Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-02-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 36170 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3617 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATM DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT 102 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN PLANNING AREAS 25 AND 26 NORTH OF THE AW MASTER PLAN IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 19. CASE NAME: AVIARA PLANNING AREAS 25 & 26 NORTH CASE NO: SDP 93-09 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of February, 199d 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 testimor and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by std and 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 Commissio as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Pl&; Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibj "ND", dated December 23, 1993, and "PII", dated December 14, 1992 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings an subject to the following conditions: ~ I Findin=: - 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project ma have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously cleared and graded and contains no sensitive animz or plant species. 3. The existing and proposed streets are adequate in size to handle the anticipatec traffic. e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significanr impacted by the development and implementation of the master plan. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planni: Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of February, 1994, the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Savary, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Nob: Welshons, & Hall. NOES: Chairperson Erwin. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: . fl n CARLSBAD PLANNING-COMMISSION PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3617 -2- NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATtON: South of Alga Road and north of Batiquitos Drive, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site development plan for the construction of 102 single family dwellings on pregraded, subdivided lots within Planning Areas 25 and 26 North of the Aviara Master Plan. 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 Conditional 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 Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4499. A DATED: DECEMBER 23, 1993 CASE NO: SDP 93-09 CASE NAME: AVIARA PLANNING AREAS 25 & 26N PUBLISH DATE: DECEMBER 23, 1993 MG:vd 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 ( 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) ' CASE NO. SDP 73-09 DATE: December 14, 1993 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North 2. APPLICANT: Warmington Homes 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3090 Pullman Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 557-551 1 4. DATE ETA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 26, 1993 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Site Development Plan for the construction of 102 sinde famil dwellinas on prearaded. subdivided lots within Plannina Areas 25 and 26 North of the Aviar: Master Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUtDELtNES, 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 environmenl The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. Thj :hecklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the propose project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare a Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. : A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project o any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will bc checked to indicate this determination. ': An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of thl project may cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negativl Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemec insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" and 'YES-insig respectively. 1 discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form unde~ IISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussinj litigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT * WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR [NDIECTLY: 1. Resulr in unsrable 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 sire? 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 (SI81 - - - - - - - YES (inslg) - NO x X X X X X X X X X X 0 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT * WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR [ND[RECTLY: YES (sig) 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? 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 ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES big) 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 - YES (inslg) - - YES (insig) - NO X X X X X NO X X 0 0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTL? OR INDIRECTLY: 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? YES !SIR) YES (ins\%) NO - X X 20. Increase existing noise levels.? 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 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 traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view?- Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? -4- - - - - - - - - - - - X X X X X X X X X X X X 0 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTL? 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 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.) YES YES NO (sip) (ins&) - 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 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 - -5- 0 e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Aviara Planning Area 25 &d 26 North proposal involves a Site Development Plan for the constxu of 102 single family homes on pregraded, subdivided pads within Phase I1 of the Aviara Master ?\an. two planning areas are located in the northwestern portion of the master plan, on either side of Kestral I just south of Alga Road. The sites were subdivided and graded through a master tentative map (CT 85 and planning area tentative maps (CT 90-37 and CT 90-38). Both subdivisions received Conditional Neg Declarations that defined the open space areas and established limits of development. While 1 environmental reviews also partially covered potential impacts such as sewer capacity and traffic, these i are also included in this Negative Declaration for clarity. The existing site conditions are typical for those sites in the middle of construction. All native habitat : have been staked, flagged and fenced to prevent encroachment. The pads and'streets have been graded all improvements are being installed. Landscaping has been planted on the exterior manufactured slop the planning areas and other erosion control devices, such as swales and bales, are in place. No sem resources or environmental features exist within the graded neighborhoods and all previous apprc covering the project site have indicated future single family development. Taking into account the developed nature of the site and the previous environmental review, along wit1 environmental discussions below, no sigmficant, adverse environmental impact should occur as a resu the proposed Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North development. PHYSICAL ENvmOIwENT: 1. The single family pads have already been graded and only remedial preparation for building foundations' and some small garden walls are proposed with this development. The compaction of the pads was verified prior to certification and no unstable earth conditions exist. Therefore, this development proposal will not result in unstable earth conditions nor increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, either within the project or on adjoining properties. 2. The site topography is one of pregraded, single family pads on either sides of a local street, with no unique physical features. Since virtually no grading is proposed, there will be no change to the topography of the site. 3. Only remedial pad preparation is proposed and standard erosion control practices will be maintained throughout construction of the dwelling units, therefore no significant on-site erosion should occur. Since the master drainage system has already been installed, no off-site impacts should result either. 4. No beach sands, river or stream channels, oceans, bays, inlets or lakes exist within the Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North. All drainage has been artificially channeled within the neighborhoods. The closest large bodies 'of water and perennial river are the Pacific Ocean, Batiquitos Lagoon and associated San Marcos Creek, located a mile or more to the south and west, thus removed from the project's influence. 5. Construction and occupation of the single family homes within Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North will cause an incremental increase in aerosol emissions in the form of dust, engine exhaust, -6- 0 0 and increased power consumption. However, given the regional nature of air quality, and the programs in the San Diega Basin Air Quality Plan, the relative impact of this project is considered insignrficant. 6. The conversion of surfaces within Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North from the currently pregraded, cleared state to a developed, partially impermeable state will result in changes in various climatological indiees (such as convective and advective air movement, surface moisture and temperature). The level of influence is on the level of microclimatic changes and will not result in signdicant or substantial changes in the surface and air energy and moisture exchanges. No odor sources are proposed with the Aviara Planning Area 25 and 26 North neighborhoods, other than those normally found with the occupation of a single family neighborhood. Therefore no sigTllficant changes to odor levels should result. 7. The closest fresh and marine water sources (Batiquitos Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean) are a mile and further from the project area and no alterations to their normal cycles are expected. Any existing flood water is channeled and directed out of the area southward into the storm drain system for Aviara Phase 11. Therefore, the proposed development of single family homes within Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North will not substantially change the course or flow of marine, fresh, or flood waters. 8. No significant surface waters or groundwater exist within Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North. Construction of the homes may incrementally reduce the public water supply, mostly for dust prevention and concrete mixing. Occupation of the 102 dwelling units will cause a need for approximately 22,440 gallons per day. Both of these water demands can be met by the existing public water supply, which is served through a 1.25 million gallon potable water tank and a 1.25 million gallon reclaimed water tank. In addition, construction of two 8.5 million gallon potable water reservoirs to serve the area will commence in 1994. As an added safety factor, the project will be conditioned such that no building permits be issued unless the Carlsbad Municipal Water District determines that adequate water and service is available at the time of application for water service and will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. If the existing water supply is not sufficient at the time of building permit application, development may be postponed until the additional water reservoirs are operational. Since this condition has been incorporated into the site development plan, the proposed Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North development will not substantially affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply. 9. No significant natural resources, such as non-renewable energy sources, mineral resources, or prime agricultural lands, exist within the Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North project area. Construction and occupation of the residential development will incrementally increase the usage of natural resources through gasoline, natural gas, and electlical energy consumption. Using a natural gas usage factor of 219 cubic feet per unit per year and an electric power usage factor of 15 kilowatt hours per unit per year, occupation of the 102 dwelling units should result in less than a two percent increase in energy consumption. This additional demand is not considered a significant increase in the usage of any natural resource or substantial amount.of fuel or energy. 10. see nine above. -7- * 0 11. The Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North project site does not contain any structures of historical sipficance and no prehistoric sites were identified in previous environmental reviews. Since grading has alread? occurred, the likelihood of locating any paleontological resources not previous identified is scarce. Therefore, no sigTllficant impacts to historic or prehistoric features will occur. 12. Since Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North have been cleared and graded, they have effectively been removed from the wildlife and habitat network. As discussed in the previous environmental review for the tentative maps (CT 90-37 and (X 90-38), the areas around the development have been preserved as part of the master plan open space network and all areas of native habitat have been fenced to preclude encroachment. No impact to the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants should occur as a.result of the construction of the proposed homes. 13. The only new species of plants proposed within Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North are those typical domestic plants found in residential neighborhoods. All previously designated open space and habitat enhancement areas will be monitored and undergo weed eradication as needed to allow the normal replenishment of native species. Therefore the proposed introduction of new plant species and configuration of open space areas will not result in significant adverse impacts. 14. Since the project site is a pregraded, single family subdivision, there are no agricultural crops or prime farmlands within the project boundaries. The proposed development will therefore not sigmficantly reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance. 15. As with the preservation of existing native habitat, the undisturbed areas surrounding the proposed home sites have been designated as open space to maintain areas for native animals to continue to thrive. Since no encroachment into these native areas is proposed, no significant adverse affects to the diversity of species, habitat, or numbers of any species of animals should occur. 16. No new species of animals, other than those typically found in developed residential areas, are proposed with the Aviara Planning Area 25 and 26 North project. Fencing of all open space areas should aide. in keeping domestic animals from adversely affecting the existing fauna to a significant degree. Since the area is cunently graded and fenced, it has effectively been removed from most animal travel routes and no impacts to the migration or movement of animals should occur. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT: 17. The existing land use designations for Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North consist solely of low to medium density residential uses. The proposed development contains this use exclusively. Therefore, no significant alteration of present or planned land uses is proposed. 18. All public utilities required to support the proposed Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North development have been or will be constructed prior to or concurrent with development, as required by the City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program, the Local Facilities Management -8- 0 0 Plan (LFMP) for Zone 19, and the previous tentative map approvals. Therefore, no substantial effects on public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services should occur. 19. The sewer infrastructure serving the Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North deveiopment area has been installed or is in the process of being installed, therefore no impacts to sewer systems should occur. The solid waste collection is conducted by Coast Waste Management Inc., through an agreement with the City of Carlsbad, and the service area expands to meet the needs of new development. If any hazardous wastes are detected during construction operations, the County of San Diego requires testing and proper removal of the materials. All potentially hazardous substances that are stored on site during construcuon must be maintained in safe containers and are monitored by the Carlsbad Fire Department. Therefore, the Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North project will not result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems. 20. A temporary increase in the ambient noise levels will occur during construction operations for the Poinsettia Hill project. As required by the Carlsbad Municipal Code, no construction activities can occur between the hours of sunset and 7:OO am on weekdays and between sunset and 8:OO am on Saturdays. No construction is allowed on Sundays or holidays, except by special permission. The prohibition of construction-related noise during the evening and night, and the temporary nature of the constmction operations will keep the noise levels below a level of significance. The only major arterial in the area of Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North is Alga.Road, which lies directly north of the project site. As a result of this proximity, the previous environmental review for the tentative maps studied the potential noise impacts and required noise mitigation for several lots along Alga Road. Since the noise study has been conducted, and both the approved tentative maps and the proposed site development plan have been conditioned to adhere to the provisions of the noise study, no significant adverse roadway noise impacts should occur. The proximity of the project site to the McClellan-Palomar Airport increases the potential incidence of aircraft noise. In conformance with the City of Carlsbad Noise Policy, the approved tentative maps required an aircraft noise notice to be placed on all properties prior to the recordation of any final map. Given the restriction on and relatively short duration of construction activities, the previously required roadway noise mitigations, and the required aircraft noise notices, the proposed Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North project will not significantly increase existing noise levels. 21. There are no new sources of light or glare proposed with the Aviara Planning Area 25 and 26 North project other than those typical sources, such as street lights, traffic headlights, and residential lighting. Since construction operations are limited to daylight hours, no significant sources or light of glare should occur due to construction operations. Therefore, no significant production of new light or glare should occur as a result of the proposed project. 22. As discussed in item number 19 above, all hazardous materials are required to be kept in safe containers and their status is monitored throughout construction by the Carlsbad Fire Department. If any hazardous substances are discovered on site, the County of San Diego monitors the safe removal of these substances. The project therefore does not involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances. -9- 0 0 23. The proposed density for Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North is exactly that approved through the tentative maps and is 'well within the residential densities associated with the General Plan designation of ResidentidLow Medium density (RlM) which effectively covers the site. Therefore, the proposal does not represent a sigruficant alteration in the density or human population of the area. 24. No permanent residents occupy the Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North sites and the proposed residential uses will provide additional housing supply. In addition, no non-residential uses that would increase housing demand are proposed with the site development plan. Therefore, no signficant affect to existing housing or creation of housing demand will occur due to the Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North project. 25. The estimated additional traffic generated by the proposed development of 102 single family homes would total 1,020 average daily trips (ADT). Since the neighboring roadways of Kestral Drive and Alga Road have a maximum traffic capacity of 10,000 ADT and 40,000 ADT, respectively, no adverse impacts on the proposed roadways should OCCUT due to the Poinsettia Hill development. The off site effects of the traffic generated by this project have already been reviewed through the master tentative map and the neighborhood tentative maps and can be found in "Transportation Analysis for Aviara Phase 1, 2, and 3 Tentative Tract Maps", prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc., dated December 7, 1992 and on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts due to the additional traffic generation of the-occupation of Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North should take place. 26. There are no existing parking facilities within the Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North sites. All demand for additional parking will be provided concurrent with development, through the provision of three car garages and street parking, as required by the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The RV storage requirements for the entire Aviara Master Plan have been satisfied by the construction of a storage site within Planning Area 23. Therefore, the proposed project will not affect existing parking facilities or create a large demand for new parking. 27. There are no alterations to any existing patterns of circulation proposed with the Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North project. Since the single family home sites are graded and fenced, no existing transportation system use the project site. The Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North proposal will therefore not adversely impact transportation systems or sigmficantly alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. 28. No waterborne, rail or air traffic use the Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North sites directly. Batiquitos Lagoon is restricted from any waterborne traffic and the closest rail line is the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe line west of Interstate 5. The proximity of the project site to the McClellan- Palomar Airport subjects the area to aircraft overflight, however no height restrictions are necessary since the aircraft are flying at sufficient altitude. The Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North development will therefore not significantly alter waterborne, rail or air traffic. w 29. The construction activities for the homes within Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North& confined to the planning areas themselves and no significant operations are needed within existing traffic routes. No public pedestrian or bicycle trafflc need use the sites for transportation. -10- 0 e Therefore, the Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North project will not sigruficantly increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. 30. The Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North sites are not included as a part of any City-wide or local emergency response or evacuation plans. An all-weather emergency access is required to be maintained throughout construction and all emergency response or evacuation needs are monitored by the Carlsbad Fire Department. The Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North proposal will not adversely interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. 31. The topography of Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North makes the site partially visible from Alga Road to the north, however the project includes a large amount of architectural variation and 15 percent of the homes have been restricted to one-story. Since the project area is located on relatively high ground, no obstruction of views will occur with development of the site. Therefore, the construction and occupation of Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North will not obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view. 32. Because of the pregraded and fenced nature of the project site, no recreational opportunities currently exist within the Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North development area. The 102 dwelling units proposed within the two planning areas will produce a demand of approximately 0.71 acres of park facilities. The 24.25 acre community park within Aviara Phase 111 will accommodate this demand along with the remainder of the park 'demands for the neighboring properties. The development of Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North will therefore not adversely affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. 33. As discussed in the preceding text, the proposed Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of 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 endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The proposed development is does not interfere with the previously established and preserved ecological constraints and no affects to such are anticipated. 34. Some short-term impacts will result from the project, as detailed above, however these are detennined to be individually and cumulatively insignificant. All long-term facility impacts are monitored and compensated by the administration of the City Growth Management Program. Therefore the Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North proposal does not have the potential to achieve short-tern, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 35. As detailed above, the proposed Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North development is consistent with the applicable Local Facilities Management Plan and other previously approved planning documents. All potential impacts will be mitigated to an individual level of insignificance and conformance with area-wide planning documents precludes cumulative impacts. The Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North project does not have the possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. -1 1- 0 e 36. All human related impacts have been shown to be insigmficant. As discussed in items 17 through 32 above, no substantialadverse effects on human beings, either direct or indirect, are expected to OCCUT. -12- 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) development at some future time rather than now, t-) alternate sires for the proposed, and rz g) no project airernative. a) The development of homes within Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North will most likely be phased, due to financial constraints. All infrastructure and improvements are necessary for the eventual development of the planning areas has been or will be installed prior to development of the single family homes. While phasing of the construction will most likely occur, no environmental advantages are being gained by this phasing and it is therefore not required. b) The site design for Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North has already been effectively established by the previous subdivision maps. Alternate site designs would likely increase encroachment into habitat or heavily sloping topography and would produce more environmental impacts. c) The scale of the development is in keeping with all existing approvals, including the Carlsbad General Plan, the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, the applicable Local Coastal Program,. the Aviara Master Plan, and the approved tentative maps. A reduction of the scale of development could upset the housing balance. An alternate scale of development would not provide a viable, environmentally preferable project. d) All related planning documents and approved subdivision maps effectively call for low to medium density residential development within Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North. Alternate uses of the site would be in conflict with all planning documents and would not increase the environmental sensitivity of the project. e) The postponement of development does not necessarily offer environmental advanrages. As job opportunities in the City increases, so does the need for housing. Also, while they are insignificant, the potential environmental impacts of the project are not time- dependent and no advantage would be gained from delaying development. f) The site development plan for Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North is specifically designed for the existing constraints and opportunities of the pregraded, subdivided project site. Relocation of the project is neither logical nor necessary. g) Since Aviara Planning Areas 25 and 26 North are planned for development in the Carlsbad General Plan, the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, the applicable Local Coastal Program, the Aviara Master Plan, and the approved subdivision maps, the no project alternative would not be in conformance with these documents. The no project alternative would not produce any significant. environmental advantages. -12- 0 0 DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial ;valuation: __. X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGAT - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because DECLARATION will be prepared. environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction m previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is requiI Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there 1 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 prepared. - I find the proposed project MAY have a signific'ant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. -9 / ,... p- I . c (' "--- 1 I _I / Date l /a- 17- fl Date LIST MITIGATING MEASURES ([F APPLICABLE) -13- 0 e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WiTH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT [ HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature A1C:vd -14-