HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-29; Planning Commission; Resolution 3227I1 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3227
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAFUSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATM DECLARATION
FOR A MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT/LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AMENDMENT/TENTATIVE TRACT
"/HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OVER PLANNING
AREA 24 OF THE AVIARA MASTER PLAN.
APPLICANT: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 24
CASE NO.: MP-l77(D)/LCPA 90-6/CT 90-15IHDP 90-20
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 29th day of May, 1991,
8
9
10 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
11 testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information
12 submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning
l3 Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
14
15
16
17
18 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaratior
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
19 according to Exhibit "ND", dated March 28,1991, and "PII", dated March 15,1991,
20
21 Findings:
22 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project mal
23 have a significant impact on the environment provided that mitigating condition!
of approval are complied with.
24
25 project.
26 3. The proposed project site has already been reviewed under Master Plan EIR 83
27 2(A) and as designed, the project implements all recommended mitigati01
measures of said EIR 83-2(A).
2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the propose(
28
0 e
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. The project will either preserve in open space or replace with comparable quali?
and acreage, the previously coastal deed restricted habitat areas.
Conditions:
1. Prior to the initiation of project gradingy a cultural resources data recovq
program shall be conducted at site SDI 6753. This data recovery program shal
involve the excavation of six square meter test units. As soon as this data recovq
mitigation program is completed, a letter from the archaeological consultant
confirming this shall be required to be submitted to the Carkbad Planninj
Department.
2. All portions of this project as shown on Exhibits ITt - "s', dated April 12, 1991,
shall be required to be landscaped consistent with these same Exhibits. A detailec
Landscape and Xrrigation Plan (which includes a timeline for implementation) shal
be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance o!
following rough grading of each of these graded areas. Prior to the issuance of :
grading permity a Landscaping bond shall be required to be posted with the City
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permity all "Give Back" areas (as shown on
Exhibit "F") and other project open space areas shall be required to be placed
under a deed restriction which prohibits any encroachment for development into
those areas in perpetuity.
grading permits. The Landscaping shall be required to be initiated immediatelJ
4. This project is approved subject to the condition that no project grading shall be
permitted during the Black Tailed Gnatcatcher breeding season (March 1 - June
1). Any modifications to grading restrictions shall be subject to approval of the
City and be based on the prior approval of the California Coastal Commission in
consultation with the Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service.
5. AU deed restricted habitat areas shall be required to be staked and flagged in the
field by a certified biologist prior to the issuance of grading permits. All deed
restricted areas shall be required to be clearly demarcated on all project grading
plans.
6. All "Give Back" areas that are adjacent to Coastal Sage Scrub habitat shall be
required to be fully landscaped with similar native species. Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit, a landscape and irrigation plan for these areas shall be
submitted for review by the Planning Director.
...
...
I..
PC RES0 NO. 3227 -2-
I/ 0 0
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
7. Prior to the recordation of the first final map, the applicant shall enter into a third
party agreement with the City to contract with an envIroflfnental consultant, paid
by the applicant, to provide a monitoring program for the mitigation measures
required by the tentative map. The program shall include specific monitoring
activities, a reporting system, and criteria for evaluating the success of the
mitigation measures.
8. Prior to the occupancy of any future affected dwelling units within this Planning Area, the project applicant shall construct the sound attenuation walls along Alga
Road and future Poinsettia Lane as described in the Acoustical Analysis for PA-24
(Mestre Greve, 1990). The project applicant shall also incorporate all required
traffic noise mitigation measures (mechanical ventilation) described in this
acoustical analysis into the effected units.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 29th day of May, 1991, bq
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm:
Savary, Noble & Hall.
NOES: Commissioner Erwin.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None. ". _." -
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J.
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 3227 -3 -
"TIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The 54.6 acre project site is located at the northeast
comer intersection of Alga Road and future Poinsettia
Lane.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (A) Master Plan Amendment/Local Coastal Program
Amendment to: (1) change permitted single family lot sizes
dwelling unit potential from 193 du's to 120 du's, (3) increase
open space by 4.3 acres and; (4) modify Master Plan
development standards and design criteria for Planning Area 24
of the Aviara Master Plan.
(B) A 54.6 acre/124 lot/120 dwelling unit tentative map, and
Hillside Development Permit for Aviara PA 24.
from small lot to minimum 7,500 sf, (2) reduce maximum
The City of Carbbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a
significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project.
Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from
the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department
within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo
in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4445.
I&& .: /-, 7 ,. ' .i '
DATED MARCH 28, 1991 .Ll*
CASE NO: MP 177(D)/LCPA 90-6/CT 90-15 Planning Director
APPLICANT AvlARA PA-24
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 28, 1991
MICHAEL J. HCXZM~ER
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 * (619) 438-1 161
ENVlRd)MENTAL. IMPACT ASSESSMENT F& - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO, MP 177(D)/LCPA 90-6/CT 90-15/HDP 90-20
DATE: MARCH 15, 1991
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Aviara Planninn Area 24
2. APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 Palomar Airport Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(619) 931-1190
4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Aurill2. 1990
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: IA) Master Plan Amendment/Local Coastal Pronam Amendmen
to; (1) change - permitted single family lot sizes from small lot ti
minimum 7.500 sf, (2) reduce maximum dwellinn unit potentk
&om 193 du's to 120 du's. (3) increase open space bv 4.3 acre
and: (4) modify Master Plan development standards and desig
criteria for Planning Area 24 of the Aviara Master Plan. (B) A 54.1
acre/124 lot/120 dwelling unit tentative map, and Hillsid
Development Permit for Aviara PA 24.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct a
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a signLficant effect on the environmen
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checkli:
identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project an
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environment;
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project (
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checke
to indicate this detennination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of tk
project may cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may quallfy for a Negatil
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deem€
insimificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and 'YES-insi;
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form undr DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussir
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
, e I)
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
1. Result in unstabIe 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?
YES
big)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
YES
(insig)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
NO
x
X
x
x
X
X
x
X
X
X
-
-
-2-
0 e
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: as E$) NO
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:
1 7. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
- X -
- - X -
X -
- X -
- - X
YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
- X -
- X -
-3-
0
HUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DtFECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare?
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
-4-
e
YES YES
(sig)
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
-
- -
- -
- -
NO (insig)
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e 0
MANDATORY FINDtNGS 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-
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.
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
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-
YES YES NO
big) (insig)
- X
- X
X -
- - X
0 e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Thrs project is a Master Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map ar
Hillside Development Permit for Planning Area 24 of the Aviara Master Plan 177. The Tentative Map includ,
54.61 acre Planning Area. The northeastern portion of the project site has been disturbed as a consequen
of a City approved stockpile operation. The central and northeastern portions of the site exist as level rid
tops, previously under agricultural use, which are surrounded by coastal side slopes which are vegetated wi
densely covered chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat. For this environmental analysis, staff conduct
several field trips to the subject property and reviewed the Pacific Rim County Ciub and Resort Master P!
Environmental Impact Report (EL4 83-2(A)) which covers this property. In that: (1) the proposed projc
site has already been reviewed under Master Plan EIR 83-2(A), (2) as designed, the project implements
recommended mitigation measures of EIR 83-2(A), (3) the product type changes and design guidelines
proposed will ensure land use compatibility with existing or future land uses, (4) the project will eitk
preserve in open space 01 replace with comparable quality and acreage, the previously deed restricted coas
sage scrub habitat, and (5) the project as proposed, preserves an additional 4.3 acres of the project site
open space than originally anticipated under MP 177, no environmental impacts are anticipated. There WI
no public comments received in response to the Conditional Negative Declaration.
Physical Environment
120 minimum 7,500 square foot single family residential lots and 4 open space lots (15.2 acres) Over f
1. The project site contains no unstable earth conditions. The project as proposed includes extens
grading (60' of fill) within the Phase IV area located adjacent to the alga RoaUPoinsettia Lane furl
intersection. This fill can however be adequately developed upon, through implementation
standardized soils compaction and stability measures. No unstable earth conditions will result frl
project development.
2. Grading of the project site consistent with the proposed tentative map would require considerable ea
movement 342,400 cubic yards cut 578,000 cubic yard, fill. Potential visual effects associated with t
grading shall be mitigated through conformance with the design guidelines and development standa
of the City's Hillside Ordinance, Visual impacts associated with project land from modification can
mitigated through complete hydroseeding and landscaping of manufactured slopes and fut1
implementation of project landscaping.
3. Drainage and erosion control facilities (desiltation basins, storm drain and terrace drains) will
incorporated into the project to adequately reduce potential soil erosion impacts. The project shall :
be conditioned to richly landscape all manufactured slopes.
4. Potential erosion impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon will be adequately mitigated as discussed in respo
#3 above.
5. Construction emission and fugitive dust generation impacts associated with project grading
considered short term and insignificant. Dust generation can be adequately controlled through watel
operations. Air quality impacts associated with future development of housing upon this area is
considered significant in itself. Long term full mitigation of regional air qualitys impact shall req
that dependence upon the automobile be reduced regionally and statewide.
-6-
0 e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (cont’d)
6. In that no structural development is proposed at this time, impacts to air movement are not anticiparec
Air quality impacts from dust generation can be adequately controlled through watering operarion
during project grading.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
This project will not change the course or flow of water as no streams are located in the immediate are
and all drainage waters will be handled by proposed drainage facilities.
Development of this project (tentative map grading and road construction) will create impefioc
surfaces which would reduce absorption rates and incrementally increase runoff velocities. Howeve:
to accommodate this increased runoff, drainage facilities will be incorporated into this project an
future residential development upon the site, thereby mitigating this concern.
Implementation of the proposed project will incrementally contribute to the depletion of fossil fuej
during grading operations and other natural resources required for project roadways. This short ten
incremental impact is not regarded as sigmficant.
See #9 above.
Two archaeological sites (SDi-6753, 6754) are located upon the subject property. As a condition c
approval of EIR 83-2(A) a testing program was carried out at these two sites. Most of the SDi 675
site is outside of the Aviara project area and the portions of the site that is within the property has ha
the anticipated impacts mitigated through testing and analysis of recovered artifacts. The significanc
testing undertaken at SDi 6753 resulted in a finding that the site is potentially significant. A dat
recovery program is recommended to be undertaken at this site prior to the initiation of grading. Th
data recovery program planned for SDi 6753 will involve the excavation of six square meter units
Implementation of this data recovery program at this site will adequately mitigate potential cultur:
resource impacts. This has been included as a condition for the project.
The project site includes environmentally significant property which was placed under deed restrictio:
by the California Coastal Commission upon approval of Master Plan 177. This proposal will encroacl
into 2.01 acres of the protected habitat including 1.34 acres of sage scrub and .67 acres of Chappard
However, as mitigation for this encroachment, the project applicant is proposing to give back as deec
restricted open space 2.79 acres of habitat which is of higher quality including 2.55 acres of sage scrut
and .24 acres of Chaparral. The increase in Coastal Sage Scrub by .78 acres is potentially beneficiz
to the California Gnatcatcher, which utilizes the habitat.
No significant impacts to the abovementioned coastal sage scrub habitat are anticipated in that projec
landscaping proposed adjacent to this habitat shall be required to be compatible and non-invasive.
As stipulated in MP-177, conversion of agricultural lands shall be permitted upon payment c
agricultural conversion fees. In accordance, the project applicant has already paid to the State Coasta
Conservancy agricultural mitigation fees required for the development of the project site.
-7-
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (cont’d)
15. AS discussed in #12 above, the previously deed restricted coastal sage habitat (or comparable quali
habitat) will be mainrained in open space. Accordingly, no si@cant impacts to habitat or species a
anticipated.
16. The project as proposed preserves in open space the majority of the previously deed restricted CO~SI
sage scrub habitat. In addition, the project preserves in open space 4.3 additional acres than anricipat
under MP-177. The addition of this open space in association with previously deed restricted op
space will function to provide adequate comdors for the movement of animals throughout the projc
site.
17. Development of this project will be consistent with the General Plan, Master Plan 177 (as amende
and the Mello I LCP (as amended). The land use changes proposed will be internally compatible as w
as being compatible with adjacent uses.
18. As discussed in the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, with the payment of all fees and t
implementation of all improvement conditions (ie. upgrading of the Batiquitos sewer pump static
construction of Alga Road and Batiquitos Drive), all public facilities and services will be available
meet the demands of the future development of 120 single family residences proposed on the projl
site.
19. Although the Tentative Map and Master Plan Amendment does not propose any actual prod
development, any subsequent dwelling unit construction on site shall not be permitted until
Batiquitos Sewer pump Station Is upgraded.
20. Construction of the project (grading and road development) may result in short term insignific,
construction noise impacts upon surrounding existing and proposed residences. Otherwise, the fut residential uses on the subject property will be acoustically compatible with surrounding existing 2
future residential uses. At the time that future residences are constructed upon the subject propel
traffic noise impacts from Alga RoadJPoinsettia Lane shall be required to be mitigated.
21. Future lighting utilized onsite will be directed so as to not impact adjacent future views.
22. Because this is a residential project it will not involve a significant risk of an explosion or the rele
of hazardous substances.
23. The proposed project density of 2.2 ddacre is well below the density pennitted upon the site (
du/acre) per the Aviara Master Plan. In view of the reduced density, overall project environmel
effects should be reduced.
24. The project will provide additional housing units to meet existing demand.
25. A total of 1,200 average daily vehicle trips will be generated by the project which will not simca
impact the circulation system as discussed in EIR 83-2(A) and LFMP-19.
-8-
m
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (cont’d)
26. The demand for parking facilities created by this project will be satisfied onsite. TWO garage spaces wi
be provided for each unit and adequate on street guest parking will be provided throughout the projec,
27. The project will add 1200 ADT to Alga Road. Other surrounding streets will also carry portions
of this traffic. This minor increase in traffic upon d surrounding streets is not considered
significant.
28. The project site is outside of the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport.
29. Two vehicular access points are proposed for the project and are not located to cause conflicts
with intersections with Alga Road.
30. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans.
31. Grading of the subject property would result in a short-term but unavoidable visual impacts. Thi
impact can, however, be mitigated through the following mitigation measures: (1) all manufacture,
slopes shall be required to be fully hydroseeded and irrigated immediately following rough grading, an,
(2) all manufactured slopes shall be required to be undulated and contour graded consistent with tht
Hillside Development Ordinance. When a future site development plan is processed over this property
rich landscaping shall be incorporated into the project design.
32. As proposed, the project will have no impact on existing recreational opportunities. lmplementatior
of this project will, however, ensure the preservation of 15.2 acres of natural open space areas.
-9-
0 0
ANALYSIS OF VlABLE ALTERNATMS 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 120 residential lots proposed with this project will be developed in 4 separa
phases. Phasing, however will not likely result in an environmentally superior projec
b) This project has been designed consistent with the Aviara Master Plan - Planning Ar
24 conceptual site plans and the City's Hillside Ordinance. This project will a1
preserve additional site acreage in natural open space than originally anticipated und
the existing Master Plan.
c) The potential scale (number of dwelling units) of this project will be reduced from 1'
du's to 120 du's with the approval of this Master Plan Amendment.
d) Any change of land use upon the subject property would necessitate a General P1:
Amendment and a Master Plan Amendment. In that this project would result in tl
development of low-medium density residential (2.2 ddac), it is regarded as :
environmentally preferable alternative.
e) The project will result in the grading and subdivision of Aviara Planning Area 24.
future site development plan application will be required to be processed through tl
City. No structural development will be permitted on-site unless all public facilities ar
available concurrent with demand. In accordance with these requirements, the proje
will likely be developed in increments and over time.
f) The project is proposed in a Master Plan area over which an EIR has already bee
certified (EIR 83-2(A)). As discussed in the EIR, this site is regarded as tk
environmentally preferable site for the proposed project.
g) The "no project" alternative is not in conformance with the General PlaWMaster Ple
designation for the property. Hence, it is not regarded as environmentally preferabl
-1 0-
a w
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
- 1 find the proposed project COULD NOT have a s;&ficant effect on the environment, and a NEGATI['F DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because r'rx
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction \vir:
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is require::
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
x t find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there Lvii
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed.
- i find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTX: IMPACT REPORT is required.
/2 2 IF-qI ( I' ' i,. L !-(- k-
., L L" 1' .
Date Signature
311 I @/ Li! J\\ ,&&*$X&
-\
f,
bate ' Planning Direcfar J
CDD:km
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. All manufactured slopes greater than 2' in height shall be required to be fully hydroseeded and imgats immediately following project rough grading. All manufactured slopes adjacent to coastal del
restricted habitat areas shall be required to be vegetated with similar native species. Pior to t'
issuance of a grading permit, a landscape and irrigation plan (which includes a time line :
implementation) shall be submitted for review by the Planning Director.
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, all coastal "Give Back' areas shall be required to be plac
under a deed restriction which prohibits any encroachment for development into those areas
perpetuity.
3. This project is approved subject to the condition that no project grading shall be permitted during
Black Tailed Gnatcatcher breeding season (March 1 - June 1).
-11-
0 0 0
MITIGATING MEASURES (cont'd)
4. All deed restricted habitat areas shall be required to be staked and flagged in the field by a certific
biologist prior to the issuance of grading permits. All deed restricted areas shall be required 10 1
clearly demarcated on all project grading plans.
5. Prior to the initiation of project grading, a cultural resources data recovery program shall be conduct'
at site SDi 6753. This data recovery program shall involve the excavation of six square meter test uni
As soon as this data recovery mitigation program is completed, a letter from the archaelogic
consultants confirming this shall be required to be submitted to the Carlsbad Planning Department
33. Prior to the occupancy of any future affected dwelling units within this Planning Area, the projf
applicant shall construct the sound attenuation walls along Alga Road and future Poinsettia Lane
described in the Acoustical Analysis for PA-24 (Mestre Greve, 1990). The project applicant shall a
incorporate all required traffic noise mitigation measures (mechanical ventilation) described in I
acoustical analysis into the effected units.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-12-
e e
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. c 3 18 41 @@.?- ture
CDD:km
fqd" 5, p-UIW
"+!J CfiD k"?
DIL PWPL
-1 3-
'. APPENDIX P
ENVIRO &M mGAnoN MommG &sr Page 1 of 1
0 cv
g > X
T:
g
9 0
2
s
2
r
h
a
VI .. s 2 3 i
=! w
L4
3 ! 1 a
-8 U
2 ..
z t3
2 tr!
a
3 .g 2 % 2%
2 2 &g m
k 0% 9 3% g z224 o'.r;9
c: ws 3 12 0
3 A
j *s '5 Q 8 5%;
g ag- .. 3 55 g 8 *g 'S n 2 .b~ ma$ 2 &E 2 z g2.g $ UU3 z %SF 5! 2:bO a :; 4 *s
E5 w 0.94 .z a u ; 33
?) $2 bz -2 g a
84 "dm
3 4z-
z 'M 3
3% .f3 8 g z*ss 8 ;l;
g;Bg
0 % re .. -9 a c $ g ""J8 is bQ3-0
%03S 5 €3eEd
d "v)U gma
-2
e
z av
d
8 8"g coy
0 3-z
*a
muy Ed qi
0 .?I m 4- 3 0.
+-
5: crru 3 -5iQ
2 ;-;!;g
v)
.5 z 5 *
*s 4 1
w
35
"K $;
z
gz v
P
.d Q, m a
-0
Y
5
443 kJ g .s 2 = :g
gag 8
-0
212
s:s g 2 :z .g 3 0
& ss Q1a u .pj 0
-n 3 2 as
E2z-s a2 2:
-2 -3 g
U 04 az
'E! &-.g m 22CJ8 5 e 5
+ G men - 4z *c4
womm
2 !g g.a 203g $5 2 bQ
g *: E o5 '0 53.0 g
2fi-9: $ - c-2 g -g :a$ CJ z
E a P $ .5 e!E,,P, 6gg G; .5 ng-2: 8 11 11 ; 2
u-a$ E 8 %8+W c 8 wgg I1
b-Ei 0-2
ass E32 ' Ezw2 f
bQ$ 2 0
rc:& ~3n Q) Q1 a*
ZEb0
OG
-9 a a
113 wr