e
~~~" 0 ""_
OFFICE OF PLANNING"ANDARCH
1400 TENTif STREET
SACRAMENTO. CA 958: 4
Chrlster \'icstman
City of Carlsbaa
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
+&J i%
necembet
Subject: The Ramptons (CT 89-13/PUD 89-51, SCHj: 89010147
Dear RIr. Westman:
The State Gleeringhouse has submitted the above named proposed :
Dec?.c.ration to selected state agencies for review. The review peria
closed 2nd the coments from the responding agency(iesj is(are) enclosc
the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note thzt the Clearin@:
checked the agencies that have commented. Please review the Noi
Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the
package is not in order, please notify the State Clesringhouse inmet
Renemher to refer to the project's eight-digit State Clearinghouse nl
that we mzy respond promptly.
Please rrote that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Cod? I
that : "a responsible agency or other public agency shall only
make substantive comments regarding those activities
involved in a project which are within an area of expertise
of the agency or which are required Lo be carried OUt Or
approved by the agency.'
Cormenting agencies are elso required by this section to suppart their c
with specific docmentation.
These cosments are forwarded for your use in prepsring your final EIX.
you need more infc-mtion or clzrification, we recommend that you coEt
comenting agency at your earliest convenience.
This letter zchowledges that you have conplied with the State CleEri
review reqcirenents for draft environmental docTmorrts, pursnant
California Xnviromental Quality Act. Please contact Garrett Ashley 2t
445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review pr
Sincerely, ad- C~----
David C. Nunenkamp
Deputy Director, Pernit Assistance
Enclosures
cc : Resorrrces Agency
. {' . w
~emQramd1tm
Date : DEC 8 19%
TO : 1. Gordon F. Snow, Ph.D. Assistant Secretary for Resources
2075 Las Palrnzs Dr.
Carlsbad, (2.4 92009
Attention: Christer Westman
2. City of Cerlsbad
From : Department of Woter ffesourcer
Los Angeles, CA 90055
DEIR for The Hamptons (CT 89-13/PUD 89-5), for 42 Units, SCH 89010147 Subject :
Your subject document has been reviewed by our Department of Water Resoc
staff, Recommendations, as they relate to water conservation and flood
prevention, are attached.
After reviewing your report, we also would like to recommend that yo3 fc
consider implementing a comprehensive program to use reclaimed water for
irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for beneficial
requiring high quality water supplies.
For further information, you may wish to contact John Pariewski at
(213) 620-3951. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on
report.
Sincerely,
-7 /. .. c. ''."...] ;z.-..", 74-7" -
/I ,p /$ L &+". e, .2- &- J+LTL
Charlks R. White, Chief
Planning Branch
Southern District
Attachments
I _" u,, , -d.L-, .-.. * *I "3 ~l=e:~~ 1 U : [-.w Ft;lC:f[ilHIL TEL I1lIl: EL19-zy- '=;Q13 m #ElO;
Stare of Callfornla
Memorandum RECEIVED NT 2 Q 1989
The Re!
To : California Coastal Conmission Attn: Debra Lee
1333 Camitlo Del Rio South, Suite 125 San Diego, CA 92108-3520
D4'e; gctober 17, 1989
Fiim : Department of Fish and Game
Subiecf! H,Kb Kemmington Property, Hamptun's Tentative Map
Dear Dobra,
On June 19, 1989 I met wixh Lex Williman of CEP Associated regarding the prc
posed project on 7 acres 23long the north shore of Ague Hedionda Lagoon in Cerlsbad, 'San Diego Countly , In September I received the project plant list.
The Department concurs with the proposed project in that it is at 1,east 100
from the wetlands and has adequately mitigated the loss of 64 square feet of
isolated salt marsh through the preservation of adjacent snlt marsh an prote tion of the marsh with suitable fencing; through the creation of a ~rnall fre
landscape design primarily utilizing Rative species and eliminat.ing a11 non- Jlative invasive plant species within '&e project. The Department suggests t
following species be deleted front the Groject due to their potential irlvasiv
ness into the. natural lagoon surroundings:
(optional native suggesti,ons are in parentheses)
Myouorum pacifica (Rhus i-ntegrifolia, ler~~onade-berry ) Acacia pecoffverde, ongerup (Acacia n1inuta)
Ceanothus grl.seus (Ceanot_& verrucosus)
Other native species appropriate for landscaping in this area i.r~cIude, but are not limited to:
Heliotropiun~ curvassavicum, salt heliotrope
Gnaphalium californicum, everlasting
Abronia urnbellaca, sand verbena
Lotus scoparius, deerweed
Erioaonum pervifolium, coast buckwheat
Atrlplex lentiformis, salt bush
Heteromeles arbytifolia, toyon
\ . water pond area that will be avnilable for usage by wildlife; and through a
-
If you heve questions or comments, please call me. Also, please send your sc
report with copies of the final landscape and grading plans to ]ne for cursor
review.
Thank you,
?jL v* p.. A. .&h:l ;.g !. f
Theresa A. Stewart
WildliEe Riologist
cc: Lex \JiIliman , CEPA
City of Carlsbatl Pl.anning Dept.
"" -. - . - - . . .- -
.. I w
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY 0 GEORGE DEI
~ ~~~~
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
330 Golden Shore, Suite 50
Long Beach, CA 90802
(213) 59O-511.3
December 13, 1989
Mr. Michael J. Holzmiller Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
2075 Lias Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
The Department biologist familiar with the project area has
reviewed the Negative Decl.aration for the Hampton's project
involving the construction of 42 homes on 7.8 acres along t
north shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon withj.n City 1i.mits (SCH
8901.047). Our revi.ew concluded too late to enable these co
to be included in the State Clearinghouse response, therefa
are sendi.ng them directly in fulfillment of CEQA.
We would concur with this project if the following measures
included as conditions of approval of the Negative neclarat
1, Provide at least a 100 foot wi.de buffer from the wetlan
boundary.
2. Provide suitable fencing to protect the salt marsh and
mitigate for the loss of 64 square feet of isolated sal
through preservation of adjacent salt marsh.
3. Creation of a small freshwater pond area for use by wil
4. The Department suggests that three plant species be del
from the project due to their potential for invasi-on ir
natural lagoon surroundings. They should be replaced k
others as we have listed for each one:
To Be Deleted Replacement Myoporum pacifica Rhus integrifoli.a, lemonadc-berry
Acacia pecoffverde Acacia minuta
Ceanothus griseus Ceanothus verrucosus
*. - e e
Mr. Michae 1. J . Ho 1. zmi. 1 1 er -2- December 1.3,
A copy of the final landscape and project plans should he pr
to the Department for review. Please contact Ms. Terri Stew
Wildlife Biologist a.t (619)466-4674.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions, please contact Kris La1
our Environmental Services staff at (213) 590-5137.
Sincerely,
&,+4~~+7
Fred Worthley
Regional Manager
Region 5
cc: State Clearinghouse
ESD (SCH 8901.01.47 1
Ld . !m e STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEL
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION c
915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 288
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
(916) 322-7791
December 5, 1989
Mr. Michael J. Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009-4859
re: SCH# 8901 01 47-Conditional Negative Declaration The Hamptons / (CT 89-1 3 / PUD 89-5)
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
The likelihood of discovering previously undetected Native American cultural re-
sources was addressed in the Environmental Impact Assessment Form. The
California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix K, deals with the discovery of
archaeological sites and the procedures to follow. It also contains the instructions
follow when human remains are found during any phase of development. The NE
American Heritage Commission has prepared a pamphlet for use by lead agencic
planners, developers and property owners. It provides an easy-to-read breakdow
the California Codes pertaining to Native American human remains and their disp
tion. I have included a copy of this brochure for your information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact this officc
,_ Sincerely,
% ,\ I $?&&&
William Anthony Jot?&" i /*&
Staff Analyst
Enclosure
cc: Garrett Ashley, OPR / SCH