Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 3081-7 I. * 0 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 I 11 I I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3081 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP A 108 DWELLING UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. CASE NUMBER: AVIARA - PLANNING AREA 12 CASE NO: CT 89-39/PUD 89-19 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of Aug hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said requl WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consi testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the in submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Cc as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Dl according to Exhibit "ND", dated July 5, 1990, and "PII", dated June respectively, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the findings and subject to the following condition: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the pr have a significant impact on the environment, provided that the I conditions of approval are complied with. 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental (EIR 83-2(A)) 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the project. I 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 e 0 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be siE impacted by this project. Conditions: 1. Prior to the OCCUP~~C~ of any of the dwelling units, the project appli construct a 6.0 foot high sound attenuation wall between Alga Roac proposed dwelling units 2-9 along this road. The wall shall be cc consistent with the recornmendations of the Acoustical Study for Plannin (Mestre-Greve, 1990). Prior to the occupancy of units 2-9, the project shall incorporate all required tdfic noise mitigation measure (ie: balcor and mechanical ventilation) into these units as described in the Acoustic; for PA-12. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of August, the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: SC Erwin, Hall, Holmes and Marcus. NOES: McFadden. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMM PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 3081 -2- MITIGATED NEiGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The 26.1 acre project site is located along southeast corner of Alga Road and Black Rail Court. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Developmenl develop 108 multi-family units (in triplex structures) a private street and two recreat areas over a 26.1 acre site. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above descril project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmel Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. A result of said review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject proj 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 Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments fI the public are invited. Please submit comments in writin to the Planning Departm within 30 days of date of issuance. P DATED: JULY 5,1990 &/$ll@L 214 J. , HOLZ@LER CASE NO: CT 89-39/PUD 89-19 ~i Ensirector APPLICANT: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 12 PUBLISH DATE: JULY 5, 1990 CDD:lh 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 1 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 89-39/PUD 89-15 DATE : JUNE 27, 1990 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: AVIARA - PLANNING AREA 12 2. APPLICANT: A - M HOMES. INC. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7 UPPER NEWPORT PLAZA. NEWPORT BEACH. CA 926( 714-852-9411 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: DECEMBER 4, 1989 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND PLANNE UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP 10 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ALONG THE SOUTHEAS CORNER OF ALGA ROAD AND BLACK RAI COURT. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a prc have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmenta Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklis checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with informatic as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact 1 Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no SUI evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a si! effect on the environment. On the checklist, llNOI1 will be checked to this determination. Jr An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is SUI evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sisnificant effel environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration hol adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can k insisnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the llYES-sigll and "YES-insig" respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measure: at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Pi attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts whi otherwise be determined significant. ' 0 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES (sig) (insig) 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? 4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? X 6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? 7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? 8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? 1 - - - - - - - - - - - ' -2- w m BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (si571 yfir%ig) 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants) ? 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? HUM ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES (sig1 (insig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 20. Increase existing noise levels? X 21. Produce new light or glare? , -3- P - - 1 e w HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES (sig) (insig) 22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? 24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 25. Generate substantial additional traffic? 26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? 27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? 29. Increase traffic hazards to motor 30. Interfere with emergency response plans or vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? emergency evacuation plans? 31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? K - - - - - ' -4- w e MANDATORY FIND.INGS OF SIGNIFICANCE YES (sid YERnsig) E 33. 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. 34. 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.) 35. 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 with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) considerable when viewed in connection 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - - - "5- w w DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This project is a 108 unit (multi-family) subdivision (4 residential 3 open space lots) located at the southeast corner of the , Road/Black Rail Court intersection within the Aviara Master Plan a: The project site is 26.1 acres in size and has been previously rl graded consistent with approved grading plans for CT 85-35. For ' environmental analysis, staff conducted two field trips to the sub property and reviewed the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Ma Plan EIR 83-2(A) which already covered this property. The sout: portion of the subject property (Lot-C) is vegetated with Coastal Habitat and is under deed restriction to the California Coa Commission. The remainder of the property has been mass graded an sensitive environmental resources exist upon it. In that: (1) proposed residential project is allowed by the underlying Aviara Ma Plan and General Plan, (2) it is surrounded by compatible existin future land uses including Alga Road to the north, Open Space to south, the Aviara Golf Course to the west and the proposed Four Sea Destination Resort Hotel Site, to the east, (3) the site has previously rough graded and (4) the project will not encroach into deed restricted Coastal Sage Scrub habitat to the south, environmental impacts are anticipated. There were no public comm received in response to the Notice for a Mitigated Negative Declarat PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. The project requires balanced grading totaling 45,000 cubic yai The site has been previously rough graded consistent with apprc grading plans for CT 85-35. No unstable earth conditions will created as the grading plan is required to meet City Engineei Standards. 2. The topography of the previously graded site will not significantly changed from its present graded state. 3. Properties surrounding the project site are currently in a gri but otherwise undeveloped state. The project will not result il be affected by erosion of soils as all necessary drainage erosion control facilities have been or will be provided to ha1 runoff from the site. 4. Impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon (i.e. erosion and runoff) will adequately mitigated as discussed in response to #3 above. 5. The project will have an incremental impact on air quality discussed in EIR 83-2(A)), in that it will generate 864 trips/{ However, this impact is not considered significant in itself. : term mitigation of air quality impacts will require that dependc upon the automobile be reduced regionally and statewide. 6. The project has a minimum 20 foot separation between the structu: This design will provide for adequate air movement. ' -6- e m DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUED): 7. The project will not change the course or flow of water as streams are located in the immediate area and drainage waters t be handled by existing and/or proposed facilities. 8. Development of this project will create impervious surfaces on: which would reduce absorption rates and incrementally incrc surface runoff and runoff velocities. However, to accommodate 1 incremental runoff, drainage facilities will be incorporated : Blackrail Court, thereby mitigating this concern. the project to divert the runoff to new curb and gutter a: 9. Aside from the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat located in the soutl portion of the property (which will be maintained in Open Spac no natural resources exist on this previously graded site. 10. Implementation of this project will incrementally contribute to depletion of fossil fuels and other natural resources dul construction and operation. This incremental increase is considered significant. 11. The site is currently disturbed and all identified archaeologic paleontological or historical sites have been previously mitigal BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12, Excluding the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat located with the soutl portion of the site which will be maintained in open space (( restricted) the balance of the site has been disturbed thrc grading activities. In accordance, no significant biolog. resources will be impacted through project development. 13. No significant impacts to the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat locate1 the southern portion of the site are anticipated in that landscaping proposed adjacent to this area will be compatible f. retardant and non-inva.sive. 14. Implementation of the proposed project will not reduce the amc of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect farmland of Stat( local importance. 15. Wrought iron fencing located between development areas and the 1 restricted open space to the south will mitigate impacts of dome pets upon the wildlife in this open space area. 16. In that the on site protected habitat area is linked to o undeveloped open space areas within the Master Plan and bec project fencing will deter domestic pet intrusion into protected habitat area, no impacts or barriers to the movemen wildlife is anticipated to occur. ' -7- w e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUED): HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 17. Development of this project will be consistent with the Gene Plan, Master Plan-177 and the Mello I1 LCP. The proposed trig produce type is compatible with adjacent land uses. 18. As discussed in the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, k the payment of all required fees, all public facilities and servj will be available to meet the demands of the project. 19. See 18 above. 20. Construction of the project will not result in noise impacts I surrounding residences since the adjacent properties undeveloped. Otherwise, the project is compatible with surrounc future uses and will not create significant noise impacts. 1 Road, which is located along the northern property boundary t create noise levels in excess of 60 dBA CNEL. However, this nc impact is proposed to be mitigated through the incorporation c solid noise barrier (wall) between the road and the adjac dwelling units and through the use of other sound attenual measures (i.e. plexiglass shielded balconies, and mechan: ventilation) as specified within the Acoustical Study for 1 Planning Area. 21. Lighting utilized onsite will be directed so as to not im] adjacent future views. 22. Because this is a residential project it will not involv significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazarc substances. 23. The proposed project net density of 5.9 du/acre is well below density permitted upon the site (12.1 du/acre) per the Aviara Ma: effects should be reduced. Plan. In view of the reduced density, overall project environme: 24. The project will provide additional housing units to meet exis. demand. 25. A total of 864 average daily vehicle trips will be generated by project which will not significantly impact the circulation sy as discussed in EIR 83-2 (A) and LFMP - 19. 26. The demand for parking facilities created by this project wil satisfied onsite. Two garage spaces will be provided for each in addition to a total of 35 guest parking spaces. ' -8- w m DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUED): 27. This project will require improvements to Black Rail Court completion of Alga Road from El Camino Real to its entryway. project will add 864 ADT to Black Rail Court and other surround significant. streets. This minor increase in traffic is not conside 28. The project site is outside of the Airport Influence Area Palomar Airport. 29. One vehicular access point is proposed for the project and is located to cause conflicts with its intersection with Black F Court. 30. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans. 31. The project will not obstruct any scenic vista and will create aesthetically pleasing street scene along Alga Road and Black F Court through the use of adequate structural setbacks, structc relief and rich landscaping. "9- e w ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a] Phased development of the project, b) alternate site design: c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the sj e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) The 108 dwelling units proposed with this project will b completed in one phase. Phasing would not result in a environmentally superior project. b) This project has been designed to comply with all developmen standards and design guidelines of the Aviara Master Plan The proposal creates no significant environmental impacts In accordance, no alternate site designs would appear a environmentally superior. c) The scale of this proposal (108 dwelling units) is potentially superior improvement over the maximum of 35 dwelling units permitted per Master Plan - 177. d) Any change of land use (except higher density residentia permitted per MP-177) upon the subject property woul recessitate a General Plan Amendment and Master Pla Amendment. e) Since the site is already rough graded and, all publi facilities and services will be available to support thi proposed project, development at some future time would nc be regarded as an environmentally preferable alternative. f) There are alternative sites for the project; however, thc have no environmental advantages, and this proposal j consistent with the existing land use plans. g) The Itno project" alternative is not in conformance with tl General Plan/Master Plan designation for the property. Sinc the site is already graded, this alternative is nc environmentally superior. -10- e e DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: - I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - X 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 Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. - I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 6 Lx-2 \yo Ph MJ 4&+- Date LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to the occupancy of any of the dwelling units, the project applicant shall construc a 6.0 foot high sound attenuation wall, as described in the Acoustical Analysis for PA-12 along Alga Road. Prior to the occupancy of units 2-9 the project applicant shd incorporate all required traffic noise mitigation measures as described in the Acoustic; Analysis for PA-12, (i.e. balcony barriers and mechanical ventilation) into these units ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -11- m 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEAS AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. (&Y?-go Date Signature CDD: lh -12- WYCNULX Y ENVIRO &K MITIGATION MONmmG cd)lKms Page L cn l- d, n 3 h co e 6 0, co .. v) U W m z 3 z ! LL cu m 7 : 0: S e c m (111 m .- h L .- k w a 5 z + 0 W U R 3 c 0 m 0 .- w - kj E .- 9 P z 8 + a - .- 0 -D C " + .. cj n 6 w w z d z Q k a z 8 U 0 U iil w n k 3 0 U R 2 am0 iij2z .- om 0 .e .o a ti- Q o .& 8 +aL z 35 -E! $3 oa,s .- 'E: g.E E "c, a, 0 m -= L. 03 DE CT .v, E $) pa, L. 0 .r 1 += o -"$ !3 & -e %x E a 5 -E :wJ .Q -8 5 .= e , 2 .PG o a= op Q) as2 sa a ggg %Ea, FEE 0" ai" E- *-a S& E& II: a, -e "E 0 3 ad$ ,-iiia a, f .r .a, 0 cn 5 x% $-E0 €$so oacug pa 3 :Emg - E oms, acr mag, E.E 3" EEa,R e 0 E; -- E to[) >CO g-gz;? " c gem 3 €3 2B.w oEr $ $%$j 0 a -= - a, .e ea " QE ga QT 00 K CUo un e- t , .- * a,L a,- ma ma3 o> o= "+ t-P,5a % (I) E Q) LI: S 0 m S .- c, 4-4 E a, Q - E - v) c a- m " aQ- kc Go >t 3 0 v) -c c; 6 .- c, 6g E$ w t " z a, 3 L % 2 t 0 a " + .- + " 2 0 x S B 3 0 0 u a, (111 + 0 U 0 -0 w b 5 I? L aju-8 a,- fJ % .g 2 u -e 0 'b '- Era an e .- ou=P -2 3% gg t E E -e E 5 E 'a, 5 .r %a 0 L .o 355 3E.Z a, l+ -L 5eL 00 Q) O -= .v, a, L c Ed .- 25EZ .- c 3- - :5p g g.E g .- c Em&€ E p S0.g E 5 2-c g .cn g -5 EEZ 0,co s3 L v) wa,iijO c, .a,,> a, aj2Eg; 0 k.=a,o p CrjSLCT) a SCp iij 0s Ez 92,OCD c,L -r (D m.2 qni- E3tca Or 3 EE%g $3 x.E!z$ #) Gac II 8 -%rciijaL (02 8535p 5 g)cL=L ou E a3 $.reg a'Q> 5 11 II g si2 &-m 9. 5% g.zKE2 GQcEF $< -6 73 .E! s csEi+3 " &.FgE v) II 3 0 0 aag zv,g_Eu,v, s (u a,' II or-2 3.s m c-c 0- (111 3 OD, C9 8 QSgg E o L Qa, t h cd CuO~Co 0 cc-= fia - QW v) p 0s 3 L c as.52- .- > L C" '5;asc c oa o E a -= 11 .E .r g2 c Q) -0- v C 1 ivJQ)(d 0 0 Q) aS a,< --n a E .c, a - 0r.G acua wx kzv)>U