HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-04-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 2834c .. 9 e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2834
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLS
CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGA
DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE MAP, AND HILL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY 1000' FEET NORTH
OF ALGA ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL.
APPLICANT: VIEWPOINT
CASE NO. : CT 85- 34
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of April,
a duly noticed pub1 ic hearing as prescribed by law to consider sai
and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consic
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the i
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, tl
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declarai
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Corn
foll ows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, tt
Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Mitigatec
Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated January 6, 1
89011109, dated December 21, 1988, and "PII", dated December
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the followin!
Findinqs Impacts and Mitiqation:
1. Although the proposed project could have a significant eff environment, there will not be a significant effect in this c4 mitigation measures have been added to the project to a F clearly no significant effect would occur; and
2. There is no substantial evidence that the project as condition
a significant effect on the environment.
3. That the Planning Commission finds and determines that thg Negative Declaration has been completed in conformance California Environmental Quality Act, the state guidelines il said Act, the monitoring requirement as specified in Public Code Section 21081.6 and the provisions of Title 19 of tl Municipal Code and that the Planning Commission has reviewed, and evaluated the information contained in the Declaration.
t' .. e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved for this projc Planning Commission on April 19, 1989. The Mitigated Declaration identified impacts from the proposed project and
conditions of approval in Resolution No. 2833 for the Tentativc identified impacts will be mitigated as described below:
a. Bioloqv
mitigation measures (agreed to by the applicant), which are i
Identified on the subject site were four sensitive plai affected by the proposed development. The site also co acres of 1 and with slopes of 25% or greater which con. chaparral and oak woodland. These areas will be mitiga preservation of 13.2 acres in permanent open space and an
3 acres of open space easements on the perimeter slopes. space areas will be protected from property owner encroach1 placement of stucco walls at the tops of all perimetl Implementation of these measures will preserve the qual environment and the more sensitive plant species local subject site.
b, Archaeol oqy
The excavation and data recovery program, specified in thc Negative Declaration, will ensure compliance with the Environmental Quality Act regulations regarding the prese cultural resources and reduce the overall impact t insignificance.
c. Noise
Potential noise impacts from Alga Road will be mitigated 1 use of berm and wall s. Balcony barriers have a1 so been Y second story windows or doors on impacted lots. Impleme these measures will reduce noise impacts to a insignificance.
d . Traff i c Ci rcul at i on
Identified impacts were very minor in nature due to the lo\ ADTs (900) and will be mitigated through installation of m. striping. A traffic signal will also be provided at Mimo: Road when traffic warrants are met. Impacts from th project will remain therefore at a level of insignificant
Conditions:
1. A1 1 conditions of Resol ut ions 2831, 2832 and 2833 are incorpor; in their entirety.
2. The proposed project shall comply with the environmental monitoring program indicated on attached Exhibit 1, dated Apri
PC RES0 NO. 2834 -2-
7. e e
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pla
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
1
2
3
4 AYES: Chairperson Hall, Commissioners: Schramm, Schlehut Holmes, Erwin, McFadden & Marcus.
5 NOES : None.
6
7
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
8
9
10
21
12
ATTEST :
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
13
14
15 /I PLANNING DIRECTOR
16
17
18
19 I
2o I/
21
22
23
24
25 I
26 I;
27
28 PC RES0 NO. 2834 .3 -
1 0. 0 txn
-6
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859
aiiu df ~€tdBhb
PLANNlNG DEPARlMENT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Northwest corner of El Camino Real and approximately 600 feet west of El Camino Real e
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone Change from Limited.Contro1 to R-1-7500 anc Tract Map to subdivide 40.5 acres into 90 single family lots with reserved as permanent open space. Project a1 so includes a Hi1 lside 0 Permi t .
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the abovf project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation -of the Environmental Quali.ty Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance ( of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Mitigated Negative C (declaration that the project will not have a significant impa environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justificatia action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive docrlmcnts in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Califor Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writ
Planning Department within thirty (30) days of date of,?ssuance.
DATED: January 6, 1989
. Mkkd$.&%/h d CASE NO: CT 85-34/ZC-341/HDP 88-19 Planning Director
APPLICANT: Viewpoint
PUBLISH DATE: January 6, 1989
I "I "2 a", 2 + OF -LE11081 m EwImnTAL -& see No E Below
7. ISCH #hqa\\\bl
I
1. Project Title Viewpoint
2. Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad 3. Contact Person: Adrienne L@
3a. Street Address: 2075 cas Palmas Drive 3b. City: Car l sbad
3c. County: Sen Dieso 3d. Zip: 92009 3e. Phone: (619) 438-11
PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: San Diego 4a. Ci ty/Cmni ty: Car lsbad
Lb.(optional) Assessor's Parcel No. 215-050-03. 04. OS 4c. Section: Tup. f
sa. Crass streets: Alga Road and El Carnino Real 5b. Nearest Cmnity: Carlsbad
6. Within 2 miles of: a. State Hvy No. 1-5 b. Airports Palomer
7. DOCUMENT TYPE 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE
For Rural,
CEOA
01 - NOP 02 - New Element 02 - Office: Sq. Ft.
02 - Early Cons 03 - General Plan Amendment Acres Employe
03 X Neg Dec 04 - Master Plan 03 - Shopping/Comnercial: Sq. Ft.
04 - Draft EIR 05 - Annexation Acres Enpl oyees
05 - Supplement/ 06 - Specific Plan 04 - Industrial: Sq. Ft.
(if so, prior SCH # 07 - Redevelopnent Acres Enp 1 oyees
- 01 - General Plan Update 01 X Residential: Units 90 A
Subsequent EIR
1 08 X Rezone 05 - Seuer: MGO
- NEPA 09 -x- Land Division 06 - Uater: HGD
(Subdivision. Parcel MaD.
06 - Notice of Intent -Tract nap, etc.) 07 - Transportation: Type
07 - Envir. Assessment/ 10 - Use Permit 08 -Minerat Extraction: Mineral
FONSl
08 - Draft EIS 11 - Cancel Ag Preserve 09 - Power Generation: Wattage
OTHER 12 - Other Type:
09 - Information Only 10 - Other:
10 - .Final Docunent 9 TOTAL ACRES: 40
11 - Other:
11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT
01 X Aesthetic/Visual 08 - Geologic/Seismic 15 X Sewer Capacity 22 - Vatel
02 - Agricultural Land 09 - Jobs/Housing Balance 16 X Soil Erosion 23 - Vet\,
03 X Air Quality 10 - Minerals 17 - Solid Waste 24 X Wild1
04 X Archaeological/Historical/ 11 X Noise 18 - Toxic/Hazardous 25 - Grout
Paleontological
OS X Coastal
06 - Fire Hazard
12 X Public Services 19 X Traffic/Circulation 26 - Inccm
13 - Schools 20 X Vegetation 27 X Curul
14 - Septic Systems 21 X Water Quality 28 - Other
07 1 FIooding/Drainage
. 12 FUNDING (approx.) Federal S State S Total S
13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: Vacant - LC (Limited Control)
14 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS: 90 lot Subdivision on 40 acres.
/: 1
15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE: ,' [dl f [' ~ i c. fd I !cc ' .Y Date: 12/;
NOTE: Clearinghouse Mill assign identification nunbers for alt new projects if a SCH Nunber already exists
from a (Notice of Preparation or previous draft docunent) please fill it in.
e REV I EW ING AGENC I E*
1,
Resources Agency CTRPA (Cal TRPA)
Air Resources Board TRPA (Tahoe RPA)
Conservation Bay Conservation & Dev’t Cor,
- Fi sh and Game Parks and Recrea t ion
X Coastal Commission Office of Historic Preservat
Cal trans District x Native American Heritage Con
Cal trans - P1 anning State Lands Comm
Cal trans - Aeronautics Public Utilities Comm
California Highway Patrol Energy Comm
Boating and Waterways Food and Agriculture
Forestry Health Services
State Water Resoruces Control Statewide Health PI anning (hc
Board - Headquarters Housing and Community Dev‘t
Regional Water Qual ity Control Corrections
Board, Region 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. (
Recl amat i on Board Loc.al Government Uni t (OPR)
Solid Waste Management Board Santa Monica Mountains Conser
Col orado River Board Other
FOR SCH USE ONLY
Date Received at SCH Catalog Number
Date Review Starts Proponent
Date to Agencies Consultant
Date to SCH Contact Phone
C1 earance Date Address
Notes:
City of C
zc-34
CT 85-
VIEWPOINT HDP 8t
&
-
e FEE: S17S.O(
RECEKPT NO:
ENVIRONMENTAL IPIPACT ASSESSPIENT FORM - Part I
(To Be Completed by APPLICANT)
CASE NO: c
DATE: 3
-
-
Applicant: WESTANA
Address of Applicant: 4241 JUTLAND DRIVE SUITE 215
SAN DIEGO, CA 92117
Phone Number: ( 619 1 483-4880
Name, address and phone number OE person to be contacted (if
Applicant) : DANIEL E. REHM, HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Description of Project: VIEWPOINT-REVISED CAKLSBAD Tmcr 85-34: 'rt
SUBDIVISION OF APPROX. 40.5 ACRES TO CREATE A 94 - IlNIT fSiMU:l.F. - FAMllY W
SUBDIVISION.
Project Locat ion/Address : CURKENTLY VACANT FROP1:K 1'Y I,UCA'I'ED ON 'I'liE B
ALGA ROAD, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF MIEIOSA DRIVE.
~~ ~ ~~
Assessor Parcel Number: 215 - 050 - 3,4 AND 5.
Zone of Subject Property: EXISTZNG ZONL; LCIPKOI'OSIIII ZON11: K1
Proposed Use of Site: 93 UNIT SINGLE FAE.lLLY DE'I'ACIIED SUBUIVIS
~ist all other applicable applications related to this ProJec
REVISED CARLSBAD TRACT 85-34; ZONE CHANGE 341.
2. Describe the ac aic! area, includinq distl ui,.linq natural made characteristics: also provide precise slope analysis *I appropriate. THE PROJECT SI77 IS A CURRENTLY VACANT PROPERTY OF APP
ACREAS, CHARACTERIZED BY VARIABLE SLOPE STEEPNESS AND TOPOGMPhIC FORM
8.6% OF THE AREA IS BETWEEN 25-40% SLOPE AND 6.62 O'F THE SITE EXCEEDS
EXISTING SLOPES FALL EITHER WEST TO SOUTHWEST OR EAST TO SOUTHEAST AWAI
d)
85% OF THE SITE HAS SLOPES 25% OR LESS IN STEEPNESS. OF niE REXAINING
HIGH POINT OF THE SITE WHICH IS LOCATED SLICHTE NORTHEAST FRON THE CEF
SITE, A 100 FOOT WIDE EASENENT CONTAINING SDUE HIGH VOLTAGE LIMS CR(
SITE IN A NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION CROSSING THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF TI
3. Describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the
1) SUBDIVISION DESIGNED TO HAXIMIZE SOUTHERLY ORIENTATION OF IXDIVIDUA
2) CUT AND FILL EARTHWORK QUANTITIES BALANCE ONSITE THUS CONSERVING €1
3) THE YIRCULATION DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION IS THE MOST EFFICIENT PAT
and/or operation of the project.
OPTIMUM SOLAR ACCESS.
NECESSARY FOR TRANSPORT OF IMPORT OR EXPORT.
GIVEN THE TOPOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE', ;THUS MINIMIZING THE
VEHICULAR TRIPS WITHIN THE PROJECT. 4. I€ residential, include the number o€ units, schedule of un:
range of sale prices or rents, and type OE household size en
APPROX. NO. OF UNITS APPROX. UNIT SIZE APPROX. SALE PRICE APPI
93 1500-2000 SF. $130,000-$160,000
5. ~f commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city
regionally oriented, square footaqe of sales area, and loadi
€acilities.
N/A
6. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift loading facilities.
N/A
7. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated empl
shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and CommuniLj
to be derived from the project.
N/A
-2-
' I.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
ENVIRONMENTAL .ehbr ANALYSIS 0
Answer the following questions by placing a check in the
space. (Discuss all items checked "yes". Attach additior
necessary.)
YES
could the project significantly change present
land uses in the vicinity OE the activity?
Could the activity affect the use of a recreational
area, or area of important aesthetic value?
Could the activity affect the functioning of an established community or neighborhood?
Could the activity result in the displacement of
community residents?
Could the activity increase the number of low and
.modest cost housing units in the city?
Could the activity decrease the number of low and modest cost housing units in the city?
Are any OE the natural or man-made Eeatures in the activity area unique, that is, not found in other
parts OE the county, state or nation?
Could the activity Significantly affect an
historical or archaeological site or its settings? YES
Could the activity siqnificantly affect the
potential use, extraction, or conservation OE a
scarce natural resource?
Does the activity Significantly affect the
potential u'se, extraction, or conservation OE a scarce natural resource?
Could the activity significantly af€ect fish,
wildlife or plant life?
Are there any rare or endangered plant species in the activity area?
Could the activity change existing features of any of the city's lagoons, bays, or tidelands?
Could the activity change existing features of
any of the city's beaches?
Could the activity result in the erosion or elimination of agricultural lands?
Could the activity serve to encourage development
of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop-YES rnent of already developed areas?
-3-
. . 17)
18)
19)
20 1
21 1
22)
23)
24 1
25)
-26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
0 e YE!
Will the activity require a variance ftcm
established envirQnmentaL standards (air, 'dater,
noise, etc.)?
Will the activity require certification, authoriza-
tion or issuance of a permit by any local, state or
-
federal environmental control agency? YES
Will the activity requir5 issuance of a variance or conditional use permit by the City?
Will the activity involve the application, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials?
Will the activity involve construction of facilities in a flood plain?
Will the activity involve construction of facilities in the area of an active fault?
Will the activity involve construction of
facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater? YES
Could the activity result in the generation of Significant amounts of noise? Yt S
Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of dust?
Will the activity involve the burning of brush,
trees, or other materials?
Could the activity result in a significant chanue
in the quality of any portion OE the reqion's air or water resources? (Should note surface, ground
water, off-shore.)
Will the project substantially increase fuel
consumption (electricity, oil', natural qas, etc.)?
Will there be a significant change to exrsting
land form? YES
YES
(a) Indicate estimated qrading to be done in cubic yards: 243600 &T!237600 FILL.
land form: 76.3 Z
(b) Petcentage of alteration to the Present
(c) Maximum height of cut or fill slopes:
30 FEET .
Will the activity result in substantial increases
in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets?
Is the activity carried out as part of a larger project or series of projects?
-4-
11. STATEMENT OF a' N-SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL 0 EFFECTS
~f YOU have answered yes to one Or more of the question!
1 but you think the activity will have no siqni€icant el
effects! indicate your reasons below: I
..
111, COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN SECT:
(I€ additional space is needed for answering any questior additianal sheets as needed.)
n
Signature
(Person CoYnpletinq iiepoct) "
Date Signed 3/h/ee f . I
-5-
0 LAIII
ENVIRO NP r;NTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO; CT 85-34/2C-34
DATE : 12/19/88
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: Westana Builders
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
4242 Jutland Drive. Suite 215
San Dieao, CA 92117 (619) 483-4880
3, .DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: 9/5/85 (See attached memo)
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written
under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental- Evaluation)
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?
- YES . MAY BE
X
C. Change in topography or ground X surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering of
modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in.wind or water erosion of soils, either on or
off the site?
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?
0 0 .,
2. Air - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
c. Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any
or regionally? change in climate, either locally
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?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
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?
-2-
- YES MAY BE
-
0'
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) ?
unique, rare or endangered species
of plants?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop?
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)?
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
animals?
.to the migration or movement of
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?.
6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels?
7. Liaht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare?
8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area?
-3-
0
- YES
X
MAYBE
0' a
YES MAY BE
9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal 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?
11. Powlation - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu-
tion, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
13. TransDortation/Circulation - Will the
. proposal have significant results in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular
movement? X
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation systems?
dD Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
-4-
*, 0 - YES MAY BE
14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif-
icant results in the need for new or
altered governmental sentices 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? ___I
f. Other governmental services?
15. Enerqy - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of
. of new sources of energy?
energy, or require the development
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?
I.7* Human Health - Will the proposal have . significant results in the creation of
anY health hazard or potential health
hazard (excluding mental health)?
-5-
0' e
YES MAY BE
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?
19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Archeolosical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - Will the proposal have siqnificant
. resulks in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building?
21. Analyze viable alternatives to the DroDosed Droiect such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site desic
c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
a) Due to the hilly terrain of the subject site, the proposed projt
would be difficult to develop in a phased manner. Grading dc
in one area would impact another area. Additionally, phasing t
development would not appreciably alter the environmental impact
b) Other site designs for the proposed development are limited C to the existing site constraints -. open space easement, st€ slopes, and connection with existing roadways. Cluster development with small lots is an alternate site design; howeve the biological impacts would not be any different. The negati
visual impacts would most likely be much greater. Larger pa would be required and thus more grading. Such a project wou also present a very dense appearance and be incompatible wi. approved development to the west.
-6-
'. VIA3LE ALTERNATIVES TO fi 'PROPOSED PROJECT (Continued) e
. c) This alternative would involve a change in the density of
project and would result in a reduction of the number
residential units. As a consequence, the project would gene slightly less traffic, air quality emissions and noise. Eff associated with development onsite and the conversion of va, land to urbanized uses would be essentially the same under
option. Adoption of this alternative could reduce effects biological and visual resources by reducing th,e encroachmeni the project into steep slopes and sensitive biological habit; The current project has already been designed to avoid tl
areas as much as possible. A project redesign would
eliminate an,y significant environmental effects. Given current Zonlng, General Plan designation, and open SI dedication, a reduced project is not feasible.
d) Alternative uses are not appropriate for this constrained sj Single family residential is the most flexible and site sensit type of land use for this location. Single family residential also consistent with the General Plan and LCP designation for t site..
. e) The proposed project is consistent with development occurring the vicinity. This includes residential units to the south
west. The project, therefore, will be consistent with surround land uses. Due to existing or approved development, pub facilities will be available to serve this site.
f) Development on another site could possibly reduce the number
, .impacts created by the project; however, these impacts have b' addressed in the attached mitigation measures. The site wo'
still be designated for residential uses so that construct elsewhere would in effect only delay development of the site.
g) The Itno project" alternative would retain the site in
undeveloped state. The changes in land use, visual quali biology, cultural resources and noise as well as incremen increases in traffic and air quality would not oca
'Implementation of this alternative would not necessarily elimini future development and associated environmental effects since I property is designated by the City for residential development i is surrounded by existing and future residential developmer
Given the continued growth in the City of Carlsbad, as well as
the entire region, the demand for. new residential development w; continue. The proposed project is consistent with the Gene1 Plan and as conditioned would not have any significant, adver environmental effects. Therefore this alternative would resu only in a delay of development of the site.
-7-
0' e - YES MAY BE
22. Mandatorv findinss of siqnificance -
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
of California history or prehistory.
b. 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.)
C. 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.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The applicant proposes the development of a 40.5 acre site wil single-family residential dwelling units. A proposed open space including the SDG&E easement, would retain approximately 13.2 acre
the total 40.5 acres) in natural open space in the western portit the site, with approximately 3 additional acres of open space ease: placed on the slopes throughout the proposed development. The av, proposed lot size is 8,800 square feet, resulting in a develo: density of approximately 3.1 dwelling units (d.u.) per acre of Access to the site would be from Alga Road to the south and from
-8-
*. - DIYCUSSION OF ENVIRONME e' 1AL EVALUATION (Continued) 0
future southern extension of Mimosa Street to the site's r
boundary. Internal circulation would include the project's e>
of Mimosa Street south to Alga Road, an internal loop road tr connections to Mimosa Street,, and three small cul-de-sacs,
A landscaping plan has been proposed for all manufactured slopes project. The exterior slopes which are contiguous to the ope area will provide a transitional appearance from the existing habitat to semi-natural species along the bottom of the slc ornamental species from the middle to the top of the slope. The on the interior of the development will be primarily planted
mixture of ornamental species.
The preliminary grading plan proposes 213, 000 cubic yards of fill, resulting in no export material. .Manufactured slopes of
1 gradient would be created in a number of areas onsite, with a ' slope height of 30 feet. The proposed grading plan would result majority of the development concentrated in the eastern and
portions of the site, with the open space lot situated to the q
the residences. The southwestern boundary of residential deve. would be the SDG&E easement. Some grading would occur
southwestern corner of the site along Alga Road to accommoda construction of Alga Road.
1. Earth
The proposed development will regrade the existing north-soutk
by lowering it approximately 20 feet. The design typically pr' terraced pads following the general terrain. This is cons with the City's grading and hillside ordinances which haw implemented in the project. Any increase in runoff will be de by way of temporary basins and erosion control practices unstable earth conditions or unique geologic structures are 1
on the project site or general vicinity.
2. Air
The project would contribute to the incremental increase in
and regional emissions: however, the residential buildout ol
site is planned for in the City's General Plan. It has alsc included in the residential buildout of the Local Faci: Management Plan for Zone 6. The emissions generated by development have been anticipated and would not adversely i the attainment of regional air quality standards. ConstrL emissions are considered short-term and insignificant.
-9-
‘ DI~;CUSSION OF ENVIRONM a ..,AI, EVALUATION (Continued) a
3. Water
Development of the project would create impervious surfac, which would reduce absorption.rates and increase surface r
runoff velocities. To accommodate this runoff, when de occurs the project will be conditioned to install drainage fa and slope erosion control measures. As identified in I Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6, all existing drainag within this zone are adequate to serve the residents anc property in this area. The subject site will connect underground pipe system and empty into an existing mastel desiltation basin which discharges into Batiquitos Lagoon.
4. Plant Life
The proposed project would develop 27,3 of the 40.5 acres WI project site. There are no rare or endangered plant species on the property. Identified on the subject site are four I plants species which will be affected by the proposed dew This represents an incremental but insignificant impact regional populations of these plant species.
The project site contains 6.2 acres of land with slopes o greater which contain mixed chaparral, oak woodland, and d areas. Of this 6.2 acres, 1.9 acres would be impacted, howe acres are already disturbed. This loss is offset by the rete a much larger 13.2 acre open space system onsite. Three-tent acre of oak woodland has already been removed by the constru
Alga Road.
5.
The proposed landscape plan would introduce ornamental spec a site currently containing native vegetation. The plan wou native species directly adjacent to all open space areas. The
native species would transition into mixed species and tk
purely ornamental species. This gradual transition would se buffer between native and non-native plant life, reduc potential impacts .to below a level of significance.
Animal Life
Development of the site would remove some animal habitat: 1 retention of the open space onsite would serve as a functional for species in the project vicinity. In addition, reduced
would be expected as larger predators are excluded anc influences take effect. Therefore, the reduction of the anin onsite does not: represent a significant impact. ,
-10-
-. ' e e
*': DICCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
Although development of. the project would reduce some of thc habitat onsite, the retention Of the 13.2 acre open space serve as a functional habitat, thus reducing the adverse i
4 a level of insignificance. I
6. Noise
The traffic generated by the proposed project would incr contribute to the community noise levels along Alga Road a]
project vicinity. Community buildout would increase noise le
to Alga Road. The incorporation of noise walls and balcon
those areas affected by the significant traffic noise WOU. onsite noise levels to below a level of significance.
I the 60 dB(A) CNEL standard in those areas onsite immediately
7.. Liqht and Glare
The development of the Viewpoint site would introduce st
is currently undeveloped. However, residential homes exist south of the site, the Pacific Rim project is being developed to the site to the west, and a commercial/post office/city complex is proposed directly to the east. Because there street lights in the area, there will be more light and glal future once the adjacent complex and Pacific Rim are built c project would incrementally, and insignificantly, contribute
and glare in the project vicinity.
I residential lighting and reflective surfaces (windows) on a :
8,. Land Use
The proposed project will develop a currently vacant site
single-family dwelling units and an open space lot. Althouc is an alteration of the existing land use, residential develo the site at a density of up to 4 dwelling units per acr conformance with ,-the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The r( the site would place the zoning of the site in conformance 1 General Plan designation, therefore, no-significant land use would occur.
9. Natural Resources
Implementation of the proposed project will incrementally cor to the depletion of fossil fuel and other natural resources I for construction of the project. This is not regardec significant impact in view of the limited scale of the projec
10. Risk of Uwet
The proposed project, due to its residential nature, does not
a significant increase in the use of chemicals, pesticides, o hazardous materials.
-11-
..
' D1y;CUSSION OF ENVIRONM 8' Y AL EVALUATION (Continued) 0
'-11. PoDulation
The proposed project will incrementally increase the populat region. However, such a development is planned for the sit(
proposed density of 3.1 dwelling units per acre is below t
growth control point of 3.2 dwelling Units per acre. The L population is below that which has been anticipated and
represent a significant impact on population and growth in tl
12. Housinq
This project would create an incremental demand for a
housing. The City's Growth Management Program ensures additional housing is developed, all required public facil
services are provided concurrent with need. In accordance, n are anticipated.
13. TransDortation/Circulation
The proposed development will generate additional vehicula; but the estimated 900 ADTs is not considered to be significa: generation was included in the Local Facilities Management Zones 6 and 19 to determine impacts on adjacent roadways. TI impacts of this development on adjacent circulation system: minimal. Mimosa Street will be extended or improved thrc
project to the north to eventually connect to Dove Lane COnneCtiOll Will improve circulation in the general vicinity.
14. Public Services
The proposed project was included in the Local Facilities M2 Plan for Zone 6. The public facility fees/conditions imposec plan area will be used to mitigate any impacts upon public
within the project vicinity.
16. Utilities
The public facility fees required to be paid by this project used to adequatel-y mitigate any impacts upon public utilitie:
the project vicinity.
17. Human Health
The proposed residential project will not create any health as a result of development of the subject site.
18. Aesthetics
The proposed grading plan for the project would create manu: slopes which would range up to 30 feet in height. In the ea5
-12-
_. 1.
- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONM !!Br AL EVALUATION (Continued 9
portion of the property, these slopes would be above manufactured slopes of up to 20 feet in height, resulting ir artificial slope along the eastern site boundary that would from El Camino Real to the .east. However, buildout of the
complex,between the road and the Viewpoint property and th'
landscaping of the slope would ultimately obstruct the vit
slope. Views of the site from the south would not be sig: altered, although the 30 foot manufactured slope would be .
motorists along Alga Road and Mimosa Street. Views from t Rim project to the west would not change appreciably. No s
impacts are anticipated.
19. Recreation
The project will be required to pay park-in-lieu fees as 2
contributing towards the fulfillment of park requiremen. southwest quadrant of the City.
20. Archaeolosical/Historical/Paleontolosical
Development of the Viewpoint project would result in t disturbance of prehistoric site SDi-4358 (W-108) and indirec the portion of SDi-4358 (W-108) located to the north of the This disturbance is considered a potentially significant
cultural resources. A data recovery program will be initiat sites, and these significant impacts would be reduced to bel of significance.
22. Mandatory Findinss of Sisnificance -
a) The biological resource mitigation program that is propose
of this project will set aside 13.2 acres as permanent ope] a means of preserving the quality of the environment and sensitive plant species located on' the subject site.
b) The project helps implement one of the long term goals of tl Plan by providing an "urban low-medium density residen characterized by single-family homes - 0-4 dwelling units i
c) The impacts created by the proposed project are not signil will be mitigated through the conditions of approval impos project as well as' those listed in Section V of this documc
d) The project should have both direct and indirect positive 6 humans by implementing the City's residential and open spa(
-13-
,. *- I- IV. DETERMINATION (To@ Completed By The Planning 0 Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT ha.ve a,significant effe the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant efi this case because the mitigation measures described on an attz sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
- x I find that although the proposed project could have a signif
,/3 " Yd * { ;' !, L, P.A. . Y/!/'. /,: ;. ~ ~.
Date Signature /
I J &?S
Date
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
~11 submittals to the City of Carlsbad to fulfill the condition: mitigated Negative Declaration shall reference: a) the project fil
b) this Negative Declaration's State Clearinghouse number ant
specific mitigation number listed below.
conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
a landscape'plan to the Planning Director for review and apE The landscape plan shall incorporate "coastal sage SCZ-Ub" tYP
materials in the landscape pal'ette along the site's easterly The intent of this planting is to design a corridor of "nature biological habitat which is aesthetically pleasing, control
erosion, and is not a fire hazard.
2. prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant Will entf a common maintenance agreement with the adjacent Property Ow the east for maintenance of the slope between the two ProPe The applicant will also agree to install an irrigation system the subject site and provide a stub-out for the irrigation
of the easterly property owner.
-14-
-1 I.
=:LIGATING MEASURES (Continued) 0' 0
3. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant will i designate the westerly 13.2 acres as permanent open space.
4. Noise
To mitigate the exterior first and second floor impacts the
measures would be required on Lots 44-47, and Lot 1:
a) A 4-fOOt wall or berm located along the top of the slc
rear of Lot 47.
b) A 5-fOOt wall or berm located along the top of the SI0
rear of Lot 46,
c) A 6-foot wall or berm located along the. top of the slo; rear of Lots 44 and 45.
d) A 6.5-fOOt wall or berm located along the top of the S~O; side yard of Lot 1.
e) A 7-fOOt balcony barrier would be required on Lots 1, 45
47.
5. Paleontolosv
a) Prior to any grading at the project site, a paleontologj
be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and 1 the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading wi: portions of the Santiago Formation.
b) A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform
inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils.
the small nature of some of the fossils present in the Formation, it may be necessary to collect large samples c for laboratory processing through fine screens.,
c) The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct gI
the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate ev and, if necessary, salvage' artifacts.
d) All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, no
institution with a research interest in the materials, SUC San Diego Natural History Museum.
e) Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist grading activities of the project shall be resolved Planning Director.
-15-
* J..
c ”I,”;IGATING MEASURES (Co, e’ cinued) 4b
6. Archaeolosv
a) Prior to approval of the final map or the issuance of permit, whichever comes first, the applicant shal .archaeological mitigation on the subject site as detai
Data Recovery Plan prepared by Westec Services and dl
1988.
b) All archaeological material recovered during the projec
described in a professional report which receives distribution to insure its availability to future resea copy of this report shall be submitted to the Plannin
prior to the occupancy of any units.
c) All archaeological material recovered during the projec donated to a local institution which has proper faci. curation, display, and use by interest scholars and t public.
7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applica: process a Site Development Plan. This plan shall address elevations, building height, and distance of buildings fro] slopes.
8. Prior to approval of any grading or clearing permit, the z shall fence to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Director, all areas to be preserved. The preservation a
fence details shall be delineated on the grading plan.
VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE, MEASURES TO THE PROJEC:
0- 20- bg-
Date
-16-