The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-10-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 3099, W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3099 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATrVE TRACT MAP/PLANNED UNIT DEmLOPMENT TO DEVELOP A 147 DWELLING UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. APPLICANT: AVIARA - PLANNING AREA 5 CASE NO.: CT 90-9/PUD 90-12 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of Oct hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said req WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and con testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, tf 1 Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declar NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning ( ~ as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. I? subject to the following condition: according to Exhibit "ND", dated August 30, 1990, and "PII", dated Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative 18 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, tl 19 1990, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following 1 20 1 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmen 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by tl project. ' I( w 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be si impacted by this project. Conditions: 1. Prior to the occupancy of any of the dwelling units, the project appl co~lstruct a 5.0 foot high sound attenuation wall between Alga Ro: proposed dwelling units 126-129 and 131-134 along this road. The w constructed consistent with the recommendations of the Acoustical Planning Area 5 (Mestre-Greve, 1990). Prior to the occupancy of uni and 131-134, the project applicant shall incorporate all required b mitigation measure (ie: mechanical ventilation) into these units as dm Acoustical Analysis for Planning Area 5. 9 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of tl lo Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of Octobe XI. ll the following vote, to wit: 12 13 AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehubc Marcus and Hall. 14 15 16 17 NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners: Erwin and McFadden. ABSTAIN: None. 18 19 20 // ATTEST: SHARON SCHRA", Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSI( 21 22 %$ffdL 23 Q MICHAE J. HOLZ ILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR 24 25 11 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 3099 -2- 28 I! I1 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The 23.8 acre project site is located at tl southeast corner of the intersection of Alga Roi and Batiquitos Drive. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Developme to develop 147 condominium units over a 23.8 acre si1 The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projc pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality P and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of sa review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant imp; on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planni Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the pub are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 d2 of date of issuance. . DATED: August 30, 1990 CASE NO: CT 90-9/PUD 90-12 Planning Director APPLICANT: Aviara Planning Area 5 PUBLISH DATE: August 30, 1990 CDC:mo 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 ,'NOTICE OF COMPLETION Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth S , Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 - 916/445- r See NOTE Below: Project Title: Aviara Plannins Area 5 Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad Contact Person: Chris DeCerbo Street Address: 2075 Las Palms Drive Phone: (619) 438-1161 City: Car L sbad Zip: 92009 County: San Dieqo _"__""__"____"_"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~. PROJECT LOCATICN: County: San Diego City/Nearest Cmunity: Carlsbad Cross Streets: ALga Road/Batiquitos Drive Total Acres: 23.8 Assessor's Parcel No. 215-051-10 Section: Tup. Range: 6: Within 2 Miles: State Huy #: 1-5 Waterways: Pacific Ocean Airports: Palomar Rai luays: Schools: - ""____"_"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" DOCUMENT TYPE CEPA: - NOP - Supplement/Subsequent NEPA: - NO I OTHER: - Joint DOCL - Early Cons - EIR (Prior SCH No.) EA Final DOCL Other - X Mit Neg Dec __ Other - Draft EIS FONSI - - Draft EIR - - - "_"""_____"___"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" - LOCAL ACTION TYPE - General Plan Update __ specific Plan __ Rezone - Annexat' - General Plan Amendment - Master Plan Prezone Redevel General Plan Element X Planned Unit Development - - Use Permit Coas ta 1 - Comnunity Plan - Site Plan - X Land Division (Subdivision, - Other - - - - Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) DEVELWENT TYPE - X Residential: Units 147 Acres 23.8 Water Facilities: Type Office: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees Transportation: Type Commercial: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees Mining: Mineral Industrial: Sq. Ft. Acres Emp 1 oyees - Power: Type - Educational Waste Treatment: Type Recreational - Hazardous Waste: Type __"_"_"_"_"_""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~ - - - - - - - - Other: - PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT - X Aesthetic/Visual - Flood Plain/Flooding X Schools/Universities X Water ( - Agricultural Land - Forest Larrd/Fire Hazard - Septic Systems - Water ! - X Air Quality - X Geologic/Seismic Seuer Capacity Ground - X Archaeological/Historical - Minerals . X Soi l Erosion/Compaction/Grading - Wet lam X Noise Solid Waste X Wildti, x Population/Housing Balance X Toxic/Wazardous Economic/Jobs Fiscal X Recreation/Parks - - - X Vegetation - Cwnu L a' Other . _"""_""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" - - - X Coastal Zone - - - X Drainage/Absorption - - - - Growth - X Public Services/Facilities X Traffic/Circulation X Landust - - - "___"__""_"""""""""""""""""""~"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""". - Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use RM (Residential Medium) 6.0 Du/Ac - PC (Planned Comnunity) Project Description A Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to develop 147 condominium units at the southeast corner of the Alga Road and Batiquitos Drive. _"____""_"____"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""- NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH nunber already exists for from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. Revi w w ENV~RONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 90-9/P DATE: Aumst 15, BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Aviara - Planninn Area 5 2. APPLTCANT: McKellar Communities 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5151 Shoreham Place, Suite 200 San Dieno, CA 92122 (619) 587-1355 4, DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED; March 1,1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Subdivision Map and Planned Unit Development to dl condominium units at the southeast corner of the intersection of and Batisuitos Drive. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City c Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the en The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. Th identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed 1 provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Env Impact Report or Negative Declaration. $: A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that thf any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will to indicate this determination. -,: An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any a: project may cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can insimificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings YES-sig" and respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. w PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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? 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? -2- W YES (six) YES (insig) - - X - - NO - X X - x - X - - x - 1 1 - 1 - i - - - w 0 BIOLOGICAL, ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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? HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? E? E$] - - YES YES (sig) (lnsig) - -3- NO x - 3 - 7 ' - - - N - - m HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? Increase existing noise levels? Produce new light or glare? Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Generate substantial additional traffic? Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? 29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 30. Interfere with emergency response plans or 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? -4- a E? YES (msig) X - - - - - - NC x - - 1 - T - 7 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - m 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: E? E& Ii 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- 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.) siderable" means that the incremental 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - -5- e 0 located at the southeast comer of the intersectic .8 acres in size and has been previously roug . For this environmental analysis, staff conductc acific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Pla~ fan open space corridor running north to sout: 1 and are under deed restriction to the Californ 5 acres), the remainder of the property has bl upon it. In that: (1) the proposed resident neral Plan, (2) it is surrounded by compatib approved yet unconstructed single family the project will not encroach into the deed r in the center of the site, no environment ed in response to the Notice for a Mitigatec nd 4 respectively) and agricultural uses to cubic yards of cut and 26,802 cubic y r Master Plan Planning Areas. The sit( ading plans for CT 85-35. No unsl ed to meet City Engineering standal ot be significantly changed from its pres cultural use, all other surrounding prc oject will not result in, or be affected facilities (desiltation basin) have bee1 ff) will be adequately mitigated as c ality (as discussed in EIR 83-2(A)), in not considered significant in itself. dependence upon the automobile een the structures. This design will adequate a'r movement. P 7. The projec will not change the course or flow of water as no streams are located in the imr and draina e waters will be handled by existing and/or proposed facilities. I -6- e 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (cont’d) 8. Development of this project will create impervious surfaces onsite which would reduce absorp, and incrementally increase surface runoff and runoff velocities. However, to accornmo incremental runoff, drainage facilities will be incorporated into the project to divert the ru master storm drain, thereby mitigating this concern. 9. Aside from the chaparral habitat located in the central and eastern portions of the property (t be maintained in open space), no natural resources exist on this previously graded site. 10. Implementation of this project will incrementally contribute to the depletion of fossil fuels natural resources during construction and operation. This incremental increase is not c significant. 11. The site is currently disturbed and all identified archaeological, paleontological or historical been previously mitigated. Bioloaical Environment 12. Excluding the chaparral habitat located within the central portion of the site which will be r in open space (deed restricted) the balance of the site has been disturbed through grading In accordance, no significant biological resources will be impacted through project develop 13. No significant impacts to the chaparral habitat located in the central portion of the site are i in that the landscaping proposed adjacent to this area will be compatible fire-retardant invasive. 14. Implementation of the proposed project will not reduce the amount of acreage of any agricr or affect farmland of state or local importance. 15. In that all Coastal deed restricted and other native areas on the property will be maintair space, and wrought iron or other types of fencing will be located between these open spac project development, no impacts to wildlife or habitat are anticipated. 16. In that the on site protected habitat area is linked to other undeveloped open space areas Master Plan and because project fencing will deter domestic pet intrusion into this protec area, no impacts or barriers to the movement of wildlife is anticipated to occur. Human Environment 17. Development of this project will be consistent with the General Plan, Master Plan-177 an I LCP. The proposed multi-family product we is compatible with adjacent land uses. 18. As discussed in the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, with the payment of all re all public facilities and services will be available to meet the demands of the project. -7- e 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (cont’d) 19. See 18 above. 20. Consr~clion of the project will result in short term and insignificant noise impacts upon I family residence located to the south and the approved yet unconstructed residential areas t and west. Otherwise, the project is compatible with surrounding future uses and will I significant noise impacts. Alga Road, which is located along the northern property boun create noise levels in excess of 60 dBA CNEL. However, this noise impact is proposed to be through the incorporation of a solid noise barrier (wall) between the road and the adjacen units and through the use of other sound attenuation measures (i.e. plexiglass shielded b. proposed, and mechanical ventilation) as specified within the Acoustical Study for this Plan: 21. Lighting utilized onsite will be directed so as to not impact adjacent future views. 22. Because this is a residential project it will not involve a significant risk of an explosion or ’. of hazardous substances. 23. The proposed project density of 6.17 du/acre is well below the density permitted upon th du/acre) per the Aviara Master Plan. In view of the reduced density, overall project env effects should be reduced. 24. The project will provide additional housing units to meet existing demand. 25. A total of 1176 average daily vehicle trips will be generated by the project which will not s impact the circulation system as discussed in EIR 83-2(A) and LFMP-19. 26. The demand for parking facilities created by this project will be satisfied onsite. Two garage be provided for each unit in addition to 42 guest parking spaces throughout the project. 27. This project will require improvements to Hummingbird Drive. The project will add 11 Hummingbird Drive and other surrounding streets. This minor increase in traffic is not significant. 28. The project site is outside of the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport+ 29. Three vehicular access points are proposed for the project. These access points are located conflicts with their intersection with Hummingbird Drive. 30. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans. 31. The project will not obstruct any scenic vista and will create an aesthetically pleasing streel Alga Road, Batiquitos Drive and Hummingbird Drive through the use of adequate structu structural relief and rich landscaping. -8- e 0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) The 147 dwelling units proposed with this project will be completed in several phases. b) This project has been designed to comply with all development standards and design guj the Aviara Master Plan. The proposal creates no significant environmental impacts. In ac no alternate site designs would appear as environmentally superior. c) The scale of this proposal (147 dwelling units) is a potentially superior improvemen maximum of 189 dwelling units permitted per Master Plan-177. d) Any change of land use (except higher density residential permitted per MP-177) upon : property would necessitate a General Plan Amendment and Master Plan Amendment. e) Since the site is already rough graded and all public facilities and services will be a. support this proposed project, development at some future time would not be regal environmentally preferable alternative. f) There are alternative sites for the project; however, they have no environmental advar this proposal is consistent with the existing land use plans. g) The "no project" alternative is not in conformance with the General Plan/Master Plan c for the property. Since the site is already graded, this alternative is not environmental1 -9- 0 0 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 N1 DECLARATION will be prepared. x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 1 not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attal 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 ENVIROP IMPACT REPORT is required. /- . (\, /r' ii e- Z] - yc /I, Lb> I A. !,;,'b- Date Signature B /zz/w Date LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to the occupancy of any of the dwelling units, the project applicant shall construct a 5.( sound attenuation wall, as described in the Acoustical Analysis for PA-5 along Alga Road. F occupancy of units 126-129 and 131 -134, the project applicant shall incorporate all rep: noise mitigation measures, as described in the Acoustical Analysis for PA-5 (i.e. mechanical v into these units. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -10- 0 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. J/1 /F?i - B&L DE# / Sihature -1 1- c 0 0 cv T- d n Q) 3 R \ T 0 0, I" 0 v) U W m 2 3 z .. Y *ii v) 4 a z U (3 z z R 4 i2 5 w r a z l3 3 W U R cj n c!j .. W W z J a z 0 k a 0 z 0 E 0 cr ic w z J s 0 U a a a iris- .- u)mE .E? E - .o_ a, 9'; 2 t 5s 2 $3 OaE .- e€: G€ -- - 9 P g-5 Qz CT .2 E 2 5 3.G Ea,& >p c 2,o gg E a is -cn +a,* Ora .- 5xg .= c * z .Fz 0 cn= up a, mz SUCa 9 4 a" .G 2 a, am0 a, .- c *z 0 m L .e 00 9 EQE g$ gaj.Ez .- c m e=* cz aOme L " a,gs 0 3 m-zz m-zn a, f .s -g v) 8 O g; E? a, 80 .- CI om@ mso5 .Fa v) g -= E m E m-tg 3 ao, g.E hi2 pm3 a13 cZa,& .- 2& > c.9, $*gij* -5 : -= m u) > .p= g.v,o €2 os= E 25irig +2Sa +o acq 00 +- a, e- c ul - *-+a, 0 z i! E C 0 m ala, .- CI UT !E€ a,u € >Q - 0 c m h c 0 c 0 3 5 .- F tic; .e g Ea 5 a, z. 2 8 3 s C 0 c13 .- + .- " c1 5 > 0 c m Q 3 0 8 a' c1 L 0 0 .- 0 C c c m a .- - Y b 73 P Fc-zg Ea, sa3 3 6% -2gg.g €;or m E, 0.0 m 00 '8.e ciijwq €ya,FT p- -a, >Zc3$ o,%%is a, q-0 ti,mmmv t bgOC$y& cn 3 5 h.- a 3 zrcno m cs a,- Ell" m.oTb L 3 or0,z.z crm€&&% ora o-.sa o.o,o,+, C u % a, U U c nl 2 a,- a= om= 0)'E c SllU 3 = q .o s x +; 3zs 2 T3 :c €68 e SS 3 .e -e 5 E 'a, a 5 cu a0 0: " crw OSZ .- m .- - c.' :5 B cE -= .u, Q) c 6€ 0 c .- Em E P C-c a,ou 3 c: -? g ff or = clw L g .g 2 2E s3 c 2 8.E @a,: iij 0.g € E $22 Or 3 €-E3 c .-aq gQcE a, amq -5na c .- & me E .E 0 - c 11 or; - m a,-=ss a52 $ I3 erv): L Qa pr L c -- .- =--mC v, FQaI m c II .- i kz; Q 4y)a w m