1993-01
RESOLUTION NO. L 93-01
8 A RESOLUTION OF THE
LEUCADIA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS DENYING A
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR
A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
1300 FT SOUTH OF LA COSTA AVE
ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF SAXONY RD
AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE NO.: 91-192 TPM)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Tentative Parcel
Map, was filed by Frederick Snedeker to allow for the subdivision
of approximately 7.6 acres into 4 single family residential parcels
for property located approximately 1300 ft. south of La Costa Ave.,
legally described as;
All those portions of the North one-half ot the Southwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and of the Southwest
8 Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter, in Section 34, Township 12 South, Range 4 West,
San Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Diego,
State of California, according to the United States
Government Survey approved May 3,1883, lying Westerly of
the center line of the County Road as shown on Map of
County Road Survey No. 1317, a plat of which is on file
in the Office of the County Surveyor of said San Diego
County.
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application on
November 5, 1992, and January 7, 1993, before the Leucadia
Community Advisory Board as required by law, and all persons
desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff reports dated October 28,1992 and December 31,
1992;
2. The application submitted by the applicant dated received
October 29, 1991;
3. The revised Tentative Parcel Map dated received October
8 28, 1992;
JK/91192TPM.RES (12-31-92)
I
8 4. The Draft Negative Declaration and associated
documentation prepared by Craig Lorenz & Associates.
5. Oral evidence submitted at the hearings; and
6. The adopted General Plan, Zoning Code, Subdivision
Ordinance and associated Land Use Maps; and
WHEREAS, the Leucadia Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map
Act and Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, and
SEE ATTACHMENT "A"
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Leucadia Community Advisory
Board that Tentative Map application No. 91-192 TPM/EIA is hereby
denied.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of January 1993, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Board Members Allen, Cameron, Eldon, Fahlberg
8 NAYS: None
ABSENT: Buck (Due to potential conflict of interest)
ABSTAIN: None "-If D ¡J 14 A/< ---
~
Melissa Allen,
Chairperson of the Leucadia
Community Advisory Board
of the City of Encinitas
8
JK/91192TPM.RES (12-31-92)
I
ATTACHMENT "A"
8 RESOLUTION NO. L 93-01
Findings for Denial of a Tentative Parcel
Map for Subdivision of Property
Pursuant to Title 24 of the Municipal Code
(A) That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan.
Facts: Goal # 10 of the Resource Management Element of the
General Plan states "The City will preserve the integrity,
function, productivity, and long term viability of
environmentally sensitive habitats throughout the City,
including. . . coastal sage scrub and coastal mixed chaparral
habitats". The following statements are found in Policies
10.1 and 10.5 of the Resource Management Element.
Policy 10.1 - The City will minimize development impacts on
coastal mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub environmentally
habitats...
Policy 10.5 - The City will control development on Coastal
Mixed Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub . . . based upon the
following guidelines:
a. Conserve as much existing contiguous area of Coastal Sage
8 Scrub as feasible
b. Minimize fragmentation or separation of existing
contiguous natural area
c. Maintain the broadest possible configuration of natural
habitat area to aid dispersal of organisms within the
habitat
d. Conserve the widest variety of physical and vegetational
conditions on site to maintain the highest habitat
diversity
Furthermore, Section 21002 of the California Environmental
Quality Act ( CEQA) states that public agencies should not
approve projects as proposed unless there feasible
alternatives or mitigation measures which would substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.
Additionally, CEQA Sections 21080 (a) & (c) state CEQA
guidelines shall apply to discretionary projects, including
tentative subdivision maps, and that a lead agency (City)
shall prepare a negative declaration for a project if:
1. It is determined that no significant environmental
impacts result from the project, or;
8
JK/91192TPM.RES (12-31-92)
I
8 2. If an applicant agrees to modify a project such that
it may be determined that no significant environmental
impacts result from the project.
Discussion: While the applicant has designated on the project
plans (sheet T-3 dated received 12-28-92) an open space area
for the protection of a biotic area containing Coastal Sage
Scrub in accordance with the biological consultant's
recommendations, the applicant also designates on the project
plans an area of proposed "fuel management" within the
recommended open space area. The project biologist states
that the area requested for fuel management contains immature
yet viable chaparral species and should also be left in fully
protected open space so that this area will contribute to
wildlife corridor behind the project site, with minimal
fragmentation (see item b above).
The proposed project is subject to CEQA. The environmental
review for the project includes a biology report which
discusses the significant impact of the project relative to
the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat and recon~ends mitigation to
reduce the level of impact to a level which is less than
significant. The application has not indicated an intent to
follow the recommended mitigation.
Conclusion: The project as proposed does not protect to the
8 extent possible the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. Therefore the
application is not consistent with Goal 10 of the Resource
Element of the General Plan.
Since the applicant has not agreed to mitigate the project
impacts to the Coastal Sage Scrub as recommended by a
qualified biologist, the project impacts are considered to be
significant and, therefore, pursuant to CEQA Section 21002 the
project should not be approved. .
8
JK/91192TPM.RES (12-31-92)