Loading...
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