HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-12-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 3323/I e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3323
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR
PLANNING AREA 27 OF THE AVIARA MASTER PLAN.
CASE NAME: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 27
'%
CASE NO: CT 90-34
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of December,
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
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
I.7
18
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
"ND", dated October 31, 1991, and "PII", dated May 14, 1991, attached hereto and
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
19 made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
2o
21
Findings:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may
22 have a significant impact on the environment.
23
24
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis.
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed
25 project.
26 4. The project site has already been reviewed under Master Plan EIR 83-2(A) and the
27 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Aviara Phase I1 Master Tentative Map CT
28
e c
1
2
89-37), and, as designed, the project implements all recommended mitigation
measures of said EIR 83-2(A) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
3 5. The project will preserve in open space the previously deed restricted coastal
4
5 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
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
resource boundary areas.
AYES: Chairman Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Savary,
Erwin, Noble & Hall.
10 NOES: None.
11 ABSENT: Commissioner Schramm.
12
13
14
15
ABSTAIN: None. .. " . "
ROBERT HOLMES, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
21
22
23
24
25
26 PC RES0 NO. 3323 -2-
27
28
NEGATIVE DECLARATlON /
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: North of Batiquitos Drive between Aviara Drive and
Interstate 5.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Tentative Tract Map to create 35 single family lots and 1
open space lot.
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
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 Elaine Blackburn in the
Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4471.
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, Comments from the
DATED: OCTOBER 31, 1991
MICHAEL J. ~LZMI~~ER
CASE NO: CT 90-34 Planning Director
APPLICANT: AWARA LAND ASSOCIATES
PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 31, 1991
EB:vd
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 (619) 438-1 161
a 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
CASE NO. CT 90-34
DATE: May 14, 1991
1, CASE NAME': Aviara Planning Area 27
2. APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 Palomar Aimort Road, Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
(619) 931-1190 '
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 16, 1990
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 35 Sinnle Family homes on minimum 7,500 sa. ft. lots.
~~~~ ~~
ENVTRONMENTAL 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 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 tj
project may cause a sinnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negati
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 mitigationmeasures appears at the end of the form und
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussii
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
.. e PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of peapie 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 warer, 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?
e
YES YES
big1 (insig)
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -L -
NO
X
X
X
X -
X
X
X
X -
X
X
X
0 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, ''
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of stare 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 EJWIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area?
YES
big)
-
-
-
-
-
YES
(sig)
-
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? -
-3-
YES
(insig)
-
-
-
YES
(his)
-
-
NO
X
X
X
X
X
NO
- X
X -
0
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 addirional 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
d
YES YES NO e
big) (insig)
x
X
X
- - -
- -
-
X - -
X - -
X
X
- - -
- -
X - -
X
X
- -
- -
X - - -
X - - -
X - - -
X - - -
e *
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRXTLY: YES YES NO
Gig> (insig)
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat o'f 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.)
X - -
X - - -
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 &wed 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?
X - - -
X - - -
-5-
.. 0 0
DISCUSSION OF EWRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project involves finish grading (16,400 cubic yards) for a single family subdivision and
infrastructure for Planning Area 27 of the Aviara Master Plan. The tentative tract map provides 35 single fam']~ lor5 and 1 open space lot on a 15.5 acre site. The project site has been mass graded as part of the
Aviara Master Plan CT 89-37.
The proposed project is consistent with the Master Tentative Tract Map (CT 89-37) for the Master Plan anc
mitigation measures as reqbired by the Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR 83-2(A)) have beer
implemented.
1, The proposed project will not result in unstable earth conditions or exposure to geologic hazards. Thf
mass grading for the site has been done in compliance with CT 89-37 (the approved tentative map fo
the Master Plan). The proposed fish grading and infrastructure construction will involve a total G
16,400 cubic yards of grading on the 15.5 acre site. This grading is balanced on site.
2. Any major topographic changes were evaluated in the EIR prepared for the Master Plan. Only mino
changes will result from the finish grading and infrastructure construction of the current project. N(
development is proposed at this time.
3/4. The proposed project will not result in or be affected by erosion of soils, nor result in changes to beac
sands or channels. Drainage and erosion control facilities will be required of the project in conformanc
with City Standards. A permanent desiltation basin has been constructed in the neighboring plannir
area (Planning Area 28) to mitigate potential impacts from soil erosion. The drainage and erosic
control mitigation required will adequately mitigate any potential impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon.
5. The proposed subdivision will not result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality. TI
increase in local and regional air pollution. This project (when ultimately developed) will generate on
a minor amount of traffic (350 average daily trips). No development is proposed at this time.
6. The project will not result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature. P
quality impacts (dust) from grading activities will be controlled by watering. No structures a
proposed at this time.
ultimate development of the site (into single family residences) will contribute incrementally to i
7. The project will not change the course or flow of waters. No water bodies are located within
immediately adjacent to this planning area.
8. The project will not affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water, or public wa
supply. The project is conditioned to provide adequate facilities to handle any increased runoff resulti
from the development of the site.
9/10. The project will not substantially increase usage or depletion of any natural resource, nor wiu it
substantial amounts of fuel or energy. The project involves only finish grading and infrastruct construction at this time.
-6-
0 0 11. All mitigation for archaeologcal, paleontological, and historic sites required by the Master Plan EIR ha?
been done. This planning area contained no identified sites. .4
12. The EIR prepared for the Master Plan identified areas of Coastal Sage Scrub and required mitigatioc jn the form of Coastal deed restricted open space areas. The proposed subdivision does not encroach
into these deed restricted areas.
13. The proposed project will not encroach into the coastal deed restricted areas, thus will not result in i
banier to replenishment. Any landscaping proposed with this project must be compatible with the deec
restricted area vegetation.
14. The approved Master Plan for this project required mitigation for conversion of agricultural land in th
form of agricultural conversion fees. The applicant has paid all such fees required for this project.
15/16. The site contains areas of Coastal Sage Scrub (gnatcatcher habitat). However, these areas are Coast;
deed restricted open space areas. This project does not encroach into the deed restricted area
Therefore, no significant impacts to species or habitat is expected.
17. The proposed ultimate development (single family residences) for the site is consistent with the Gener;
Plan and with the Master Plan (MP 177) governing development of the site.
18. The proposed project will not substantially affect public utilities or public services. The project will ’
conditioned to comply with all requirements of the local facilities management plan, thus meeting tl demands of the future development proposed for the site.
19. No development is proposed with this current project. However, the upgrading of the Batiquitos Pun
Station will be required prior to construction of the residential units, and any development prop05
will be so conditioned.
20. The proposed project will not result in an increase to existing noise levels. Short-term intermitte
increases to noise levels which may occur during grading and construction will be minor a
insignificant.
21. Because the proposed project is for fish grading and public infrastructure construction, it will I
result in an increase in light or glare. Any necessary street lights will be of the low sodium varic
minimizing glare.
22. The proposed project would not be expected to involve a significant risk of explosion or the release
hazardous substances.
23. Because no development of units is proposed at this time, the project will have no effects on dens
24. The proposed project will ultimately contribute additional housing units to meet current demand.
development is proposed at this time.
25. The proposed project will ultimately generate 350 daily trips. This minor increase in trips is
significant. The existing and proposed new portions of the circulation system will accommodate
- 7-
..
traffic. Circulation and traf. B c for the project was evaluated in the a IR prepared for the Master Plan.
No construction of units is proposed currently.
26. Any demand for parking created by the ultimate development of this project will be satisfied on site.
27. The proposed project will not impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns 0
circulation. No new trips will be generated by this project, which is limited to finish grading anc
infrastructure construction.
28. The proposed project will .not alter waterborne, rail, or air traffic. There are no water bodies or ra:
. lines on or adjacent to the site. The project is not within the Airport Influence Area for McClella
Palomar Airport.
29. The project will not increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. The projel
is designed to provide adequate separation between vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
30. The project is designed such that it will not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans,
31. Revegetation of slopes after mass grading was required. This project, involving finish grading ax
infrastructure construction would not be expected to result in aesthetic impacts or offensive pubj
views.
32. The proposed project will not affect the quality or quantity of existing recreation opportunities. T:
ultimate development of the site into single family homes will include the provision of private yards a’
a community trail. No development is proposed at this time.
-8-
0 0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development,
d) alternate uses for the site, e) deyelopment at some future time rather than now,
f) alternate sites for the proposed, and
g) no project alternative.
a) The scale of the proposed project (subdivision into 36 lots) is appropriate as a single phase project.
b) The site design is consistent with the approved Master Plan (MP 177). The design includes preservatio
of open space coastal deed restricted areas. No additional environmental benefits would be derived by a
alternate site design.
c) The proposed scale of development (2.48 du/ac) is less than the density approved (2.9 ddac) for the si
in the Master Plan.
d) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and with the approved Master Plan. No additior
environmental benefits would result from an alternate use.
e) The actual development of the site will occur at a future time. The current project proposal is for I
subdivision and infrastructure construction only.
f) The project site is appropriate for the proposed use. The project does not preclude similar uses on otl
sites.
g) The no-project alternative would not prevent the ultimate development of the site. The proposed proj is consistent with the General Plan and the approved Master Plan and provides mitigation
environmenral impacts as required by the EIR for the Master Plan.
-9-
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.
4 - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because th,
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in. conjunction wit: previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is requirec
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 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT.
IMPACT REPORT is required.
r
.? /. .. ,
i'/ . 27 2 . "'/ .CY ;&L LA.
" Date SignAture I
10/23/4 I
Date
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-10-
-. 0 0
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date , Signature
EB:vd
-1 1-