The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-06-18; City Council; Resolution 91-185t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 20 mug 1?>- 13 0LO0 aoaa 14 Z>AZ GI--= ms'o OLL 15 >mu ~UWO yj$&6 16 20~~ 'kg? ps 17 Go 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Eam gp; U'UJ a 0 RESOLUTION NO. 91-185 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT : CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO. : SP-201 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on April 3, 15 and on April 17, 1991 hold a duly noticed public hearing prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing considering all testimony and arguments, examining the init study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, considering any written comments received, the Planning Commiss considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That based on the evidence presented at the puk hearing, the City Council hereby recommends approval of negative declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated July 1989, and llPIIvl, dated July 5, 1989, attached hereto and mad part hereof, based on the following findings: FINDINGS 1. The initial study shows that there is no substant evidence that the project may have a significant impact on environment. 2. The site has been previously graded and used agricultural purposes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Om w>E' L%wm 13 &E& .ow gb:: 14 Z>iZ OI-gC mGnQ 15 una? 5t;w 8226 16 208s qgy L?$ 17 Go 18 19 *O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 %e2 0 0 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle tra: generated by the proposed project. 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsitc located so as to be significantly impacted by this project. 5. The proposed guidelines will establish comprehensive set of development standards to ensure that T development occurs it will be aesthetically pleasing and pro' property owners with a reasonable use of their land. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the li3th day of Juri 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Larson, Nygaard, and NOES: None ABSENT: None Stanton ATTEST: " t@* ' 1 AL* ;VTENmi~perk (SEAL) NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: For the area bounded by Descanso Boulevard, 01 Highway 101, La Costa Boulevard, and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Development Plan establishing development standarc and guide1 ines, The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above describc project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Californi Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the Cit of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaratic that the project will not rlave a significant impact on the environment) is heret issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in tt P1 anning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in tt Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comment from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Plannir Department within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance. DATED: July 12, 1989 MICHAEL J. HONILLEO CASE NO: SDP 89-9 P1 anning Director APPLICANT: City of Carl sbad PUBLISH DATE: July 12, 1989 AML : af 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 0 (619) 438-1 If Hail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Wreet, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 ~ w-0613 NOTICE OF OPLETIOY W EYVIROYEYTAL WaJlEYT FORI( see WTE Belar: r 1. Project Title La Costa Downs 2. Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad 3. Contact Person: Adrienne Landers 3a. Street Address: 2075 Las Palmas Drive 3b. City: Carlsbad 3'2. county: San Diego 3d. Zip: 92002 3e. Phone: (619) 438-1161 FROJECT LOCATION 4. County: San Dieao 4a. City/Comnunity: Carlsbad Lb.(optional) Assessor's Parcel No. 4c. Section: Tup. Range 5a. Cross streets: Descanso Blvd 8 Old Highuay 101 5b. Nearest Comnunity: 6. Uithin 2 miles of: a. State Huy No. 101 b. Airports Palmar c. Wal For Rural, 7. DOCUMENT TYPE 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE CEQA 01 - General PLan Update 01 - Residential: Units Acres - - NOP 02 - Neu Element 02 - Office: Sq. Ft. 01 - 02 - Early Cons Acres Employees - 03 - General Plan Amendment 03 X Neg Dec 04 - Draft EIR OS - Annexation Acres Emp 1 oyees 05 - Supplement/ (if so, prior SCH # 07 - Redevelopnent Acres Employees OG - Master Plan 03 - Shopping/ComnerciaL: Sq. Ft. 06 - Specific Plan 04 - Industrial: Sq. Ft. Subsequent EIR 1 08 - Rezone 05 - Sewer: MGD NEPA 09 - Land Oivision 06 - Water: MGD 06 - Notice of Intent 07 - Envir. Assessment/ - (Subdivision, Parcel Map. Tract Map, etc.) 07 - Transportation: Type 10 - Use Permit 08 - Mineral Extraction: Mineral FONSI 08 - Draft EIS OTHER 12 X Other Site Development Plan Type: 09 - Information Only 10 X Other: Development Standards 10 - Final Docunent 9 TOTAL ACRES: 11 - Cancel Ag Preserve 09 - Pouer Generation: Wattage 11 - Other: 11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT 01 x AestheticIVisual 02 X Agricultural Land 03 X Air Quality 04 - Archaeologicai/Historical/ 08 - Geologic/Seismic 09 - Jobs/Housing Balance 10 - Minerals 11 X Noise 15 X sewer Capacity 16 - Soil Erosion 17 - Solid Uaste 18 - Toxic/Hazardous 22 - Uater Sup 23 - Uetland/R 24 - Uildlife 25 - Growth In Paleontological 12 X Public Services 19 X Traffic/Circulation 26 - Incanpati 27 - Cunulativ 28 - Other - 20 X Vegetation 21 - Uater Quality 05 - Coastal 06 - Fi re Hazard 07 - FLooding/Drainage 12 FUNDING (approx.) Federal S State S Total L 13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: Vacant R-1-10, 000 14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Developnent Standards 13 - Schools 14 - Septic Systems 15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE: Date: 7/6/89 MOTE: C[earinghouse Mi[[ assign identificat f a SCH W*r already exists ' - project (e.g. from a (Notice of Preparation or previous draft docunent) please fill it in. e REVIEWING AGENCIES 0 Resources Agency CTRPA (Cal TRPA) Air Resources Board Conservation Fish and Game Parks and Recreation X Coast a] Cornmi s s i on Cal trans District TRPA (Tahoe RPA) Bay Conservation 8. Dev’t Comm Office of Historic Preservation Native American Heritage Comm X Caltrans - Planning State Lands Comm Cal trans - Aeronautics Public Utilities Comm Cal i forni a Highway Patrol Boating and Waterways Forestry Health Services St at e Water Resoruce s Control Energy Comm Food and Agri cul ture Statewide Health Planning (hospitals: Board - Headquarters Housing and Community Dev’t - Regional Water Qual i ty Control Corrections Board, Reg i on General Services Division of Water Rights (SWRCB) Office of Local Assistance Division of Water Quality (SWRCB) Public Works Board Department of Water Resources Office of Appropriate Tech. (OPR) Recl amat i on Board Local Government Unit (OPR) Sol id Waste Management Board Col orado River Board Other Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy FOR SCH USE ONLY Catalog Number Date Received at SCH Date Review Starts Proponent Date to Agencies Consultant Date to SCH Contact Phone C1 earance Date Address Notes: w 0 ENVIRONMENFBL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM .I PART 11 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. SP 201 DATE : 7/5/89 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD. CA 92009 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: NOVEMBER 3. 1986 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a set of development standards formulated by the City of Carlsbad for a "paper subdivisiont1 known as La Costa Downs. The proposed set of guidelines is intended to allow property owners the full use of their land in a manner consistent with City standards. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the general plan designations for this area and will not create any significant changes in land use. Staff has done several field inspections and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan will not create any negative environmental impacts. The proposed development guidelines may reduce some of the impacts experienced by the future residents of the subject site. 111. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) - NC - YES MAY BE 1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? - b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? - c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? - 0 YES MAY BE - NO 0 d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique e. Any increase in wind or water geologic or physical features? X erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X 2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X odors? X moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally b. The creation of objectionable c. Alteration of air movement, or regionally? X 3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow b. Changes in absorption rates, of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X -2- YES MAYBE - NO 0 f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? - g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? - h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? - 4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? - b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species c. Introduction of new species of plants of plants? - into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? - agricultural crop? - d. Reduction in acreage of any 5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? - rare or endangered species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, - c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? - d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? - -3- - YES o MAYBE - NO e I f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X X 4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species X of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing d. Reduction in acreage of any species? X agricultural crop? X 5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of d. Deterioration to existing fish or X animals? X wildlife habitat? X -3- - YES MAYBE - NO 0 0 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly 7. Lisht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- increase existing noise levels? X nificantly produce new light or glare? X 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X 9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal a. Increase in the rate of use of any b. Depletion of any nonrenewable have significant results in: natural resources? X natural resource? X Risk of Umet - Does the proposal 10. involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X 11. Powlation - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the 12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. TransPortation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: human population of an area? X a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facili- c. Impact upon existing transportation d. Alterations to present patterns of ties, or demand for new parking? X systems? X circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X -4- MAYBE 0 YES W e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Enerav - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of 16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities! a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? -5- e 0 NO MAYBE - - YES 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X 18. Aesthetics - Will the'proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? X 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or bu i Id ing? X 21. Analyze 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, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. A) The proposed project is a set of standards and requirements to t: followed as the existing subdivision develops. The subject site wil naturally phase itself because the lots are individually owned and wil develop over a period of time. B) The subject site is already subdivided. Alternate designs are nc relevant. C) N/A. Existing subdivision. D) Alternate uses for this site would be inconsistent with the Generz Plan, Local Coastal Program, and the City's Zoning Ordinance. E) Development at some future time would not significantly alter tl environmental impacts. F) N/A because the site is already designated for single family homes. G) The site would remain agricultural. A %o-projecttl alternative woul not significantly alter the environmental impacts. -6- w m - NO YES MAY BE 22. Mandatory findinqs of sianificance - a. 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 b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- goals? environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) - c. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively con- siderablell 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 of California history or prehistory. - advantage of long-term, environmental (A short-term impact on the the effects of probable future projects.) - d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - IV. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed project is strictly a set of development guidelines existing subdivision; however, to be more complete, the envirc review also analyzes development of the Specific Plan area. 1. EARTH: Years ago the subject site was subdivided into individual lots. As these lots are developed, minor grading occur to create building pads but no significant impacts anticipated. -7- 0 0 D.ISCUSSI0N OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued] 2. AIR: Development of the Specific Plan area will create an increme increase in air quality impacts. This incremental increase is considered significant. 3. WATER: Development of this project will create impervious surfaces onsite which would reduce absorption rates and incrementally increase surface runoff and runoff velocities. However, to accommodate this incremental runoff, drainage facilities (driveway swale) will be incorporated into the project to divert the runoff to new curb and gutter thereby mitigating this concern. 4&5. PLANT/ANIMAL LIFE: The site is currently under agriculture with no significant plant or animal life existing on the property. 6. NOISE: Construction of the project may result in short term, insignificant noise impacts upon surrounding residences. Otherwise, the project is compatible with surrounding residential/agricultural land uses and will not create significant noise impacts. Because this is an existing subdivision, noise impacts cannot be reduced any lower than the mitigation measures in the Specific Plan created. LIGHT AND GLARE: The proposal has no significant light producing elements. 8. LAND USE: Development of this project is consistent with the General Plan and the Mello I1 segment of the Local Coastal Plan. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES: Implementation of this project will incrementally contribute to the depletion of fossil fuels and other natural resources during construction and operation. This incremental increase is not considered significant. 10. RISK OF UPSET: The proposed project is surrounded by either This project presents no 7. residential or agricultural land uses. risk of upset to these surrounding uses. 11. POPULATION: Implementation of this project may encourage growth upon surrounding undeveloped properties. However, since the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan specifies that all public facilities will be available within this area to allow for development, no population or growth related impacts are anticipated. 12. HOUSING: This project will provide approximately 25 housing units. These 'dwellings will respond to an identified housing demand within the area. -8- w e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: This proposed project will initiat improvements (pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk) to Descans Boulevard, Franciscan Road, Anacapa Road, and La Costa Boulevard The project will add approximately 290 ADT to these streets a well as adjacent roadways. This minor increase in traffic is no considered significant. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES: As identified in the Local Facilitie Management Plan for Zone 22, a comprehensive financing pla guaranteeing construction of the Phase B drainage facility ar installation of required circulation improvements must I: completed prior to the issuance of building permits. All othe facilities in this zone have been determined to be in complianc with the adopted performance standards. Therefore, once tk financing plans have been approved for drainage and circulatior all facility impacts will have been mitigated, 15. ENERGY: The project will require an incremental increase in tk use of energy to both construct and to occupy the dwellings This small increase is not considered significant. 16. UTILITIES: See 14 above. 17. This project will not result in any human heal1 18. AESTHETICS: This project will not result in any impacts I scenic vistas or open space corridors. The proposed guideline will limit building height and provide guidelines regardi] building bulk and mass. Review and approval by the Plannil Director will be required to ensure that proposed structures wi: be compatible with surrounding development. 19. RECREATION: This project will create a small increment; increase in demand for recreational facilities. There exis1 adequate recreational amenities within southwest quadrant of tl City. In addition, the project lots have sufficient size * allow significant private recreational space for the occupants ( the dwellings. 2 0. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL: The site has bel previously disturbed due to agricultural activities. significant archaeological or historical resources a anticipated to exist. HUMAN HEALTH: hazards or impacts. Re1 -9- e e e V. 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant 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. Declaration will be proposed. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. A Conditional Negative ;':-/, 7 -</A , , , - ; & fs , -( L /' * Date Signature ' - 9 Da'te Planniw Dieetor . VI. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURE AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature -10-