The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-10-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 3113ll I 2 3 4 5 6 e e PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3113 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP AN 86 DWELLING UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. APPLICANT: AVIARA - PLANNING AREA 9 CASE NO.: CT 90-10/PUD 90-13 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of October, 7 arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by 9 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tes 8 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and IO considering any wxitten comments received, the Planning Commission considered 11 relating to the Negative Declaration. 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Cor l3 I/ follows: 14 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 15 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning C 16 hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Conditional Negative Declaration ac Exhibit "ND", dated August 30, 1990, and "PII", dated August 24, 1990, attac 17 and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 18 Findings: I' I 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project 20 significant impact on the environment, provided that the mitigating conditions are complied with. 21 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental an: 22 83-2 (A)). 23 24 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed I 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be si*cant 25 li by this project. 26 27 28 '"'* ..... b e e 1 2 3 4 Conditions: 1. prior to occupancy of any of the dwelling units, the project applicant shaI hum 6.0 foot high sound attenuation wall, as described in the Acoustici PA-9, along Alga Road. Prior to the occupancy of any units in building project applicant shall incorporate all required traffic noise mitigation described in the Acoustical Analysis for PA-9, (ie. balcony barriers and ventilation) into those units. 5 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of t ' Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of October, : 7 11 following vote, to wit: 8 9 AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Holmes, Holmes. 10 ABSENT: Commissioners: McFadden and Erwin. 11 NOES: None. 14 13 12 15 SHARON SCHRA", Chairperson 16 ATTES . 17 18 A$d! /" HAE J. HOLZMI LER 3-9 f$%NJG DIRECTOR ABSTAIN: None. CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 2o i 21 22 23 24 25 26 ll 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 3113 -2- CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 9 - Along Finck between Alga Road and Kngfisher Place. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Developm develop 86 Condominium Units and two recreation areas on 16 acres. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described I pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Qual and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result I review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant 1 on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this ac on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the P1 Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 2 of date of issuance. DATED: AUGUST 30,1990 CASE NO: CT 90-10/PUD 90-13 /- A,J,)J&& ti \ 'A&- . MICHAEL J. HQLZMfLLl Planning Director APPLICANT: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 9 PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 30, 1990 MG:lh 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 (619) 438 0 a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESS" FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 90-1O/PUD DATE: AUGUST 24, 19' BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: AvlARA - PLANNING AREA 9 2, APPLICANT: MCKELLAR COMMUNITIES 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5151 SHOREHAM PLACE SAN DIEGO. CA 92122 619-587-1355 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: MARCH 2. 1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP AND PLAl DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP 86 CONDOMINIUM UNITS SOUTH OF ALGA NORTH OF KINGFISHER PLACE. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the CitJ Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the propose provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an E Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" v to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that an) project may cause a sidcant effect on the environment. The project may qualify : Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated SO that environmental effects c insianificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" a respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 0 PHYSIcAL"0NMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? 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? Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? -2- 0 E? E%, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , BIOLOGICAL E?‘MRONMF.NT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 75 S F S % msig) 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? 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? NO x x x x 5 S F S NO SI msig) x x -3- 0 e HuMANENvlRoNMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 22. 23. 24, 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 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? Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? YES (si& YES (insig) I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4- 0 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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 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. population to drop below self-sustaining 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 considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? E)S E3 I - - - - - - - - -5- 0 a DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This project is a 86 unit (multi-family) subdivision (6 residential and 1 open space lot) IC along Finch Lane between Alga Road and Kingfisher Place within the Aviara Master Plan The project site is 32.5 acres in size and has been previously rough graded consistenl approved grading plans for CT 85-35. For this environmental analysis, staff conducted tw trips to the subject property and reviewed the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Maste EIR 83-2(A) which already covered this property. Three canyons containing Coastal Sage 1' extend from the north and west portion of the site and are under deed restriction California Coastal Commission. The remainder of the property has been mass graded ; sensitive environmental resources exist upon it. In that: (1) the proposed residential prc allowed by the underlying Aviara Master Plan and General Plan, (2) it is surrounc compatible existing or future land uses including the Four Seasons Aviara Resort and oper to the north, the Aviara Golf Course to the east and west, and the Aviara Resort Sports to the south, (3) the site has been previously rough graded and (4) the project will not en into the deed restricted Coastal Sage Scrub habitat to the north, no environmental impa anticipated. There were no public comments received in response to the Notice for a Mi Negative Declaration. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. The project requires balanced grading totaling 32,450 cubic yards. The site ha: previously rough graded consistent with approved grading plans for CT 85-35. No UI Standards. . earth conditions will be created as the grading plan is required to meet City Engir 2. The topography of the previously graded site will not be significantly changed f present graded state. 3. Properties surrounding the project site are currently in a graded but otherwise mdeT state. The project will not result in or be affected by erosion of soils as all ne drainage and erosion control facilities have been or will be provided to handle runc the site. 4. Impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon (i.e. erosion and runoff) will be adequately mitig discussed in response to #3 above. 5. The project will have an incremental impact on air quality (as discussed in EIR 83-2 that it will generate 688 trips/day. However, this impact is not considered signif automobile be reduced regionally and statewide. itself. Long term mitigation of air quality impacts will require that dependence u 6. The project has a minimum 20 foot separation between the structures. This des provide for adequate air movement. -6- 0 e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUEDl: 7. The project will not change the course or flow of water as no streams are located i immediate area and drainage waters will be handled by existing and/or proposed facil 8. Development of this project will create impervious surfaces onsite which would re absorption rates and incrementally increase surface runoff and runoff velocities. HOW to accommodate this incremental runoff, drainage facilities will be incorporated int project to divert the runoff to new curb and gutter along Blackrail Court, thereby mitig this concern. 9. Aside from the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat located in the northern portion of the prc (which will be maintained in Open Space), no natural resources exist on this prev graded site. 10. Implementation of this project will incrementally contribute to the depletion of fossil and other natural resources during construction and operation. This incremental in is not considered significant. 11. The site is currently disturbed and all identified archaeological, paleontological or his sites have been previously mitigated. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12. Excluding the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat located at the northern portion of the site will be maintained in open space (deed restricted) the balance of the site has been dis through grading activities. In accordance, no significant biological resources 1 impacted through project development. 13. No significant impacts to the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat located in the northern por the site are anticipated in that the landscaping proposed adjacent to this area ' compatible fire-retardant and non-invasive. 14. Implementation of the proposed project will not reduce the amount of acreage agricultural crop or affect farmland of State or local importance. 15. Wrought iron fencing located between development areas and the deed restricted ope to the north will mitigate impacts of domestic pets upon the wildlife in this open spat 16. In that the on site protected habitat area is linked to other undeveloped open spa( within the Master Plan and because project fencing will deter domestic pet intrusion i protected habitat area, no impacts or barriers to the movement of wildlife is anticil occur. -7- 0 e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUED): HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 17. Development of this project will be consistent with the General Plan, Master Plan-177 the Mello I1 LCP. The proposed triplex produce type is compatible with adjacent land 1 18. As discussed in the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, with the payment c required fees, all public facilities and services will be available to meet the demands o project. 19. See 18 above. 20. Construction of the project will not result in noise impacts upon surrounding reside since the adjacent properties are undeveloped. Otherwise, the project is compatible located along the northern property boundary will create noise levels in excess of 6C CNEL. However, this noise impact is proposed to be mitigated through the incorpor of a solid noise barrier (wall) between the road and the adjacent dwelling units and tht the use of other sound attenuation measures (i.e. plexiglass shielded balconies, mechanical ventilation) as specified within the Acoustical Study for this Planning Arc surrounding future uses and wlll not create sigmficant noise impacts. Alga Road, wh 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 explosi the release of hazardous substances. 23. The proposed project net density of 2.6 du/acre is well below the density permitted the site (3.1 du/acre) per the Aviara Master Plan. In view of the reduced density, c project environmental effects should be reduced. 24. The project will provide additional housing units to meet existing demand. 25. A total of 668 average daily vehicle trips will be generated by the project which M significantly impact the circulation system as discussed in EIR 83-2(A) and LFMP - 26. The demand for parking facilities created by this project will be satisfied onsite. Two spaces will be provided for each unit in addition to a total of 26 guest parking spac -8- @ e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUED): 27. This project will require improvements to Kingfisher Place and completion of Alga Road El Camino Real to its entryway. The project will add 668 ADT to Alga Road and ( surrounding streets. This minor increase in traffic is not considered significant. 28. The project site is outside of the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport. 29. Two vehicular access points are proposed for the project and are not located to ( conflicts with the intersections at Alga Road or Kingfisher Place. 30. The project will not interfere with emergency response phs, 31. The project will not obstruct any scenic vista and will create an aesthetically pleasing scene along Alga Road and Finch Lane through the use of adequate structural set1 structural relief and rich landscaping. 32. Areas for private common recreational pursuits are provided on site. -9- a 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) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) The 86 dwelling units proposed with this project will be completed in one phase, Phasing would not result in an environmentally superior project. b) This project has been designed to comply with all development standards and design guidelines of the Aviara Master Plan. The proposal creates no significan- environmental impacts. In accordance, no alternate site designs would appear a environmentally superior. c) The scale of this proposal (86 dwelling units) is a potentially superic improvement over the maximum of 100 dwelling units permitted per MP-177. d) Any change of land use (except higher density residential permitted per MP-177 upon the subject property would necessitate a General Plan Amendment an Master Plan Amendment. e) Since the site is already rough graded and, all public facilities and services will b available to support this proposed project, development at some future time woul not be regarded as an environmentally preferable alternative. f) There are alternative sites for the project; however, they have no environment advantages, and this proposal is consistent with the existing land use plans. g) The "no project" alternative is not in conformance with the General PlWMast Plan designation for the property. Since the site is already graded, this alternatil is not environmentally superior. -10- m a DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Phming 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 Conditiond 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. /A/q y? P75v FH//,; / /d c // /4@+ 7.. ,pte Signature ". . I- * I Date LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to the occupancy of any of the dwelling units, the project applicant shall construc a maximum 6.0 foot high sound attenuation wall, as described in the Acoustical Analys for PA-9, along Alga Road. Prior to the occupancy of any units in building 1, lot 3, tl project applicant shall incorporate all required traffic noise mitigation measures 2 described in the Acoustical Analysis for PA-9, (i.e. balcony barriers and mechanic; ventilation) into these units. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLEI MG:lh -11- 0 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WI"H THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature -12- 0 3 35 g F; C 3 CI % .ti y 2 ow 8 0 .- 228 a E Ll n 02% w .c, c;: g 2 m 5 E5 2 .% c 'is 2.2 M a% E mz z+e -A +-*E pi! $4 cw z s '3 05 -2% ZE 9QLl E 2 E.? .I C 22 sacs L c c;: < .Y i? Bo m .M WE kA c eJQ e. 02; %E 52 ci 2 a -A > E' 5% 5zz a C z4 Yz 3 =c g gG 2 5 a- s 5 z us n C<C 5 Fa QGE M a0 g $ -5 2;* w, u .I c;: < z .gp. 52 4 +a 0 c) 0 C .- fz > 0 0 w M .% Q - ms =u, rim .z 9) .r, w OtnQ 'A E cd * cLn '2 .p mr=j 0,s Q cy c 0-3 0 .5 Y q c c -* E cn E 0 d .5 2 % .- E b 0 al c- E E E c 1- 9- . si? CrJ 3 e@ g si dm "Z crj 0 z c;: 0 34 z z z a < g.%g ,*.=o Q EZP* 3s 3* 4 *8aEa c3' 6 = - a.2 6.2 3 d) Lijb =.2 cas E--Z 8 5 3 z.5 E c-2 cd $E-" 6 - g8u p: fa *ZEQ LI .- P) 6 a, $ < can's E p1 $w Q m 00 i+ a o, E2 3s -37ac %SA €qJg CGSM 0% g2 Z$ .F 3*;b 5 .P G 7*scd $4 G u * b - - u-300 .- c US=:-a_.L 2 :$ *g A * z.sg -3 cd 5E cc, -2 E- 3E E E% +z5m sa a E.%?= w .g 2 g& mQ 2 ESES 5-2 tcr 9- bD0 WQ cd zz.-= 2 u\ocd>z a=? c 9) .- a 0 -i Q Y - 3 CJ 3 C a 3 Pj .s 5 3 .E? M 2 .% a c;: -5 0-0 €38 gL~ a- c g -iz .? E L -g *s 1 g 2 .- p) s.5 I 1P.Y 5 2 3,jO a EZS & ; E -z us $ -z 5 .s c ; c Mc c €CUE L2 Q c as 5 * c ,.> - 0s z s 2 g 2:; 00,3c $G c;: e 2 .Y g *; 62 g C c c 2.z c Q a a7 ED Q .s 6 E.=: dh .- >O"Ei SZZQ c "9 c : 7atOs; E EZ3; 5 5 E II *~ G aJ2.g. .II % z *g *s '= .e C * u=J==L: ac Q L C 0.2 Gk Q a- M dQCG c -6 n -0 bQ 35 .I cd 3; II 5c 2 satnE * 0Q)co .i E;% L 03. " 3 e .Y 0-2 3% p2 5 +cm> CI