HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-12-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 3316.. I. II 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3316
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE 32 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND 2 OPEN SPACE LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
NORTHWEST OF THE CORNER OF BATIQUITOS DRIVE AND KESTRAL
DRIVE.
CASE NAME: AvlARA PLANNING AREA 29
CASE NO: CT 90-35
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of December, 1991, holc
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, an4
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 a
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
R) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannin
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibj
"ND", dated June 20, 1991, and "PEI", dated June 14, 1991, attached hereto an
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinns:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project ma
have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the propose
project.
....
....
s, , I I1 0 0
3. The proposed project site has already been reviewed under Master Plar
EIR 83-2(A) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Aviara Phase I1 Mastel
Tentative Map (CT 89-37) and as designed, the project implements al
recommended mitigation measures of said EIR 83-2(A), and Mitigated Negative 1
2
4. The project will preserve in open space the previously deed restricted and coasta 3
Declaration.
4 ll habitat areas.
5 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planninl
6 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of December, 1991
7 by the following vote, to wit:
8
9
10
11
AYES: Chairman Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Savary, Noble 8
~
Hall.
I
NOES: Commissioner Erwin.
ABSENT: Commissioner Schramm.
12
13
14
15 ROBERT HOLMES, Chairperson
ABSTAIN: None. . . .. ..-._
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RES0 NO. 3316 -2 -
~
a, I&
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The 16.6 acre project site is located at the northwest
comer of the intersection of Batiquitos Drive and Kestral
Drive.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Tract Map to create 32 minimum 7,500 square foot
single family residential lots and two 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 Ne 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 qu all Chris DeCerbo in the
Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4445.
DATED: JUNE 20, 1991
CASE NO: CT 90-35
APPLICANT: AW PA 29
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 20,1991
CDC:rvo
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 920094859 (61 9) 438-1 161
,. .- 0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 90-35
DATE: June 14. 1991 IACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Aviara PA 29
2. APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates Limited PartnershiD
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 Palomar Airport Road. Suite 206
Carlsbad. CA 92009
(619) 931-1190
4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 16.1990
5. PROJECT DESCRLPTION: Tentative Subdivision Ma0 and grading - for eventual construction 01
32 single familv, detached residential units.
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 significant effect on the environmen
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 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 si@cant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NOt will be checke to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of tk
project may cause a sinnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negatil
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deem€ insinnificant. 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 undc
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussi~
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
.$ - 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
NIL1 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-
0
YES YES
big) (insig)
-
-
- -
- -
- -
-
-
- -
- -
NO
X
X
X
-x-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
,. e 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
NIL THE PROPOSAL DlRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any spekies 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 fannland 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?
YES
(si&
YES (insig)
-
- -
-
- -
16. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals? - -
I"ANENVIR0-
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES big) (insig)
17, Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
- -
..
- -
-3-
k
NO
X
X
X
X
X
NO
X -
X -
*. e
MLL
19.
20.
21 *
22 *
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
HUMANENVIRONMENT
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 trafflc hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
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
(si&
- -
X -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
NO
(insip)
x
-
X
X
X
X
x
-
X -
X
X
- - -
- - -
X - -
X - -
X - - -
X - - -
0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFI 8CE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES YES NO (sip) (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 futue 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-
e 0
3ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project involves the finish grading (10,000 cubic yards) of a previously mass-graded site
zonstruction of two residential streets, drainage and other infrastructure, and tentative subdivision of PI&;
Area 29 of Aviara Phase 11. The tentative map includes 32 single family residential lots on rninim~ 7,50(
sq. ft. lot areas. Two open space lots are also proposed over the 16.6 acre site.
The area proposed for finish grading has been previously graded per subdivision map CT 89-37. N
2ncroachment into previously designated open space areas are proposed by the project. It is located in an are
anticipated for residential development per the City'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 th
Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR 83-2(A)) and th
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Aviara Phase I1 Master Tentative Map which already covered this propeq
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Aviara Phase I1 (CT 89-37), (2) as designed, the project implements a
recommended mitigation measures of EIR 83-2(A) and the Phase 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration, and (C
the project will preserve in open space the previously deed restricted coastal habitat areas, no environment;
impacts are anticipated. There were no public comments received in response to the Notice for a Negatil
Declaration.
Physical Enviroiment
4
[n that: (1) the proposed project site has already been reviewed under the Master Plan EIR 83-2(A) and tl
1. The project is a previously graded site containing no unstable earth conditions as discussed in the Soi
Report for CT 89-37.
2. Relatively minor topographic changes will result from the project. Only 10,000 cubic yards of balancc
earthwork are proposed. This equates to approximately 600 cu/yds of soil movement per gross acr
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 :
Planning Area 28.
4. Potential erosion impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon will be adequately mitigated as discussed in respon
#3 above.
5. Construction emission and minor fugitive dust generation impacts associated with project grading a
considered short term and insignificant. Dust generation can be adequately controlled through waterb
operations. Air quality impacts associated with future development of housing upon this area is n
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 anticipate
Air quality impacts from dust generation can be adequately controlled through watering operatio
during project grading.
-6-
.~ 0 0
)ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont'd
7. TW project ill not change the come or flow of water as no streams are located in &e immediate xei
and all drainage waters will be handled by proposed drainage facilities.
8. Development of this project (tentative map grading and road construction) will create imperviou:
surfaces which would reduce absorption rates and incrementally increase runoff velocities. However
to accommodate this increased runoff, drainage facilities will be incorporated into this project anc
future residential develbpment upon the site, thereby mitigating this concern.
9. No inordinate depletion of any natural resources is anticipated by the subdivision, grading, an(
construction of infrastructure proposed by this project.
.O. No significant impact as discussed in #9 above.
.1. A thorough archaeological testing of the area was conducted in 1987 as part of EIR 83-2(A). Nc
prehistorically or historically significant sites were discovered within the project area. A paleontologica
expert will be present during grading to monitor operations in an effort to preserve any uncovere
objects.
12. Surface disturbance and grading for the project will not encroach into any native habitat area and wi
not affect the onsite coastal deed restricted biological areas.
13. No impacts to the above mentioned coastal deed restricted areas are anticipated in that projec
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 paymer
of agricultural conversion fees. In accordance, the project applicant has already paid to the Staf
Coastal Conservancy agricultural mitigation fees required for the development of the project site.
15. As discussed in #12 above, the previously deed restricted coastal habitat will be maintained in ope
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 discusse
in #12 above.
Human Environment
17. Development of this project will be consistent with the General Plan, Master Plan 177 and the Ea
Batiquitos Lagoon and Mello I LCP's. The land uses proposed will be internally compatible as well
being compatible with adjacent 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 32 single family residences proposed on the project si1
No adverse impacts should result.
-7-
0 0
XSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont'd
19. Although this Tentative Map does not propose any actual residential development, any subsequen
dwebg unit construction onsite shall not be permitted until the Batiquitos Sewer Pump Station i
upgraded.
20. Construction of the project (grading and road development) may result in minor short term insigniticar
construction noise impacts upon surrounding existing and proposed residences. Otherwise, the futu
residential uses on the subject property will be acoustically compatible with surrounding existing an
future residential uses. At the time that future residences are constructed upon the subject propeq
traffic noise impacts from 1-5 shall be required to be mitigated as specified within the Acoustical Stuc
for Planning Area 29 (Mestre-Greve Associates 2/91).
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 relea
of hazardous substances.
23. The proposed density of the project results in 1.9 du/ac. This is in compliance with the Master P1a1
anticipated 1.9 du/ac.
24. The project will provide additional housing units to meet existing demand.
25. A total of 320 average daily vehicle trips will be generated by the project which will not significanl
impact the circulation system as discussed in EIR 83-2(A) and LFMP 19.
26. The demand for parking facilities created by this project will be satisfied onsite. Two garage spaces M
be provided for each unit and adequate on street guest parking will be provided throughout the proje
27. The additional 320 ADT generated by the project will be accommodated by the existing and plann
circulation network. This minor increase in vaffic 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 t
site) will be fully landscaped consistent with approved plans. Otherwise, the finish grading (10,C
cubic yards) of the subject property would not result in a visual impact. This project has also bc
designed and conditioned to ensure that Batiquitos Lagoon views from Spinnaker Hills residences
preserved.
32. The project will have no effect whatsoever on existing recreational opportunities.
-8-
0 e
NALYSIS OF WLE 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, 32 lots, is not of a size where phased development would be beneficial.
b) The project has been designed consistent with the Aviara Master Plan and all City ordinances. Al
open space areas are avoided.
c> The project is designed at the density 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 PlarVMaster Plan designatio:
for the site, therefore, it is not environmentally preferable.
-9-
.. 1, 0 0
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
- X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATW DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because t] environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction wi
' previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is require
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
- 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there w
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.
6 -tq-'jl
Date
b - I+ c//
Date
cDc:rvo
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-1 0-
I, 0 0
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIEY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
-11-