Loading...
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-