The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 97-46; Brindisi; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (11)NOTICE OF COMPLETION Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth StreeTRoom 12 1, Sacramento, CA 958 14 - (9 16) 445-061 P ‘M& /O-26- 98 ‘7-J SC& Project Title: Brindisi - Aviara Plannina Area 19 Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Adrienne Landers Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE Phone: 1760) 438-l 161. ext.4451 City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92009 County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._.__... . . ._............... . . . . . . . ..____......_.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROJECT LOCATION: County: San Diego City/Nearest Community: Carlsbad Cross Streets: 8.2 Poinsettia Lane and Ambrosia Lane Total Acres: Assessor’s Parcel No. 2 1.5-84 l-02 & 03 Section: TwP.- - Range: Base: Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: Interstate 5 Waterways: NA Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools: Aviara Parkway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DOCUMENT TYPE: CEQA: q NOP q Supplement/Subsequent NEPA: 0 NO1 OTHER: 0 Joint Document 0 Early Cons 0 EIR (Prior SCH No.) 0 EA 0 Final Document 0 Neg Dee /J Other: 0 Draft EIS m Other: Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 Draft EIR 0 FONSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... , ................ , .................................................................................................................................. LOCAL ACTION TYPE: 0 General Plan Update 0 Specific Plan 0 Rezone 0 Annexation 0 General Plan Amendment 1x1 Master Plan Amendment 0 Prezone 0 Redevelopment 0 General Plan Element 1x1 Planned Unit Development 0 Use Permit q Coastal Permit 0 Community Plan 0 Site Plan (XI Land Division (Subdivision, (XI Other: Local Coastal Program Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEVELOPMENT TYPE: 0 Residential: Units 90 Acres 8.2 0 Water Facilities: Type MGD 0 Offke: Sq. Ft.’ Acres Employees - [3 Transportation: Type 0 Commercial: 0 Industrial: 0 Educational: Sq. Ft. - Acres Employees __ 0 Mining: Mineral Sq. Ft. - Acres - Employees - 0 Power: Type Watts 0 Waste Treatment: Type j-J Recreational: 0 Hazardous Water: Type 0 Other: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT: 0 Aesthetic/Visual [7 Flood Plain/Flooding 0 Agricultural Land q Forest Land/Fire Hazard 0 Air Quality 0 Geological/Seismic 0 Archaeological/Historical I-J Minerals 0 Coastal Zone 0 Noise 0 Drainage/Absorption 0 PopulationHsg. Balance 0 Economic/Jobs 0 Public Services/Facilities 0 Fiscal 0 Recreationmarks 0 Schools/Universities 0” Septic Systems Sewer Capacity 0 Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading i 0 Solid Waste 0 Toxic/Hazardous 0” 0 Traffic/Circulation 0 0 Vegetation 0 Water Quality H,O Supply/Ground H,O Wetland/Riparian Wildlife Growth Inducing Land Use Cumulative Effect Other: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use Vacant/Planned Community/Residential High Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . __ . . . . . . . . . . . . .._.. Project Description: Request for the approval of a Local Coastal Progrram Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to construct a 90 unit, multi-family airspace condominium project on 8.2 acres. NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (i.e., from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. Revised October 1989 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: The northeast corner of Ambrosia Lane and Poinsettia Lane in Local Facilities Management Zone 19. Project Description: Request for the approval of a Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to construct a 90 unit. multi- family, attached condominium project and associated recreational facilities on a pregraded 8.2 acre site located in Planning Area 19 of the Aviara Master Plan. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for lmplementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Adrienne Landers in the Planning Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension 445 1. DATED: JULY 27, 1998 CASE NO: LCPA 97- 1 O/MPA 177(W)/CT 97- 17/PUD 97- 15KDP 97-26 CASE NAME: BRINDISI, AVIARA PLANNING AREA 19 PI JBLISH DATE: JI JLY 27, 1998 Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 l (760) 438-1161. FAX (760) 438-0894 @ r’ 2 : . . I $ Ew l rrrrrrrr~ se . : - -e I : l * : : Li ,rs .a* - I P ff l . ...&.. BRINDISI LCPA 97=1O/MP 177 (W)/ CT 97=17/CP 98-10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: LCPA 97- 1 O/MPA 177(W)/CT 97- 17/PUD 97- 1 S/CDP 97-46 DATE: July 7, 1998 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Brindisi 2. APPLICANT: The Brehm Comuanies 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2835 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 230, San Diego. CA 92108-3882 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 1 O/9/97 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Master Plan Amendment, LCP Amendment to modifv development standards applicable to Aviara Planning Area 19, Aviara Master Plan and a Tentative Tract Map and Coastal Permit to construct 90 multi-familv units on a previously-graded site. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning q Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics cl Water Cl Hazards cl Cultural Resources (xl Air Quality Cl Noise Cl Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev.7/6/98 DETERMINATION. - (To be completed by the Lead Agency) cl cl 0 IXI 0 I find that 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. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Date Rev.716198 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPATTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. l A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. l “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. l “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. l Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). l When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. l A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev.716198 l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. l An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev.716198 issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Sources #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18, #2 #2 EIR 83-02(A)) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l :Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-l 8 and #2 #2 EIR 83-02(A)) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (# 1 :Pgs 5.6- 1 - 5.6- 18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) 0 IXI cl 0 Cl 0 Cl IXI Cl Cl 0 0 IXI cl Cl w 0 0 0 El II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6 , #2 pgs. 4-1- 4-26) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6, #2 pgs. 4-l-4-26) cl cl cl Ix] cl w cl 0 cl Cl cl w III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15, #2 EIR 83- 02(A) pgs. 4-l 50 - 4 -156) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 #2 EIR 83-02(A)) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l :Pgs 5. l-l - 5.1-15) e) Landslides ormudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)) I) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15, #2 EIR 83-02(A), #3, pg.s 6-7) g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15, #2 EIR 83-02(A)) h) Expansive soils? (1:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15, #3 pgs. 6- 7) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1 :Pgs 5. l-l - 5.1-15) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: cl Cl Cl Cl cl cl cl cl 0 Cl Cl cl 0 El cl lz.l El lxl cl lx 0 lxl 0 El 0 cl Cl cl cl cl 0 lxl cl Ix] Cl Ix] Rev.716198 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) b) c) g> h) 0 Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2- 11) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature. dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11, #2 #2 EIR 83-02(A)) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#I :Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-1 I, #2 #2 EIR 83-02(A)) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Changes 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? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11, #2 EIR 83-02(A)) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11, #2 EIR 83-02(A)) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l :Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2- 1 1, #2 EIR 83-02(A)) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11, #2 EIR 83-02(A)) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or prqjected air quality violation? (#I :Pgs 5.3- 1 - 5.3-12; #2 pgs. 4-l 10 - 4-l 18) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. proposal result in: Would the a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2, pgs. 4-63 - 4-80) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#I :Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) f, Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Potentially Significant Impact cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl (xl 0 cl cl /xl cl cl cl 0 El -- PotentialI) Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 cl cl cl El cl q cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl 0 cl 0 cl Less Than NO Significant Impact impact cl [XI cl El cl lzl cl IXI cl [XI cl Ix1 cl Ix1 cl w cl cl cl Ix1 cl Ed cl Ix1 cl Cl cl El cl IXI cl IXJ cl lxl cl [XI 6 Rev.7/6/98 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). -- Potentially PotentialI> Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) cl cl Cl El Vll. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24, #2 , pgs. 4- 119-4-149) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2 , pgs. 4-l 19 - 4-149) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24, #2 , pgs. 4-l 19 - 4-149) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2, pgs. 4-l 19 - 4-149) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l :Pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24; #2 pgs. 4-l 19 -4-149) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9; #2 pgs. 4-94 - 4- 109) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 1 - 5.13-9; #2, pgs. 4-94 -4-109) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-l - 5.13-9; #2, pgs. 4-94- 4-109) 0 cl Ix1 a> b) c> 4 e> VIII. 4 b) c> cl cl cl El Cl cl Ix1 cl w cl 0 cl 0 cl El cl El cl q 0 cl cl cl cl Ix1 cl [XI cl W 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:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#I :Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (# 1 :Pgs 5. IO. I- 1 - 5. IO. 1-5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (# 1 :Pgs 5. IO. I - 1 - 5. IO. l-5) cl cl cl IXI cl cl III w cl cl cl cl cl cl cl Ix1 cl w cl ta X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#I :Pgs 5.9-I - 5.9- 15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#I :Pgs 5.9- 1 - 5.9-15) cl IXI cl cl cl Ix] 0 0 7 Rev.716198 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Xl. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-l - 5.12.6-4) c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1. pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 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:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-l - 5.13-9) b) Communications systems? (#I; pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-I - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (# 1 :Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-I - 5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-1 - 5.1 l-5) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l :Pgs 5.11-l - 5.11-5, #2 #2 EIR 83-02(A)) c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 I-l - 5.1 l-5. #2 #2 EIR 83-02(A)) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#I :Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8- 10; #2 pgs. 4-160 - 4-167) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l :Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8- 10; #2 pgs. 4-150-4-157) c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10; #2 , pgs. 4-150 - 4-157) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl Cl cl cl -- Potentially Less Than NO Significant Significant lmpac1 Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated cl cl cl cl cl cl 0 III cl cl cl cl 0 cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl lx cl lIzI cl Ix] cl Ix1 cl lxl cl w cl w El q cl IXI cl Ix] cl IXJ cl Ix1 cl lxl Cl Ix1 cl Ix1 Rev.716198 Issues (and Supporting information Sources). a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (# 1 :Pgs 5.12.8- 1 - 5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (# 1 :Pgs 5.12.8-I - 5.12.8-7) 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 wildlife 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? 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 the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. PotentialI) Significant impact cl cl cl cl 0 PotentialI), Less Than ho Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 Cl lxl cl cl IXI cl cl cl Cl [x) cl w cl (x1 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a> Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Final Environmental Impact Report for Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort, (EIR 83-02(A)), dated August 1986. MEIR for the I994 General Plan Update, both on file in the Planning Department at 2075 Las Palmas, Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. All the effects from the above checklist were adequately analyzed in EIR 83-02(A) and MEIR 93-01. Overriding Findings of Consideration were adopted for air quality and cumulative circulation impacts as part of the MEIR for the 1994 General Plan Update. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the 9 Rev.7/6/98 -- earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Please see section “Noise” on page 12 below. All impacts have been reduced to a level of less than significant. 10 Rev.7/6/98 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONGENTAL EVALUATION A. Proiect Descrirdion The proposed project includes a master plan amendment, local coastal program amendment. tentative tract map and coastal development permit for Planning Area 19 of the Aviara Master Plan (MP- 177). The tentative tract map includes 90 multi-family units at a density of 10.9 du/ac. The development is proposed as 13 six-plexes and 4 triplexes with accompanying recreational amenities to be constructed on a previously-graded site of 8.2 acres in size. Currently, the site is vacant and devoid of vegetation. The site is surrounded to the north and west by a City park site; to the east by a 184 unit condominium project and to the south by a proposed 298 unit apartment project. The proposed density is consistent with the number of units (109) allowed under the latest amendment to the Aviara Master Plan. The proposed discretionary actions also include a master plan amendment and accompanying Local Coastal Plan Amendment which would amend the Aviara Master Plan to permit minor modifications to development standards (i.e., setbacks from roadways and width of driveways. For this environmental analysis. staff conducted several field trips to the subject property and reviewed the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan Environmental Impact Report EIR 82-03(A) which covers this property. The proposed project is consistent with this document as follows: 1. The site has already been reviewed under Master Plan EIR 83-02(A); 2. The project implements all recommended mitigation measures of EIR 83-02(A); 3. The project site design and architectural style will complement existing or future land uses. B. Environmental Impact Discussion Air Quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non- attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: I) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the prqject or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. 11 Rev.716198 Transportation/Circulation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. Biology A small .5 acre sliver of disturbed coastal sage habitat is located along the northern boundary of the site with slightly more vegetation located on the City park site. This area was included as part of the mass grading approved for Aviara Phase III in 1995. At that time it was determined that this and other Aviara sites created 8.68 acres of impact to coastal sage scrub. A 4(d) permit was issued and 8.68 acres of the best coastal maritime scrub were placed in placed in permanent open space for preservation. Mitigation was deemed acceptable by the resource agencies. Although grading of this portion of the subject site is occurring later than the rest of the mass grading operation, the impacts to the coastal sage at this location are considered to be mitigated. Noise Homes in the proposed project will be subject to noise from Poinsettia Lane with a projected ADT of 17,600. First floor exterior living areas located along Poinsettia Lane would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of about 68.2 CNEL. In order to meet the City required CNEL exterior noise standard of 60 CNEL, a noise barrier will be required to be constructed at the top of slope along Poinsettia Lane. The noise attenuation wall will vary in height from 6.0’ to 6.6’ In addition, prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant will be required to provide proof that interior noise levels will be reduced to 45 CNEL and that mechanical ventilation will be provided for homes located along Poinsettia Lane. The proposed development is also located within three miles of McClellan-Palomar Airport. Residents of this area may frequently see, hear, and interference of certain activities by aircraft operating to and or from the Airport. As a note of disclosure to future property owners, the developer 12 Rev.716198 will be required to file a NoticyConcerning Aircraft Environmental Impacts, Noise Forms #2 and #3, of file in the Planning Department. All above conditions have been included as mitigation measures in this Mitigated Negative Declaration. MAMDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS, CIRCULATION The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-O 1, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. 13 Rev.716198 III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760) 43% 1161, extension 447 1. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. Final Environmental Impact Report for Pacific Rim County Club and Resort, (EIR 83-02(A)), dated August 1986. 3. “Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - Update”, Magellan Corporations, April 1995. 4. “Exterior Noise Analysis for Aviara PA-19”, Mestre Greve Associates, October 1997. 5. Habitat Loss Permit for Aviara Phase III, September 18, 1995. 14 Rev.716198 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) .- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits for homes located adjacent to Poinsettia Lane and as shown on Exhibits Sl and S2 of the Mestre Greve (#97-204) noise study, the applicant shall demonstrate that interior noise levels will be mitigated to a level of 45 CNEL and that mechanical ventilation will be provided. Prior to a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct a noise barrier consisting of a wall, a berm, or a combination of the two for the homes specified on Exhibit Sl of the Mestre Greve noise study, ##97-204. The noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. The wall may be constructed of stud and stucco, 3/S inch plate glass, 5/S plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Prior to the recordation of the final tract map or the issuance of building permits, which ever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed Transportation Corridor (Poinsettia Lane), in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form # 1) on file in the Planning Department. Prior to the recordation of the final tract map or the issuance of building permits, which ever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise and other impacts from the McClellan Palomar Airport in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Forms #2 and #3) on file in the Planning Department. Prior to the issuance of building permits for homes located adjacent to Poinsettia Lane and as shown on Exhibits Sl and S2 of the Mestre Greve (#97-204) noise study, the applicant shall demonstrate that interior noise levels will be mitigated to a level of 45 CNEL and that mechanical ventilation will be provided. Prior to a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct a noise barrier consisting of a wall, a berm, or a combination of the two for the homes specified on Exhibit Sl of the Mestre Greve noise study, #97-204. The noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. The wall may be constructed of stud and stucco, 3/8 inch plate glass, 5/S plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) See attached 14 Rev.7/6/98 - APPLICANT CONCURRENE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. dhy ib, (Q98 Date Signature Richmond O’Neill Project Manager 15 Rev.716198 Tim’. 2 2 0 L - .dz ‘Z w 0 C 2; w -=%a, .- w a $j E 0 u ‘= .o 8 GC .- CI ” Ea bJl$ ‘;; - 0 ;‘E B me ‘212 0 0 * 1= ;;;+ = f & .- Y - 9 3 E 2 s ‘S 3 m 22 ; 2 . 2 z : : 2 :A x x ;a x 1 2 2 .- 2 .- 2 .M is .- s 2 fj 2 m ” 1 a a CL a % 9 Lc B .3 22 3 5 Oh : w sz 3a:X r$j zfi : xc42 ‘: -‘o, JX . fb .- -izg “=f ; 58 .E 0 .z 8 “2 r:: u “2 u”O -- BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: LCPA 97-10NPA 177O/CT97-17/PUD 97-15/GDP 97-26 CASE NAME: Brindisi - Plamrincr Area 19 APPLICANT: Brehm-Aviara Develonment, Ltd. Partnership REQUEST AND LOCATION: A Local Coastal Plan Amendment. Master Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to construct a 90 unit multi-family, attached condominium proiect on 8.2 acres located in Planning Area 19 of the Aviara Master Plan, at the northeast corner of Ambrosia Lane and Poinsettia Lane. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 3 and 4 inclusive of Citv of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-3 Aviara Phase III, Unit No. 1, in the Citv of Carlsbad, Countv of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 13434, filed in the Office of thecountv Recorder of San Diego Countv. June 23. 1997. APN: 2 15-84 l-02 & 03 Acres: 8.2 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 90 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: RH Density Allowed: 109 multi-family units Density Proposed: 90 multi-family units Existing Zone: PC Proposed Zone: NA Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements) Zoning Land Use North PC OS (future park site) South PC RMH (proposed apt site) East RDM-Q RM (184 condos) West PC OS (future park site) PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 90 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: September 29, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT lxl Negative Declaration, issued Julv 7, 1998 cl Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated cl Other,