Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-02-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 3338e Q 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 COMMTSSION RESOLUTION NO. 3338 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR PLANNING AREA 25 OF THE AVIARA MASTER PLAN. CASE NAME: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 25 CASE NO: CT 90-37 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of February, 1992, 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. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Codssion hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated December 12, 1991, and "PII", dated June 14, 1991, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Fhb: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 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 project. 4. The project site has already been reviewed under Master Plan EIR 83-2(A) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Aviara Phase II Master Tentative Map CI 89-37), and, as designed, the project implements all recommended mitigation measures of said EIR 83-2(A) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 0 0 1 2 3 5. The project will preserve in open space the previously deed restricted coasta resource boundary areas. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Phnnin; 4 ll Co-ssion of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of February, 1992 5 /I by the following vote, to wit: 6 7 8 AYES: Chairman Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schram Holmes, Savary & Noble. NOES: None. 9 ABSENT: Commissioner Hall. 10 ABSTAIN: None. 11 12 13 14 15 ATTEST: TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSIOh 16 17 18 19 PLANNING DIRECTOR I 20 21 22 /I 23 24 25 26 PC RES0 NO. 3338 -2- 27 28 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South of Alga Road between Kestrel Drive and 1-5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Tentative Tract Map to create 34 single family lots and 2 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 dll 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 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension . DATED: DECEMBER 12, 1991 CASE NO: CT 90-37 MICHAEL J. WZMILiER Planning Director APPLICANT: AVIARA PA 25 PUBLISH DATE: DECEMBER 12,1991 EB:h 2075 LaS Palmas Drive Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 (61 9) 438-1 I 64 m 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNfNC ~EPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO. CT 90-37 DATE: JUNE 14, 15 1. CASE NAME: Aviara Planning Area 25 2. APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 20( Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619)931-1190 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMIITED: December 10, 1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Tract MaD for 34 single family lots and 2 oDen sDace 1( ~ 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 sigruficant effect on the environmc 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 2 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 sidcant 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-iE respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form unl DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discuss mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 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? - -2- e YES (sig) - - - - - - - YES (insig) - - - - - - A NO G X X X - X - X X X - X X X X W 0 BIOLOGICAL ENvlRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 12: Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including I 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 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? HUMANENVLRONMENT 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, lire, emergency or other public services? - - - y - YES (insig) - YES (big> - - NO X X X X X NO X - X €"ANENVIRONMENT 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 pattern 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 (sig) - - - - - - - - - ,6 NO s (insig) X X X X x X X X X X X X X X 0 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 2.. 6 WILL THE PROPOSAL, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO 4 (sig) (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 of California history or prehistory. important examples of the major periods - X 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.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - X - X - X - - -5- e )ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 'roiect DescriDtion The proposed project involves finish grading and infrastructure construction for Planning Area 25 of th biara Master Plan. This tentative tract map provides 34 single family lots and 2 open space lots on a 28. fcre site. The project site has been mass graded as part of the Aviara Master Plan CT 89-37. The propose xoject is consistent with Master Tentative Tract Map (CT 89-37) for the Master Plan, and mitigatio neasures as required by the Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR 83-2(A)) have been implementec 1. The proposed project will not result in unstable earth conditions or exposure to geologic hazards. Tk mass gradmg fur rhe sire has been done in compliance wirh GT 89-37 (the ipproved rcnrtiiive mt for the Master Plan). The proposed finish grading and infrastructure construction will involve 2,ZC cubic yards of cut and 73,000 cubic yards of fill. Import totals 70,900 cubic yards. Pad elevatiol for some lots on the northern portion of the site are somewhat higher (10 feet) than original approved, however the plan is substantially in corformance with the approved Master Tentative Ma 1. Any major topographic changes were evaluated in the EIR prepared for the Master Plan. Only minc changes will result from the finish grading and infrastructure construction of the current project. h development is proposed at this time. As indicated in #1 above some elevations have been change1 but the plan is substantially in conformance with original approvals. 3/4. The proposed project will not result in or be affected by erosion of soils, nor result in changes . beach sands or channels. Drainage and erosion control facilities will be required of the project conformance with City standards. A permanent desiltation basin has been constructed in Plannir Area 28 (to the south) 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. Tl ultimate development of the site (into single family residences) will contribute incrementally to 2 increase in local and regional air pollution. This project (when ultimately developed) will genera only a minor amount of traffic (340 average daily trips]. No development is proposed at this tim 6. The project will not result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperatur Air quality impacts (dust) from grading activities will be controlled by watering. No structures a proposed at this time. 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 wat supply. The project is conditioned to provide adequate facilities to handle any increased run( resulting from the development of the site. 9/10. The project will not substantially increase usage or depletion of any natural resource, nor will it u substantial amounts of fuel or energy. The project involves only finish grading and infrastructu Construction at this time. - -6- e 0 11. ' All mitigation for archaeological, paleontological, and historic sites required by the Master Plan E has been do-ne. 12. The EIR prepared for the Master Plan identified areas of Coastal Sage Scrub and required mitigat: in the form of Coastal deed restricted open space areas. The proposed subdivision does not encro: into these deed restricted areas. 13 The proposed project will not encroach into the coastal deed restricted areas, thus will not result a barrier to replenishment. Any landscaping proposed with this project must be compatible with deed restricted area vegetation. 14. The approved Master Plan for this project required mitigation for conversion of agricultural land the form of agriculturd conversion fees. The applicant has paid all such fees required for this projc 15/16. The site contains areas of Coastal Sage Scrub (gnatcatcher habitat). However, these areas are Coas deed restricted open space areas. This project does not encroach into the deed restricted are Therefore, no significant impacts to species or habitat is expected. 17. The proposed ultimate development (single family residences) for the site is consistent with General 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 v be conditioned to comply with all requirements of the local facilities management plan, thus meeti the demands of the future development proposed for the site. 19. No development is proposed with this current project. However, the upgrading of the Batiquil Pump Station will be required prior to construction of the residential units, and any developmt proposal will be so conditioned. 20. The proposed project will not result in an increase to existing noise levels. Short-term intermittt increases to noise levels which may occur during grading and construction will be minor a insigruficant. 21. Because the proposed project is for finish grading and public infrastructure construction, it will n result in an increase in light or glare. Any necessary street lights will be of the low sodium vane minimizing glare. 22. The proposed project would not be expected to involve a significant risk of explosion or the relei of hazardous substances. 23. Because no development of units is proposed at this time, the project will have no effects on densi 24. The proposed project will ultimately contribute additional housing units to meet current demand. P development is proposed at this time. 25. The proposed project will ultimately generate 340 daily trips. This minor increase in trips is n significant. The existing and proposed new portions of the circulation system will accommodate t€ -7- m a 6. *7. !8. 29. 30. 31. 32. traffic. Circulation and traffic for the project was evaluated in the EIR prepared for the Master Plan No construction of units is proposed currently. Any demand for parking created by the ultimate development of this project will be satisfied on site The proposed project will not impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns o circulation. No new trips will be generated by this project, which is limited to finish grading an infrastructure construction. 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. The project will not increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. The projec is designed to provide adequate separation between vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The project is designed such that it d not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plan Revegetation of slopes after grading was required. This project, involving finish grading ar infrastructure construction would not be expected to result in aesthetic impacts or offensive pub1 views. 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 yar and a community trail. No development is proposed at this time. -8- a 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) development at some hture time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. Q a) The scale of the proposed project (subdivision into 34 single family and 2 open space lots) appropriate as a single phase project. b) The site design is consistent with the approved Master Plan (MP 177). The design includc preservation of open space coastal deed restricted areas. No additional environmental benefits woul be derived by an alternate site design. c) The proposed scale of development (34 dwelling units) is less than the density approved for the si1 in the Master Plan (37 dwelling units.) d) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and with the approved Master Plan. h additional environmental benefits would result from an alternate use. e) The actual development of the site will OCCLU- at a future time. The current project proposal is fc lot subdivision and infrastructure construction only. f) The project site is appropriate for the proposed use. The project does not preclude similar uses c other sites. g) The no-project alternative would not prevent the ultimate development of the site. The proposc project is consistent with the General Plan and the approved Master Plan and provides mitigatic of environmental impacts as required by the EIR for the Master Plan. -9- e e 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 NEGATrVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a sigmfkant effect on the environment, because the environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a sigmficant effect on the environment, there will 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 sigmficant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. . -. ,’$” y/ Date ,if. JY&,, ) L,;, I /%.%- - signadwe I - / ,. i ., , I .% , ?,.a ; / ; j, ;[ I ‘I i d i ’\ 1,. .- . Md . It Date i 1 Planning Director -) ’ ’ LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1 ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -10-