The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-10-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 3017I 4D * 1 2 3 4 5 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3017 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE MAP, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP A 149 LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDMSION. CASE NAME: FAIRWAYS CASE NO.: CT 90-23/PUD 90-23/HDP 90-29 7 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of Octc 8 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said req1 9 WEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and cons lo 11 testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the i. submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, thc 12 II 13 // Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declar; 14 15 l7 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 16 as follows: B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, thl 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning C Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative I according to Exhibit "ND", dated August 31, 1990, and "PII", dated 19 1990, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the followin, 2o 11 Findings: 21 // 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the T 22 have a significant impact on the environment, provided that the- conditions of approval are complied with. 23 24 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmenl 25 26 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by th project. 27 28 ... 0 Q 1 ll 4. There are potentially sensitive resources located onsite however 2 5. That the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Mitigat 4 measures have been added to the project which will mitigate any impal Quality Act, the state guidelines implementing said Act, the 5 3 of insignificance. Declaration has been completed in conformance with the California En requirement as specified in Public Resources code Section 21081 provisions of Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and that t 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ~ Commission has reviewed, considered and evaluated the information the Declaration. Conditions: 1. As mitigation for the loss of 9.7 acres of California Gnatcatcher habit2 applicant shall provide for the perpetual preservation offsite of 9.7 acr within the area described on attached Figure 2 and 3 and as certified b biologist as containing equal or greater habitat value. Prior to reca final map, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by t Director, a detailed mitigation plan which includes the following il precise legal description of the area to be preserved, (b) a habitat I plan, (c) fire management plan, (d) appropriate weed control m appropriate forms of deterrence to access by humans and domes including fencing if deemed necessary, and (f) adequate measw minimization of light and noise impacts to the site. The perpetual prc the mitigation area shall be documented by an open space/conservati incorporating the mitigation plan in favor of the City for recording I with recordation of the final map. 18 19 20 21 ... ... ... 22 ... 23 ... 24 ... 25 ... 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 3017 -2 - 28 I/ 0 0 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting oft Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of Octob 2 3 4 the following vote, to wit: 5 6 7 AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehul McFadden, Marcus and Hall. NOES: None. 8 ABSTAIN: None. 9 ABSENT: Commissioner Erwin. 10 11 12 l3 ATTEST: SHARON SCHRA", Chail CARLSBAD PLANNING COI 14 15 l.6 h >RECTOR .L 17 II~ PLANNING,fi 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 3017 -3- 1 28 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South of Corte de la Vista and north of La Costa Course. PROJECT DESCEUPTION: A residential subdivision of 133 single family lots on 4 acres in the residential density - multiple zone. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described prl and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result oi review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not ha significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject prc Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file i~ Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Depart] within 21 days of date of issuance. pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Qualip 4 DATED: AUGUST 31,1990 CASE NO: CT 90-23/PUD 90-23/HDP 90-29 Planning Director APPLICANT: THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 6,1990 cw:h 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438- a 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PARI' II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 90-23/HDP 90-29/ DATE: JULY 23, 1990 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Fairways 2. APPLICANT: Fieldstone ComDanv 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5465 Morehouse Dr. Ste 25( San Dieno CA 92121 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A residential subdivision of 133 sinale familv lots on in the residential density-multiple zone ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the c The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. 1 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Er Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that tl any of its aspects may cause a sigmficant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" wi to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any ' project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualifv fo: Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects car insimificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" an( respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of th DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given 1 mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. m 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? 4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? 6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? 7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? 8, Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? .2 YES YES P Wg) (insig) - - - 0 a BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, -3- YES YES I big) (big) - X YES YES (sip) (insig) - - - - rn m HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 2 6. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? Increase existing noise levels? Produce new light or glare? Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Generate substantial additional traffic? Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? -4- YES YES E (is) (insip) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 33, 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 restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. YES YES (six) (Gg) 34. 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.) 35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively con- siderable" means that the incremental 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.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? -5- r 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Physical Endronment Because of prior disturbance to the site extensive amounts of remedial grading are required. As p: project design includes 256,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill. The Hillside developmenl criteria accepts quantities less than 8000 cubic yards per disturbed acre as reasonable. This projc approximately 6230 cubic yards per acre. Generally the grading design steps the site down from the north to the south which is in close kl existing conditions. Effects of the project on erosion, air and water quality, and course or flow of waters will be min: slopes which are manufactured and could have the potential to erode will be controlled th planting. Manufactured slopes will not exceed a 2:l ratio or exceed a height of 30 feet. Referen 15064(i) of the State CEQA Guidelines: "[ilf an air emission or water discharge meets the exist for a particular pollutant, the Lead Agency may presume that the emission or discharge of the p' not be a significant effect on the environment," Total project emissions will not exceed threshc Project location precludes potential impacts on the course or flow of marine or fresh waters. A 100 year flood plain is identified within the westerly project boundary however, alteration to tha has been avoided through project design. Although natural resources will be used for the constn project, primarily lumber, maintenance and operational uses of resources, water and oil, can not b significant. Water consumption will be ultimately determined by the individual user for d' landscape purposes. Water conserving irrigation could be installed for common areas. Once the project has been occupied the individual consumption of fuel or energy will be deten user. Active and passive solar design, insulation and the installation of energy saving appliances c a first step mitigation to reduce the need for excessive amounts of energy. The site has not been identified as having any archaeological, paleontological or historic signif BioloRical - Environment The site was previously disturbed by the creation of larger pads. Since that time there has been I revegitation of the site. Vegetation consists predominately of non-native plant species but also includes California Sa Broom Baccharis. There are no mature trees within the proposed grading areas. Early site inspec did not reveal the presence of any designated significant species. Fully developed surrounding co isolated the site from areas that are more likely to accommodate sensitive plant and animal spc found in the Carlsbad area. However, recent sitings and observations have been made of a pair of nesting Californi Gnatcatchers. The Gnatcatcher is a category 12 listed species on the Federal Register and may endangered status by that agency. -6- 0 Q Biolonical Environment (cont'dl A study was conducted by Bq Jones, Senior Biologist with ERC Environmental and Energy Ser was concluded that generally the overall wildlife value of the habitat onsite was low and tha mitigation measure would reduce the impact on the habitat to a level of insignificance. The proposed requires a revegitation of coastal sage adjacent to a future high school and residential df There are no other identified sensitive species. The introduction of plants and animals usually residential development will not have detrimental effects or create a barrier to movement of otl species. The site has not been identified as agricultural land and has not been used as such. Human Environment The site carries a medium density general Plan designation which allows a density range of 4-8 dT per acre. Zoning on the property is Residential Density - Multiple Zone. The General Plan c Medium density as small lot single family homes as well as duplexes and town homes. No zonc Plan amendments are proposed. Public utilities and services, such as sewers, schools, police, fire and emergency, can be pro1 individual responsible agencies. Letters of service availability are on file with the City. Noise and light levels will increase however not to levels of significance. Noise sources after con be human voices, radio and television, household and maintenance related appliances and aut1 truck traffic. Construction noise will be short term and acceptable noise levels will be governec of Carlsbad Municipal Code. Light reflectivity will change due to recontouring and the future existence of residences vs. vac; New light sources will be established by street lamps and individual home exterior and interior Ii1 sources within the public right-of-way will be subject to City designated standards for intensiq The use of hazardous substances in significant quantities is not a part of this project, nor is it an1 there will be storage of hazardous and/or volatile materials. Implementation of the project will not create a need for additional housing however it will have existing housing in the general vicinity. Those impacts will be primarily economic. The p intended for first time buyer or low to moderate income households. Traffic will be increased by approximately 1300 average daily trips (ADT). This projection fa service levels of the adjacent existing street system. No new mass transportation routes or required by the transit district. Streets and sidewalks have been designed to accommodate foot automobile traffic without compromising safety. The project has been designed to follow the general existing topography. AS development mol elevations are lowered. The result reduces the visual effect of the development as seen fiom low i.e. La Costa Golf Course. Views from the development can also be maximized. -7- Human Environment 0 0 The proposed architecture is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and buildings will from the slope tops sufficiently so that the visual impact on the surrounding area is eliminated or s reduced by the slope. Each lot will have a private yard in excess of a minimum 15’ x 15’ flat area. In addition cor space/passive recreation lots have been incorporated throughout the site. No common active f being proposed. Although the site is adjacent to the La Costa golf course there is no reciprocity t: two. However other public recreation facilities are in close proximity. -8- 0 0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 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) alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) The project is proposed as phased development. Because there are no significar circulation or impacts to services there is no environmental advantage to delay ( other than postponing ultimate service needs. b) Alternate site designs could further reduce visual impacts as seen from adjacen Because street design generally follows the existing land contours, changing str would require additional grading. c) If an alternate scale of development were proposed relative impacts would change. in the number of units would decrease density below the General Plan designat the number of units were increased a different product type would be necessary. townhomes could be an option. The result could reduce the cost of units hol increase impacts on generation issues such as traffic and air quality. Clustering the at the same density would have generally the same secondary impacts howevere impacts to grading and visual (onsite and offsite). purchase price of the units, reduce all secondary impacts such as on traffic and a: d) The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designate this parcel as suitable fc development. Other uses such as Bed and Breakfasts, childcare nurseries and pa permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. The appropriateness of any of these us1 determined at this time because of the lack of information. e) Future development rather than now would not appear to have any significar Services and facilities are available now. f) Other sites may be available with the same zoning and general plan designations; 1 as with the no project alternative it does not preclude development at some otl similar project with similar impacts. -9- m 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 DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmen not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an a sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be proposed. - I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIEV IMPACT REPORT is required. 090 qa - Date Signature b $/to 140 Date Planning Direa LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITOFUNG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -10- 0 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WT7H THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 776JY7LJ ///& Date Signature cw:h -11- ~O&M MITIGATION MONmmG +ST Page 1 oi wmwm r 0 0 ?J 8 3: m N I 0 o\ CI 2 w .. ?Jg mc5 Gg VI ” 2 32 ?E 2s p hg G 0 e2 m B 5 F4 $5 a %! b s E2 OL -d 3 .g 3 g 2% g :6”3 2 go E 2 4 g3; -E z m 2 o+? qs 333 .s -5 0 aJ?Z gaa q L c 5 3 83 -z Y 3-s 5 *-g ti E& z a* Q) a (d .L;r % 4Q)g %m 08g gj Gubo wa -0 d3-2 .- ’ 8 suo g 2 -2 !2 wug 0 B 15 -5 a u 352 Y bo coa m .p Qg .@ !3% 3 g 2 3 p m 3 d$ 85Q) 3Jg 0 .s x -z3 (d :& 5 4 &- g &’S$ g E g.; .:a,$ avo E Q)&Pa 5 .g$gs 2 og;; 5 Q) -2 g g 3 “1 ‘0 E - mP -au .- m e, Uk 2.3 s 8 Q) 4 - m- 5 s ’5: .d m uz g 13 d ‘5: $“lo- a0 g pp C.G g Q) a kk so77 -2 ggEd s 4 8 .s “1 CL 0 0 a U k ‘E: -\ 4 a m- .d g U a $2 “1 c1 bo Q)m“l :I S2a 3% 5 -2 rn.$$$ g&. 3 E & o - G- u “1 Q) 0% (d 5 om 33 (d m’ “1 $i+ Q) co 0 ps sals$ u “ldk g5 db2gzu 8% zzs*u 8 *urn - w’u.tJa “1 bOZbA d u -E 0 kpa uN.g % SZ3 $0 (dG4 $;gt ;hE % wQ,arc.c Q)?OE egso :pLm gfizc“lg3 -%s u-gad “O%g.~cd.&E 70E~udr- “lag $6 y.: :FE v az co $**-&a “la.5.gg.Z 8 boa Q) 8 2-73 2 Q) OQ) 43 d Q)p u (d aE.5 26 qga -6 ms 36-yxza U8EoE* s aa” c1 000d mu $-” 3s.s $%.5 ucomg2E gt&d $7, g-5: gam% s “7 9 bop -Gmw Q) 0 Q, &&j g -3 a,AZ (d-m m-Q, a 4% ”a3Q$jadw aw eAz ao-G-$S- cad w M gszs “1 & (d ad’s &J co v.13 c, v .s 22 g hE%a a%$ “la 0% %X 2 0 d.W -u “l.u E F: *s 8 g$s bg 3 g- “l.a “2 g’gg “la E oG8. g* a5 &*G Q, (d z E 2 8 55‘s &E 2 -0% Q)z% 0 “l*5$- Q)ao$zC 08s -Q5.% Q)sx orj ;i E %g* $ WQ) c- 3 gas 4 “78:g$:sG~~~E;.q (d m eQ) a &-a.zn 0 Eva G 0 aau 0z-c aa‘;;.d gal Uz 2-w co “1 a- O w-(d Q, -42 *ST ~Q)~~~~~CUQ) u 0 0 c: -5 u -g 4 Fj e, 4-4 8 E % Z GC m$ m m km +u ow z2 -2 a Q): ;8 3 .$ d -3 gg q vj g Crg -2 g 0 bog E s :: 3m sm -0 ? * e, .z Q) A%& FOco m -5 a co z Q) + -5 d 1 w’ 1 e a 1 I LEGEND I H Coastal Sage Scrub ?;:;>,;. Disturbed Grassland AO Adolphia californica 0 DO 0 Brodiaea orcuttii Oudleva blochrnaniae ssp. blochrnaniae - Iva havesiana I 0 Muilla clwelandii I Q @ I/ 0 Selaginella cinerascenr 400 BtG California Gnatcatcher I O- I # ERC 3 Environmental L L and Energy Offsite Mitigation Location for the Fairways Services Co. t