HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-10-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 3304i \I 0 0 II
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. 3304
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR PLANNING AREA
26(S) OF THE AVLARA MASTER PLAN.
CASE NAME: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 26(S)
CASE NO: CT 90-36
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of October, 1991, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission a2
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according
to Exhibit "ND", dated June 20, 1991, and "PII", dated June 14, 1991, attachec
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
FiIldillB:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project mal
have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the propose(
project.
3. The proposed project site has already been reviewed under Master Pla~
EIR 83-2(A) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Aviara Phase I1 Maste
Tentative Map (CT 89-37) and as designed, the project implements al
recommended mitigation measures of said EIR 83-2(A), and Mitigated Negativ
Declaration.
ll 0 0 4. The project will preserve in open space the previously deed restricted and coast
habitat areas.
1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plad
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of October, 19s
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice-chairman Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schram
Savary, Noble & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Holmes.
9 II ABSTAIN: None.
10
11
12
13 ATTEST:
TOM ERWIN, Vice-chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSIOP
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 3304 -2-
27
28
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The 45.8 acre project site is located at the northeast
corner of the intersection of Batiquitos Drive and Kestral
Drive.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Tract Map to create 95 minimum 7,500 square foot
single family residential lots and three open space lots.
The City of Carlsbad 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 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 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 11 Chris DeCerbo in the
Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4445.
DATED: JUNE 20,1991 XM/d* p MHAIZ~. HOLZMILLEB!
CASE NO: CT 90-36 Plannin Director
APPLICANT: AVIARA PA 26(S)
”.
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 20, 1991
cDc:nro
2075 Las Palmas Drive * Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 90-36
DATE: June 14, 1991
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Aviara PA 26(S)
2. APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206
Carlsbad. CA 92009
(619) 931-1190
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 4, 1990
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Subdivision MaD and madinn for eventual construction (
95 single family. detached residential units.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct 2
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environmer
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checkli
8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project ar
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 1
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checkc
to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of tl
project may cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a NegatiJ
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemc
insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sigt' and 'YES-insi
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form und
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussi~
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
0
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
rlLL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
.. Result in unstable earth conditions or
I
I 1.
1.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
LO.
11.
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards? .,
Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
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?
Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
Use substantial amounts " of fuel or energy?
Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
-2-
0
YES YES
(sig) (insig)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
NO
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0 0
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
lILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
2. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
3. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
.4. 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?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
JVILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area? "
YES YES.
(si& (insig)
-
-
YES YES (si& (insig)
- -
NO
X
X
X
X
X
NO
X
18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services? X - -
-3-
0
HUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY 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 traff’ic?
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-
0
YES YES NO
big) (insig)
- - X
- X
X
-
X
X
X
- X
X
X
X
X
- X -
X -
X
m 0
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNEICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sk) (insig)
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.
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
the effects of probable ” future projects.)
effects of other current projects, and
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
X
X
X
-5-
0
IISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
0
'he proposed project involves the finish grading (28,200 cubic yards) of a previously mass-graded site,
onstruction of residential streets, drainage and other infrastructure, and tentative subdivision of Planning
,rea 26(S) of Aviara Phase 11. The tentative map includes 95 single family residential lots on minimum 7,500
q. ft. lot areas. Three open space lots are also proposed over the 45.8 acre site.
'he area proposed for finish grading has been previously graded per subdivision map CT 89-37. Nc
ncroachment into previously designated open space areas are proposed by the project. It is located in an area
nticipated for residential development per the City's General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program for the
.ffected area.
:or this environmental analysis, staff conducted several field trips to the subject property and reviewed thf
'acific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR 83-2(A)) and tht
Jitigated Negative Declaration for Aviara Phase I1 Master Tentative Map which already covered this property
vlitigated Negative Declaration for Aviara Phase I1 (CT 89-37), (2) as designed, the project implements al
mecommended mitigation measures of EIR 83-2(A) and the Phase I1 Mitigated Negative Declaration, and (3:
.he project will preserve in open space the previously deed restricted coastal habitat areas, no environmenta
mpacts are anticipated. There were no public comments received in response to the Notice for a Negativc
leclaration.
?hvsical Environment
1. The project is a previously graded site containing no unstable earth conditions as discussed in the Soil
n that: (1) the proposed project site has already been reviewed under the Master Plan EIR 83-2(A) and tht
Report for CT 89-37.
2. Relatively minor topographic changes will result from the project. Only 28,200 cubic yards of balancec
earthwork are proposed. This equates to approximately 615 cu/yds of soil movement per gross acre
Such minor topographic changes are not considered to be significant.
3. Drainage and erosion control facilities will be incorporated into the project to adequately reduc
potential soil erosion impacts. A downstream permanent desiltation basin has been constructed i
Planning Area 28.
4. Potential erosion impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon will be adequately mitigated as discussed in respons
#3 above.
"
5. Construction emission and minor fugitive dust generation impacts associated with project grading ax
considered short term and insignificant. Dust generation can be adequately controlled through waterin
operations. Air quality impacts associated with future development of housing upon this area is nc
considered significant in itself. Long term full mitigation of regional air quality impacts will require th
dependence upon the automobile be reduced regionally and statewide.
6. In that no structural development is proposed at this time, impacts to air movement are not anticipatec
Air quality impacts from dust generation can be adequately controlled through watering operatior
during project grading.
-6-
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont'd
7. This project will not change the course or flow of water as no streams are located in the immediate arc
and all drainage waters will be handled by proposed drainage facilities.
8. Development of this project (tentative map grading and road construction) will create impenriot
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 ar
future residential development upon the site, thereby mitigating this concern.
9. No inordinate depletion of any natural resources is anticipated by the subdivision, grading, ar
construction of infrastructure proposed by this project.
10. No sigrzlficant impact as discussed in #9 above.
11. A thorough archaeological testing of the area was conducted in 1987 as part of EIR 83-2(A). h
prehistorically or historically significant sites were discovered within the project area. An archaeologi
and a paleontological expert will be present during grading to monitor operations in an effort 1
preserve any uncovered objects.
12. Surface disturbance and grading for the project will not encroach into any native habitat area and wj
not affect the onsite coastal deed restricted biological areas.
13. No impacts to the above mentioned coastal deed restricted areas are anticipated in that projel
landscaping proposed adjacent to this habitat shall be required to be compatible and non-invasive.
14. As stipulated in the Master Plan, the conversion of agricultural lands shall be permitted upon payme]
of agricultural conversion fees. In accordance, the project applicant has already paid to the Sta
Coastal Conservancy agricultural mitigation fees required for the development of the project site.
15. As discussed in #12 above, the previously deed restricted coastal sage habitat will be maintained
open space. Accordingly, no significant impacts to habitat or species are anticipated.
16. No new animal species or migration barrier will occur as a result of the project, as further discussf
in #12 above.
Human Environment "
17. Development of this project will be consistent with the General,Plan, Master Plan 177 and the Me1
I LCP. The land uses proposed will be internally compatible as well as being compatible with adjacel
uses.
18. As discussed in the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, with the payment of all fees and tl
implementation of all improvement conditions (i.e. upgrading of the Batiquitos sewer pump statio:
construction of Alga Road and Batiquitos Drive), all public facilities and services will be available .
meet the demands of the future development of 95 single family residences proposed on the project sit
No adverse impacts should result.
-7-
0 0
1ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont’d
9. Although this Tentative Map does not propose any actual residential development, any subsequent
dwelling unit construction onsite shall not be permitted mtil the Batiquitos Sewer Pump Station is
upgraded.
0. Construction of the project (grading and road development) may result in minor short term insigdkant
construction noise impacts upon surrounding existing and proposed residences. Otherwise, the future
residential uses on the subject property will be acoustically compatible with surrounding existing and
future residential uses. No traffk noise impacts from surrounding streets are anticipated.
1. Future lighting utilized onsite will be directed so as to not impact adjacent future views.
,2. Because this is a residential project, it will not involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances.
13. The proposed density of the project results in 2.07 du/ac. This is in compliance with the Master Plan’z
anticipated 2.35 du/ac.
!4, The project will provide additional housing units to meet existing demand.
!5. A total of 950 average daily vehicle trips will be generated by the project which will not significantlq
impact the circulation system as discussed in EIR 83-2(A) and LFMP 19.
!6. The demand for parking facilities created by this project will be satisfied onsite. Two garage spaces wil:
be provided for each unit and adequate on street guest parking will be provided throughout the project
27. The additional 950 ADT generated by the project will be accommodated by the existing and plannec
circulation network. This minor increase in traffic is not considered significant.
28. The project site is outside of the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport.
29. The project, as designed, will not cause conflicts at its intersections with Batiquitos Drive.
30. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans.
31. Manufactured slopes created through the already approved Phase I1 mass grading (which includes thi
site) will be fully landscaped consistent with approved plans. Otherwise, the finish grading (28,20r
cubic yards) of the subject property would not result in a visual impact.
32. The project will have no effect whatsoever on existing recreational opportunities.
-8-
0 0
NNALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project,
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.
b) alternate site designs,
a) The project scale, 95 residential lots, is not of a size where phased development would bc
beneficial.
b) The project has been designed consistent with the Aviara Master Plan and all City ordinances. AI
open space areas are avoided.
c) The project is designed at slightly less scale (density) than allowed by the Master Plan for the area
d) The project is in conformance with the City's General Plan and the Master Plan. Alternate use
would require amendment of these documents.
e) The proposed project involves subdivision and grading of the site only. Development of the sit(
will occur only if facilities are guaranteed.
f) The proposed project is the environmentally preferred project for the site.
g) The "no project'' alternative is not in conformance with the General Plan/Master Plan designatio1
for the site, therefore, it is not environmentally preferable.
"
-9-
0 0
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the bask of tKs initial evaluation:
X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATN
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because tl
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction wil
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is require( Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wi 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 hd the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTA
IMPACT REPORT is required.
6 - \L\"q/ (-xJ*) .hGLC%
Date
14- 4/
Date
,DC:tV0
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
"
'ITTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-10-
.- e 0
ZPLICANT 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.
Date Signature
"
-11-