The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-12-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 33131 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 0 0 PWG COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3393 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(N) OF THE AVIARA MASTER PLAN. CASE NAME: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 26(N) CASE NO: CT 90-38 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of December, 1991, hol 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 an arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, an considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission : follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannin Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration accordin to Exhibit "ND", dated August 1, 1991, and "PII", dated July 24, 1991, attache hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: FhCliIl2-S: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project mz have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposc project. 3. The proposed project site has already been reviewed under Master Pk EIR 83-2(A) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Aviara Phase 11 Mast( Tentative Map (CT 89-37) and as designed, the project implements 2 recommended mitigation measures of said EIR 83-2(A), and Mitigated NegatiT Declaration. /I 0 e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4. The project will preserve in open space the previously deed restricted and coasta habitat areas. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannini Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of December, 1991 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairman Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Savary, Erwin, Nobll & Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Schramm. ABSTAIN: None. 13 I/ ATTEST: n 14 15 KM+.i#l l6 b M~~AEL g HOLZMIL~R 17 IY PLANNING DIRECTOR 18 19 I 2o li 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION PC RES0 NO. 3313 -2- I 1 NEGATrVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Planning Area 26 North within Phase I1 of the Aviara Master Plan. Southside of Alga Road beween Phase 1 and proposed Kestral Drive. PROJECT DESCNPTION: A tentative map involving the grading and subdivision of a 28.9 acre site for 68 single family homes on 7,500 square foot minimum lots. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above descibed 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 call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at 438-1 161, extension 4441. DATED: AUGUST 1, 1991 CASE NO: (3 90-38 MICHAEL J. HOLZMKLER Planning Director APPLICANT: AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 1, 1991 EM:km 2075 LaS Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161 . Mail'to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tc treet, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 - 91 """_ " """"- ~- ." e-0613 7 1 m* I:!+ See NOTE Below: Project Title: CT 90-38 - Aviara Plannirw Area 26 - North Lead Agency: City of Carlsbed Contact Person: Eric Mmz Street Address: 2075 Las Palms Drive Phone: (619) 438-1161, Ext. 4441 Ci ty: Car 1 sbad Zip: -92009 County: San Dieso PROJECT LOCATION: County: San Dieso City/Nearest Comnnity: Carlsbad Cross Streets: Alqa Road & Kestral Drive Total Acres: 28.9 Assessor's Parcel No. 215-040-23 Section: Twp. Range: Base: - Within 2 Miles: State Huy t: Interstate 5 Waterways: Batiquitos Laqoon/Pacific Ocean _______"""__""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~ Airports: Palomar Railuays: ATgSF Schools: Carlsbad OOCMllT TYP€ CEQA: - NOP - Suppiement/Subsequent YEPA: - NO 1 OTHER: - ____""c_""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Joint Document Other - Early Cons - EIR (Prior SCH No.) EA Final Docunent X Neg Dec - Other - Draft €IS FOUSI - - Draft EIR - - - _________"_"_____"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" - LOCAL ACTION TYPE - General Plan Update - Specific Plan Rezone Annexation General Plan Amenbent Master Plan Prezone Redevelopnent General Plan Element Pled Unit Developnent - Use Permit Coastal Permit Comnnity Plan Site Plan X Land Division (Subdivision, - Other Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) - - - - - - - - - - - - __________""_____"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""----" DEVELOPMENT TYPE - X Residential: Units 68 Acres 28.9 Water Facilities: Type MGD - Office: Sq. Ft. Acres Emp 1 oyees Transportation: Type Comnercial: Sq. Ft. Acres Emp 1 oyees Mining: Mineral Industrial: Sq. Ft. Acres - Type Employees Pouer: Waste Treatment: Type Recreational - - - - - - Watts . - Educational - - - Hazardous Waste: Type - Other: PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN WaWEYT - X Aesthetic/Visual - Flood Plain/Flooding - Schools/Upiversities Uater Quality Agricultural Land Forest Land/Fire Hazard - Septic Systems Uater Supply/ Air Quality Ceologic/Seismic Seuer Capacity Growd Water Archaeological/Historical - Minerals X Soil Erosion/Canpection/Grading - Wetland/Ripariar Noi sc Solid Waste Wi ldlife Drainage/Absorption Population/Housing Balance - Toxic/Hazardous Growth Inducing Economic/Jobs Public Services/Facilities - Traffic/Circulation Landuse Fiscal - Recreation/Parks - Vegetation Cunulative Effec Other """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".."""""""""""- - - - - - - - - X Coastal Zone - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Present Land Use/Zoning/Gcncral Plan Usc ____"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-"---------~ Currently vacant land within the Aviera Master Plan. Zoning is Planned Comnnity (PC) and the General Plan designati Residential Lon Media (RLM) which allows single family residences. Project Description _"""____"__""_"""""""""~"""""""""""""""""""""".""""""--"""""----"--------~ A tentative map involving the grading and suMivision of a 28.9 acre site for 68 single fanily homes on 7,500 sqwre minim Lots, MOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification hrs for all nen projects. If a SCH nunber already exists for a project from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft docunent) please fill it in. Revised Octok ENM:vd ENVIRON d NTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FO €$ PART 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO. CT 90-38 DATE: JULY 24, 19: 1. CASE NAME:. AVIARA PA 26 NORTH 2. APPLICANT: AVIAFW LAND ASSOCIATES 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: PAUL KLUKAS - CONTACT 2011 Palomar Aimort Road, Suite 206 Carlsbad. CA 92009 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: DECEMBER 11, 1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A tentative rnaD involvinn the nradina and subdivision of a 28.9 ac site for 68 sinnle familv homes on 7.500 square foot minimum lots. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environme The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This check 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project a provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmer 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 checl to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of project may cause a sianificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negat Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deen insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-irv respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form un DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discuss mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined sigdicant. 0 a 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? YES (sig) - - - - - - - - YES (insig) - - - - - - - NO X X X x X X X X X x - X -2- aIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 0 WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES (si& (insis) NO 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any sppies of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? - - X 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? HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? - - - - - YES YES (si& (insis) - - - - X X X X NO - X X - -3- e HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 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 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- 0 YES - - - - - - - - - - - YES NO big) ' (insig) X X - X - X - X X X - X X X - - X - X - X - X - - MAN dA TORY FINDINGS OF SEGNIFI ElbcE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO & big) (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 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. levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or 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.) X - X - - X - - - 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X - - - -5- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENT a VALUATION 0 The proposed project involves the finish grading (4,100 cubic yards) of a previousIy mass-graded site construction of residential streets, drainage and other infrastructure, and tentative subdivision of Plahnl Area 26(N) of Aviara Phase 11. The tentative map includes 68 single family residential lots on nh&num 7,%( sq. ft. lot areas. Four open space lots are also proposed over the 28.9 acre site. The area proposed for finish grading has been previously graded per subdivision map cT 89-37. N( encroachment into previousLy designated open space areas are proposed by the project. It is located in an are anticipated for residential development per the Ciry's General Plan, and the Local Coastal Program for th affected area, For this environmental analysis, staff conducted several field trips to the subject property and reviewed tl Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR 83-2(A)) and t€ Mitigated Negative Declaration for Aviara Phase 11 Master Tentative Map which already covered this propert In that: (1) the proposed project site has already been reviewed under the Master Plan EIR 83-2(A) and t€ Mitigated Negative Declaration for Aviara Phase 11 (CT 89-37), (2) as designed, the project implements 2 the project will preserve in open space the previously deed resmcted coastal habitat areas, no environment impacts are anticipated. Physical Environment 1. The project is a previously graded site containing no unstable earth conditions as discussed in the So recommended mitigationmeasures of EIR 83-2(A) and the Phase I! Mitigated Negative Declaration, and (: Report for CT 89-37. 2. Relatively minor topographic changes will result from the project. The site acreage is 28.9 acres, 8'1 of which is developable (23.5 acres). Only 4,100 cubic yards of balanced earthwork are proposed. T: equates to approximately 142 cu/yds of soil movement per gross acre. Such minor topographic chani are not considered to be sigmficant. 3. Drainage and erosion control facilities will be incorporated into the project to adequately redl potential soil erosion impacts. A downstream permanent desiltation basin has been constructed Planning Area 28. 4. Potential erosion impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon will be adequately mitigated as discussed in respo? #3 above. 5. Construction emission and minor fugitive dust generation impacts associated with project grading considered short term and insignificant. Dust generation can be adequately controlled through water 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 quality impacts will require t 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 anticipat Air quality impacts from dust generation can be adequately controlled through watering operati during project grading. -6- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENT !!P EVALUATION cont'd e 7. This project will not change the come 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 impervios surfaces which would reduce absorption rates and incrementally increase runoff velocities. Howevc to accommodate this increased runoff, drainage facilities will be incorporated into this project a] future residential deyelopment upon the site, thereby mitigating this concern. 9. No inordinate depletion of any natural resources is anticipated by the subdivision, grading, a! construction of infrasrructure proposed by this project. 10. .No significant impact as discussed in #9 above, 11. A thorough archaeological testing of the area was conducted in 1987 as part af EIR 83-2(A). I prehistorically or historically sidcant sites were discovered within the project area. An archaeolog and a paleontological expert will be present during the Phase I1 mass grading to monitor operations an effort to preserve any uncovered objects. 12. Surface disturbance and grading for the project will not encroach into any native habitat area and M not affect the onsite coastal deed restricted biological areas. 13. No impacts to the above mentioned coastal deed restricted areas are anticipated in that projc landscaping proposed adjacent to this habitat shall be required to be compatible and noninvasive. 14. As stipulated in the Master Plan, the conversion of agricultural lands shall be permitted upon paymr of agricultural conversion fees. In accordance, the project applicant has already paid to the St; Coastal Conservancy agricultural mitigation fees required for the development of the project site. 15. As discussed in #I2 above, the previously deed restricted coastal sage habitat will be maintained open space. Accordingly, no sigdicant 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 discus: in #12 above. Human Environment 17. Development of this project will be consistent with the General Plan, Master Plan 177 and the Me I LCP. The land uses proposed will be internally compatible as well as being compatible with adjacl uses. 18. As discussed in the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, with the payment of all fees and implementation of all improvement conditions (i.e. upgrading of the Batiquitos sewer pump statil construction of Alga Road and Batiquitos Drive), all public facilities and services will be available meet the demands of the future development of 68 single family residences proposed on the project s No adverse impacts should result. -7- e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont’d e 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 2s. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Although this Tentative Map does not propose any actual residential development, any subsequer dwelling unit construction onsite shall not be permitted until the Batiquitos Sewer Pump Station upgraded. Construction of the project (grading and road development) may result in minor short term insignifica construction noise impacts upon surrounding existing and proposed residences. Otherwise, the futu residential uses on the subject property will be acoustically compatible with sunround~g e&,tinx ar future residential uses. A noise study was completed to assess the potential noise impacts from Aj Road. The report concluded that exterior noise mitigation may only be required if second st0 balconies face Alga Road. It also specifled which lots of the proposed subdivision would requi mechanical ventilation if second story structures were built. A detailed noise study will be completf during the required discretionary review of any proposed development. Future lighting utilized onsite will be directed so as to not impact adjacent future views. Because this is a residential project, it will not involve a significant risk of an explosion or the relea, of hazardous substances. The proposed density of the project results in 2.35 du/ac. This is in compliance with the Master Plar anticipated 2.35 du/ac. The project will provide additional housing units to meet existing demand. A total of 680 average daily vehicle trips will be generated by the project which will not significant impact the circulation system as discussed in EIR 83-2(A) and LFMP 19. The demand for parking facilities created by this project will be satisfied onsite. Two garage spaces w be provided for each unit and adequate on street guest parking will be provided throughout the projec The additional 680 ADT generated by the project will be accommodated by the existing and plannf circulation network. This minor increase in traffic is not considered significant. The project site is outside of the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport. The project, as designed, will not cause conflicts at its intersections with Alga Road. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans. Manufactured slopes created through the already approved Phase 11 mass grading (which includes th site) will be fully landscaped consistent with approved plans. Otherwise, the finish grading (4,1( cubic yards) of the subject property would not result in a visual impact. The project will have no effect on eltisting recreational opportunities. -8- ,I 0 e 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 scale, 68 residential lots, is not of a size where phased development would 1 beneficial. b) The project has been designed consistent with the Aviara Master Plan and all City ordinances. 1 open space areas are avoided. c) The project is designed at slightly less scale (density) than allowed by the Master Plan for the arc d) The project is in conformance with the City's General Plan and the Master Plan. Alternate us would require amendment of these documents. e) The proposed project involves subdivision and grading of the site only. Development of the s 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 designati for the site, therefore, it is not environmentally preferable. -9- 7) e e DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: $4 X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATr DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because t environmental effec<s of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction w previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is requir Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there \ 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 ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. my 26, /991 EA& /I"- Date Signature d \ ** Planning Dire r ENM:km LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATI'ACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM [IF APPLICABLEl -10- r* * e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS [s TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature ENM:km -11-