The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-06-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 3778b 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 l e e PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3778 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 35 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION FOR AVIARA PLANNING AREA 27 OF THE AVIARA MASTER PLAN. CASE NAME: CANTATA - PLANNING AREA 27 CASE NO: SDP 95-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of June, 19 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1 relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the 1 Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the 1 Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration awl Exhibit “ND”, dated May 18, 1995, and “PII”, dated May 3, 1995, i hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project n a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental i 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed 4. The project site has been previously reviewed under Master Plan EIR 83-2 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Aviara Phase II Master Tentative b 89-37, the Negative Declaration for the Tentative Map (CT 90-34), and the 1 Declaration prepared for this project dated May 10, 1995. As designed, thc implements all recommended mitigation measures of the above enviro documents. _. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0 a 5. The project will preserve in open space the previously deed restricted boundary areas. 6, The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Residential Low R, (RLM) Land Use designation and the City's Growth Management Plan and th will not exceed the official regional or local population projections. The 35 ne were anticipated in the Aviara Master Plan as well as the Carlsbad Gener; and Growth Management Plan. The project will therefore, not induce subr growth in the area. The site is currently vacant, and will therefore not displ: existing housing stock. 7. Due to the site location, the proposed project will not affect a scenic vista 01 highway. The units have been designed to ensure architectural compatibili the surrounding area including compatible materials, color and size. The pr unit designs will not create an aesthetically offensive public view or pro' significant source of new light or glare. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of June by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Welshons; Commissioners Compas, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble and Savary. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 25 26 27 28 F ATTEST KIM WkLSHONS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMI A MICHAE 4y4I , J. HOLZ ILLER PLANNI~G DIREGCTOR PC RES0 NO. 3778 -2- 0 0 -_ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/L,OCATION: Located on the northside of Batiquitos Drivc between Kestrel Drive and Blackrail Court in Loca Facilities Management Zone 19, City of Carlsbad County of San Deigo, State of California. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Development Plan to allow the development of 35 single family residential units within an existing vacant residential pad ir Aviara Planning Area 27. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projecj pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act anc the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, 2 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 fde ir the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannini Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public art invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of datt of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Terri Woods in the Planning Department a (619) 438-1 161, extension 4447. DATED: MAY 10, 1995 &wfiik$w CASE NO: SDP 95-05 P1 ' g Director CASE NAME: CANTATA - AURA PLANNING AREA 27 PUBLISH DATE: MAY 10, 1995 ~"t" MICHA J. HOL~ILLER 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 .- 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II -_ (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO. SDP 95-05 DATE: MAY 3. 1995 1. CASE NAME: Cantata - Aviara Planning Area 27 2. APPLICANT: Coscan Davidson Homes. Inc. 3. ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 12865 Pt. Del Mar. #ZOO Del Mar. CA 92014 (619) 481-8500 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMI’ITED: April4.1995 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Development Plan to allow the development of 35 sin$ residential units with an existing vacant residential Dad in Aviara Planning Area 27. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FAnORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involvj one impact that is a “Potentially significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Land Use and Planning - Transportation/Circulation - Public Services - Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service - Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics - Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources - Air Quality - Noise - Recreation , - Mandatory Findings of Significance I- 1 Rev. 1/30/9 0 9 “DETERMINATION. -. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGA DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,.there will n a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been : to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMEh IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effc has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the eff a “potentially signifcant impact” or “potentially signifbnt unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IME REPORT/MITIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the effects that rc to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adeql in an earlier EIR/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EmTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, incl revisions or mitigation measures that are impsed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Compliance has been prepared. lJ& 4% dl I? .f Planner Signature Date 1 “ r/ 5/q/F- Date ‘ I/ 1-2 Rev. 1/30/9 .. 0 0 .* .’ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Envi Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Envi Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies an] biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with in to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Dc or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately SUI an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “NO Impact” answer is 2. supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to pr( the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document t8 or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential itn~ adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of j measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significan The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, a explain how they reduce the effect to a less than signifhnt level. e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is sig 0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effex environment, but a potentially si@1cant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earli’ Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable. standards and (b) have been avoided or pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation that are imposed upon the proposed project, then no additional environmental document is requi Compliance). e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the proj, of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 0 If there are one or more potentially signifhnt effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation mes agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significa Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be p e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prew if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable stan the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Ovemding Considerations” has been made pursw earlier EIR. 1-3 Rev. 1/30/9 .” 0 @ .. .. .. e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limi following circmm: (1) the potentially sigdicant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures t.l the impact to less than signifkant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the signific; to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine th significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation n reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce t A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fo DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to ( mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 1-4 Rev. 1}30}95 ” .. a 0 - .. Issues (and suppcating Infomatial saurces): Potentially Potentially UdeSS LessThan significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Significant I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): #1, pg. 7) - - - b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l, pg. 7) - - - c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? w, pg. 7) - - - d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (#l, pg. 7) - - - e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority comLulity)? (#l, pg. 7) - - - II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l, pg. 7) - - - b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major bcture)? (#1 , pg. 7) - - - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#1, pg. 7) - - - III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l , pg. 6) - - - b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l, pg. 6) - - - 1-5 Rev, 1/30/9: . " .. 0 e .- Issues (and Supporting Infmatim Sources): Potentially Significant Impact c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? @I, Pg. 6) - d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l, pg. 6) - e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l, pg. 6) - f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l, pg. 6) - g) Subsidence of the land? (#l, pg. 6) - h) Expansive soils? (#l, pg. 6) - i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l, pg. 6) - IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattern, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l, pg. 7) - b) Exposure of' people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l, pgs. 6 & 7) - c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l, pg. 6) - d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#1, pg. 6) - e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l, pg. 6) - Potentially significant Unless Mitigation Incurpcxated - - - - - - - - - - - - LessThan Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#1, pg. 6) - - - g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#1, Pg. 6) - - - 1-6 Rev. 1/30/9! ..+ .. * m Issues (ami Supporting Infmatim Sources): Potentially significant Potentially UdeSS Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l, pg. 6) - - i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l, pg. 6) - - V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l, pg. 6) - - b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l, pg. 6) - - c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temprature, or cause any change in climate? (#l, pg. 6) - - d) Create objectionable odors? (#l, pg. 6) - - VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#1, pgs. 7 & 8) - - b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l, pgs. 7 & 8) - - c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l, pgs. 7 & 8) - - d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#1, pg. 8) - - e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l, pg. 8) - -. f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l, pg. 8) - - g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1, pg. 8) - - VU. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: LessThan Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1-7 Rev. 1/30/! .*I ” e e Issues (and Suppming Illform3tim sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incuprated Impact a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l, pg. 7) - - - b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l, Pg. 7) - - - c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l, pg. 7) - - - d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#L Pg- 7) - - - e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l, pg. 7) - - - VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l, pg. 6) - - - b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#1, pg. 6) - - - c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#1 , pg. 6) - - - IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (#l, pg. 6) - - - b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#1 , pg. 8) - - - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (#1 , pgs. 7 & 8) - - - d) Exposure of people to existing soufces of potential health hazards? (#1, pgs. 7 & 8) - - - 1-8 Rev. 113019 -.- ,- 0 e hes (and supporting mlmaticn scurces): Potentially Significant Impact e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l, pgs. 7 & 8) - X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l, pg. 7) - b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l, pg. 7) - XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have & effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l, pg. 8) - b) Police protection? (#l, pg. 8) - c) Schools? (#l, pg. 8) - d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#1, pg. 8) - e) Other governmental services? (#l, pg. 8) - XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l, pg. 7) - Potentially Significant UIlleSS Mitigation Incorporated - - - - - - - - - hThan Significant Impact - - - - - - .- - - b) Communications systems? (#l, pg. 7) - - - c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l, pg. 6) - - - d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l, pg. 7) - - - e) Storm water drainage? (#l, pg. 6) - - - f) Solid waste disposal? (#l, pg. 7) - - - g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l, pg. 6) - - - 1-9 Rev. 1/30/95 ._I .. e 0 Issues (and Suppming Infmatim sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless LessThan significant Mitigation Significant Iapct hqaated hpct ! XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (#l, pg. 8) - - - b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (#1, pg. 8) - - - c) Create light or glare? (#l, pg. 7) - - - XN. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l, pg. 7) - - - b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l, pg. 7) - - - c) Affect historical resources? (#l, pg. 7) - - - d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l, pg. 7) - - - e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l, pg. 7) - - - XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l, pg. 8) - - - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l, pg. 8) - - - XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to 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 endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? - - - I - 10 Rev. 1/30/95 I.. 0 0 Issues (and Suppating Information sourceS): potentially Significant Potentially UdesS LessThan Signifiiaut Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated hpc t b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”. means that the incremental effects of a 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) - - - c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - - I- 11 Rev. 1/30/9 ” a e ” XVII. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Earlier analyses has been conducted on the project site and involved the potential impacts of this except as discussed below. The prior environmental analysis can be found in the Environrnenta Assessment Form - Part 11 for Aviara Planning Area 27 (CT 90-34), dated May 14, 1991 and on fi City of Carlsbad Planning Department. The potential impacts addressed in this earlier analysis inch use and planning, geological problems, water, air quality, transportation/circulation, biological r{ energy and mineral resources, hazards, noise, public services, utilities and service systems, cultural rc recreation, and mandatory frndings of si@1cance. The issues analysis related to population and hol aesthetics were not adequate for the proposed units therefore, additional analysis is provided belou The prior environmental analysis addressed all impacts associated with the proposed finished subdivision of land for 35 single family lots, and necessary infrastructure improvements. How following issues were not adequately addressed in the previous environmental document: II. Pomlation and Housing a)b)c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Residential Low Medium (RLM) L Designation and the City’s Growth Management Plan and therefore will not exceed the official or local population projections. The Proposed 35 new units were anticipated in the Pacific Rh Plan for the Aviara area as well as in the Carlsbad General Plan and Growth Management P1 project will therefore, not induce substantial growth in the area. The site is currently vacant, therefore not displace any existing housing stock. XII. Aesthetics a)b)c) Due to the site location, the proposed project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. ? have been designed to ensure architectud compatibility with the surrounding area including co materials, colors and size. The proposed unit designs will not create an aesthetically offensi7 view or produce a significant source of new light or glare. Except as noted above, no additional issues over those addressed in the prior environmental document h identified. Based on the prior environmental analysis and the supplemental information provided a significant impacts are anticipated from this project. Xvm. SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (Note: All the source documents are on file in the City of Carlsbad : Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (619) 438-1 161, extension, 1. Environmental Impact Assessment part II for CT 90-34, Dated May 14, 1991, City of Carlsbad : Department. I - 12 Rev. 1/3O/S - .I e e ‘1 LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) NIA ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM W APPLICABLE) NIA I- 13 Rev. 1130/95 r e e .: APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REvlEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASUl AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature .. I- 14 Rev. 1/30/9! -r--. Ir - _. . - ARPORT &B#B#MBMBBB: I I m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ?U'% I I ~nQulTosw1=ooN .. city of Cart&d r AVIARA PLANNING AREA 27 SDP 95-05