HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-05-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 33951
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3395
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR PLANNING AREA 30 OF THE AVIARA
MASTER PLAN.
CASE NAME: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 30
CASE NO: CT 90-30/PUD 91-6
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of May, 19
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, an
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the informal
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planr
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commis2
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planr
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaral
according to Exhibit "ND", dated December 12, 1991, and "PII", dated Noven
26, 1991, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the follow
findings:
Findings:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project 1
have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental anal;
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the propc
project.
4. The project site has already been reviewed under Master Plan EIR 83-2(A) and
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Aviara Phase I1 Master Tentative Mal
89-37), and, as designed, the project implements all recommended mitiga
measures of said EIR 83-2(A) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
I/ e 0 il
1 5. The project will preserve in open space the previously deed restricted coasta
resource boundary areas.
2
3 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planninl
4 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of May, 1992, b:
5 the following vote, to wit:
6 AYES: Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Noble, Welshons
7
8
9 ABSENT: None.
Savary & Hall.
NOES: Chairperson Erwin.
10
11
12
13
14
15
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
Tk- P
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
dm -.Y j ,c
17 MICHZL J. HO~ZMIL~ER
18 // PLANNING DIRECTOR
19
20
21
22
23
24
i
25
26
27
28
PC RES0 NO. 3395 -2-
NEGATnrE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South of Batiquitos Drive between Aviara Drive and
Interstate 5.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Tentative Tract Map for 101 residential 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 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 Elaine Blackburn in the
Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4471.
\
DATED: DECEMBER 12, 1991
CASE NO: CT 90-30
v v MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
APPLICANT: AvlARA LAND ASSOCIATES, LTD PARTNERSHIP
PUBLISH DATE: DECEMBER 12,1991
EB:vd
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161
0 0
ENvlRoNMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
CASE NO. CT 90-30
DATE: JULY 26. 19:
1. ' CASE NAME: Aviara Planning Area 30
2. APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates Limited PartnershiD
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 2O(
1
Carlsbad. CA 92009
(619)931-1190
4. DATE ELA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 10. 1990
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Tract Map for 101 sinnle family lots and 2 open space IC
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 Environmen
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project
to indicate this determination.
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checE
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of 1
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 deem
insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings '"YES-sig" and "YES-ins
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form unc
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particulx attention should be given to discussi
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined s~,dcant.
e
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WIU THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
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?
Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
-2-
0
YES
big)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
YES
(insig)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NO
X
X
X
X -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e 0
BIOLOGICAL EN"IR0NMENT
MLL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
big) (insig)
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 state or local
importance?
- - X
X - -
X -
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? 7 - - X
16. Introduce new species of animals into
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals? X -
HUMAN ENVIRONMiiqT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES YES NO
@I (insig)
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other public sexvices?
-
-
X - -
x - -
-3-
*
HUMANENVIRONMENT
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
big)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NO
(insig)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0 0
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
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
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.
animal community, reduce the number 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.)
36. Does the project have env&onmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
f
X - -
X -
X - -
X - -
-5-
0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 0
Project DescriDtion
The proposed project involves finish grading and infrastructure construction for Planning Area 30 of t
Aviara Master Plan. This tentative tract map provides 101 single family lots and 2 open space lots on a 5;
acre site. The project site has been mass graded as part of the Aviara Master Plan CT 89-37. The propos
project is consistent with Master Tentative Tract Map (CT 89-37) for the Master Plan, and mitigati
measures as required by the Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR 83-2(A)) have been implementc
1. The proposed project will not result in unstable earth conditions or exposure to geologic hazards. 7
for the Master Plan), The proposed finish grading and infrastructure construction will involve 46,7
mass grading for the site has been done in compliance with CT 89-37 (the approved tentative n
cubic yards of grading. The grading is balanced on site.
2. Any major topographic changes were evaluated in the EIR prepared for the Master Plan. Only mix
changes will result from the finish grading and infrastructure construction of the current project.
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
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 Plann
Area 28, (to the southeast) to mitigate potential impacts from soil erosion. The drainage and eros
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. 1
ultimate development of the site (into single family residences) will contribute incrementally to
increase in local and regional air pollution. This project (when ultimately developed) will gener
only a minor amount of traffic (1,010 average daily trips). No development is proposed at this ti
6. The project will not result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperat1
Air quality impacts (dust) from grading activities will be controlled by watering. No structures
proposed at this time.
7. The project will not change the come or flow of waters. No water bodies are located within .
8. The project will not affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water, or public wi
planning area. Batiquitos Lagoon is located approximately 400 feet to the south of this planning a]
supply. The project is conditioned to provide adequate facilities to handle any increased TU]
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
substantial amounts of fuel or energy. The project involves only finish grading and infrastrucl construction at this time.
11. All mitigation for archaeological, paleontological, and historic sites required by the Master Plan
has been done.
-6-
0 0
11. All &tigation for archaeological, paleontological, and historic sites required by the Master plan E] has been done.
12. The EIR prepared for the Master Plan identified areas of Coastal Sage Scrub and required mitigatic
in the form of Coastal deed restricted open space areas. The proposed subdivision does not encroac
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 4th tl deed restricted area vegetation.
14. The approved Master Plan for this project required mitigation for conversion of agricultural land :
the form of agricultural conversion fees. The applicant has paid all such fees required for this projec
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 wirh tl
General Plan and with the Master Plan (MP 177) goveming development of the site.
.8. The proposed project will not substantially affect public utilities or public services. The project wj
be conditioned to comply with all requirements of the local facilities management plan, thus meetir
the demands of the future development proposed for the site.
19. No development is proposed with this current project. However, the upgrading of the Batiquitc
Pump Station will be required prior to construction of the residential units, and any developmer
proposal will be so conditioned.
10. The proposed project will not result in an increase to existing noise levels. Short-term intermitter
increases to noise levels which may occur during grading and construction will be minor an
insignificant.
11. Because the proposed project is for finish grading and public infrastructure construction, it will nc
result in an increase in light or glare. Any necessary street lights will be of the low sodium varie?
minimizing glare.
!2. The proposed project would not be expected to involve a significant risk of explosion or the releas
of hazardous substances,
!3. Because no development of units is proposed at this time, the project will have no effects on densiq
4. The proposed project will ultimately contribute additional housing units to meet current demand. Nc
development is proposed at this time.
!5. The proposed project will ultimately generate 1,010 daily trips. This minor increase in trips is nc
. significant. The existing and proposed new portions of the circulation system will accommodate thi
-7-
a e
traffic. Circulation and traffic for the project was evaluated in the EIR prepared for the Master Pla
No construction of units is proposed currently.
26. Any demand for parking created by the ultimate development of this project will be satisfied on si
27. The proposed project will not impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns
circulation. No new trips will be generated by this project, which is limited to finish grading a:
infrastructure construction.
28. The proposed project will not alter waterborne, rail, or air traffic. There are no water bodies or r
lines on or adjacent to the site. The project is not within the Airport Influence Area for McClell
Palomar Airport.
29. The project will not increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. The projf
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 plar
31. Revegetation of slopes after grading was required. This project, involving finish grading a
infrastructure construction would not be expected to result in aesthetic impacts or offensive pub 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 yar(
No development is proposed at this time.
-8-
e e
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SKH 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 proposed project (subdivision into 101 single family and 2 open space lots) will be develope(
in three phases. The first phase will include 32 lots, the second phase 28 lots, and the third phasc
41 lots.
b) The site design is consistent with thE ,?proved Master Plan (MF '-77). The design includp:
preservation of open space mastal deed . . rricted areas. No additional xwironmental benefits wc
be derived by an alternate site design.
c) The proposed scale of development (101 dwelling units) is less than the density approved for thc
site in the Master Plan 137 dwelling units.
d) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and with the approved Master Plan. Nc
additional 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 fo:
lot subdivision and infrastructure construction only.
f) The project site is appr: ?riate for the proposed use. The project does not preclude similar uses 01 other sites.
g) The no-project alternative would not prevent the ultimate development of the site. The propose4
project is consistent with the General Plan and the approved Master Plan and provides mitigatiol
of environmental impacts as required by the EIR for the Master Plan.
-9-
m 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, an(
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
because the environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered i~
conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and no additiona
environmental review is required. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmenl
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures describe(
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaratio~
will be proposed.
- I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a; ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date A?L" Signaturb . \
.: -
f - 1 Date I Phnhg Director\ -I !_I
LIST MITIGATING MEPLSURES (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:h
-11-