The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-10-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 31181 Ij 0 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3118 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 A 56 DWELLING UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. CASE NAME: CALADRIS AT AVIARA - PLANNING AREA 16 CASE NO.: CT 90-14/PUD 90-17 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of October, a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted b: considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considerec relating to the Conditional Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Co follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Conditional Negative Declaration : Exhibit "ND" dated August 30, 1990, and "PII", dated dated August 24, 19 hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinxs: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the projec significant impact on the environment, provided that the mitigating condition are complied with. 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental a1 83-2 (A)). 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significal by this project. ... ... ! 0 e 1 2 3 4 Conditions: 1. Prior to occupancy of any dwelling units, the project applicant shall construct 6.0 foot high sound attenuation wall as described in the Acoustical Analysj applicant shall incorporate all required traffic noise mitigation measures as the Acoustical Analysis for PA-16 (i.e., balcony barriers and mechanical venl these units. along Alga Road. Prior to occupancy of units 3,7,12,19,26,29,30-33,52-5 5 11 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of t ' 7 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of October, 1 following vote, to wit: a 9 AYES: Chairperson Schrarnm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Holmes, Hall. 10 ABSTAIN: None. 12 ABSENT: Commissioners: McFadden and Erwin. 11 NOES: None. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I I SHARON SCHRA", Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: M@AEL/J. Lf+ HOLZMI ER PLANNINk DIRECTOR I PC RES0 NO. 3118 -2- 1 I 3 CONDITIONAL NEGATNE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 16 - North of Road between Aviara Drive and Batiquitos Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Developmc develop 56 Condominium Units and one recreation area on 11.47 acres. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described p pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quali and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result c review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant i 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 P12 Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 3 of date of issuance. DATED: AUGUST 30,1990 CASE NO: CT 90-14/PUD 90-17 .A$,&, f. &kG q \ MICHAEL L.fIOL&%ii Planning Director APPLICANT: ORIS AT AVWAREA 16 PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 30, 1990 MG:lh 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 43E 0 e ENVIR0N"TAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 90-14/PL DATE: AUGUST 24. 1 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: CALARDIS AT AVIARA - PLANNING AREA 16 2. APPLICANT: CROSBY. MEAD, BENTON AND ASSOCIATES 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5966 LA PLACE CT., STE, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 619-438-1210 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TENTATnrE SUBDMSION MAP AND PL DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP 56 UNITS NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION C AND BLUE HERON WAY. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the C Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a sigmficant effect on t: The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklis identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the propc provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare ar Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence th; any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO' to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that a project may cause a sidcant effect on the environment. The project may qual@ Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects insianificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings YES-sig" respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end c DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be giv( mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 0 PHYSICAL; ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 1. Resdt 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 4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach either on or off the site? 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- 0 B? - - - - - - - - - - E?& - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: EiS 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? - - - HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: ZS 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? - 21. Produce new light or glare? - -3- E8 - - - - E$ - - - X - - 0 0 HUMANm0NMEN-r WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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 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? YES big) - - - - - - - - - - - YES (insig) - - - - - - - - - - - -4- e 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 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 considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) BS x!& - - - - 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - - - -5- a e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This project is a 56 unit (multi-family) subdivision (1 residential lot) located north of tl Road/Blue Heron Way intersection within the Aviara Master Plan area. The project site i: acres in size and has been previously rough graded consistent with approved grading pl CT 85-35. For this environmental analysis, staff conducted two field trips to the subject p and reviewed the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan EIR 83-2(A) which covered this property. The northern portion of the subject property is vegetated with Sage Habitat and is under deed restriction to the California Coastal Commission. The rex of the property has been mass graded and no sensitive environmental resources exist I In that: (1) the proposed residential project is allowed by the underlying Aviara Master F General Plan, (2) it is surrounded by compatible existing or future land uses including All to the southwest, Open Space to the north and the Aviara Golf Course to the east, (3) has been previously rough graded and .(4) the project will not encroach into the deed rt Coastal Sage Scrub habitat to the north, no environmental impacts are anticipated. The no public comments received in response to the Notice for a Mitigated Negative Declar PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. The project requires grading totaling 30,000 cubic yards with 18,000 cubic yards of The site has been previously rough graded consistent with approved gradin for CT 85-35. No unstable earth conditions will be created as the grading plan is I to meet City Engineering Standards. 2. The topography of the previously graded site will not be significantly changed 1 present graded state. 3. Properties surrounding the project site are currently in a graded but otherwise undf state. The project will not result in or be affected by erosion of soils as all n drainage and erosion control facilities have been or will be provided to handle run the site. 4. Impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon (i.e. erosion and runoff) will be adequately miti; discussed in response to #3 above. 5. The project will have an incremental impact on air quality (as discussed in EIR 83- that it will generate 448 trips/day. However, this impact is not considered sign itself. Long term mitigation of air quality impacts will require that dependence : automobile be reduced regionally and statewide. 6. The project has a minimum 20 foot separation between the structures. This de provide for adequate air movement. -6- 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUED~: 7. The project will not change the course or flow of water as no streams =e located immediate area and drainage waters will be handled by existing and/or proposed fa( 8. Development of this project will create impervious surfaces onsite which would absorption rates and incrementally increase surface runoff and runoff velocities. Ho to accommodate this incremental runoff, drainage facilities will be incorporated ir project to divert the runoff to new curb and gutter along Pintail Court, thereby mit. this concern. 9. Aside from the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat located in the northern portion of the PI (which will be maintained in Open Space), no natural resources exist on this pre graded site. 10. Implementation of this project will incrementally contribute to the depletion of fos: and other natural resources during construction and operation. This incremental i ' is not considered significant. 11. The site is currently disturbed and all identified archaeological, paleontological or hi sites have been previously mitigated. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12. Excluding the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat located at the northern portion of the sit1 will be maintained in open space (deed restricted) the balance of the site has been d: through grading activities. In accordance, no sigdicant biological resources impacted through project development. 13. No sigmficant impacts to the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat located in the northern p( 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 acreagf agricultural crop or affect farmland of State or local importance. 15. Wrought iron fencing located between development areas and the deed restricted op to the north will mitigate impacts of domestic pets upon the wildlife in this open sp; 16. In that the on site protected habitat area is linked to other undeveloped open SP: within the Master Plan and because project fencing will deter domestic pet intrusior protected habitat area, no impacts or barriers to the movement of wildlife is antic occur. -7- a m DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUED): HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 17. Development of this project will be consistent with the General Plan, Master Plan-1' the Mello I LCP. The proposed triplex product type is compatible with adjacent lan 18. As discussed in the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, with the paymenl required fees, all public facilities and services will be available to meet the demands project. 19. See 18 above. 20. Construction of the project will not result in noise impacts upon surrounding res: since the adjacent properties are undeveloped. Otherwise, the project is compatib surrounding future uses and will not create significant noise impacts. Alga Road, v located along the northern property boundary will create noise levels in excess of ( of a solid noise barrier (wall) between the road and the adjacent dwelling units and t the use of other sound attenuation measures (i.e. plexiglass shielded balconit mechanical ventilation) as specified within the Acoustical Study for this Planning L CNEL. However, this noise impact is proposed to be mitigated through the incorp 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 explc the release of hazardous substances. 23. The proposed project net density of 4.8 du/acre is well below the density permittc the site (14.9 du/acre) per the Aviara Master Plan. In view of the reduced density, project environmental effects should be reduced. 24. The project will provide additional housing units to meet existing demand. 25. A total of 448 average daily vehicle trips will be generated by the project which 1 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. Twc spaces will be provided for each unit in addition to a total of 28 guest parking spz -8- 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUEDI: 27. This project will require improvements to proposed Pintail Court and completion o Road from El Camino Real to its entryway. The project will add 448 ADT to Alga RO; other surrounding streets. This minor increase in traffic is not considered signdicar 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 its intersection with Alga Road. 30. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans. 31. The project will not obstruct any scenic vista and will create an aesthetically pleasin Scene along Alga Road and Pintail Court through the use of adequate structural sz structural relief and rich landscaping. -9- 0 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 56 dwelling units proposed with this project will be completed in one ph: Phasing would not result in an environmentally superior project. b) This project has been designed ro comply with all development standards design guidelines of the Aviara Master Plan. The proposal creates no signific environmental impacts. In accordance, no alternate site designs would appe2 environmentally superior. c) The scale of this proposal (56 dwelling units) is a potentially sup€ improvement over the maximum of 121 dwelling units permitted per MP - : d) Any change of land use (except higher density residential permitted per MP-' upon the subject property would necessitate a General Plan Amendment Master Plan Amendment. e) Since the site is already rough graded and, all public facilities and services wj available to support this proposed project, development at some future time w not be regarded as an environmentally preferable alternative. f) There are alternative sites for the project; however, they have no environm advantages, and this proposal is consistent with the existing land use plm g) The "no project" alternative is not in conformance with the General Plan/M Plan designation for the property. Since the site is already graded, this alterr is not environmentally superior. -10- 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - X I find that although the proposed project could have a simcant 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. && F???? (/ - i ygnature 'i/ f324J3 0 Date -Planqn'ng Director LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to the occupancy of any dwelling units, the project applicant shall constnu maximum 6.0 foot high sound attenuation wall, as described in the maximum Acoust Analysis for PA-16, along Alga Road. Prior to occupancy of units 3, 7, 12, 19, 26, 30-33, and 52-56, the project applicant shall incorporate all required traffic nl mitigation measures as described in the Acoustical Analysis for PA-16, (i.e. balc barriers and mechanical ventilation) into these units. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE] MG:lh -1 1- e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS 1s TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT, q-x4-V *T&XL+q < \\<k -anw Date Signature I -12- -I ENVIR-AL MITIGATION MONlTORING wsr Page - 1_ ' z 0 F a K 0 w w 4 n b2 72 gC3 42 zz OQ $ 65 f" :2 at 0 0 oc e. i/j gcj ZC!j LJ a z 0 t n z 0 0 I5 QDcT VI s a h I 4 a a 9 n 4 a > i- U 0 2% 65 .. lij an *A UO TU OCL UL aa QUO Eis- am5 'i; .o_ a, -E 2 8 0 -- E 5 55 223 -a, oacn wc 0 (0 .- L17)J .- c Eg OoE .%-s e a:5 c .E E 2 Srcr, 5 3.G =ab >pr 2-0 .c Q) .g =nQ) a L .e Q.E E 2% m :so .9 w g 5 2 .gs s2.2 a, a2 5DCa 3 22 n- CCD p) -- aE -g€a -0 20:. oa33 ff €7- 0 ai" 0 on0 -- a %Z 5:sc (I 3 m3% C .e .o_ e go,$ 8 Q Ej gT 80 c- c g " oaa, + a,E gso 3 .;?mcns -E222 3 92 E.E 3- a,- cno Ewaa 5:Eg .= E coo ' c.gz : .E a q u)= .- c a,:ea 3 E,. .- cn cc 00 v) .- 3 *c = Q) aa3 ss.q OXS ++-a, c:a)mcn a, =-cn +gSa cn Y, E a, U c 0 a .- w DE ala E E >a 0s E L - rn C a a c 0 c 0 - 3 5 u) C OQ .% a, .- . Lw Sn z a, z E 3 rn a f C 0 .- c. ClJ .- c, 5 8 mi? e a a S c c a a .- - - - a 3 Ec 3 .9 €X 3c €2 5-g .!2 g FS 00 -- 3 am c= w 5% I, + " 0cD t Y 2 ij u a, (0 D D c m w rn c -0 m .- 3! .c .- i - zi $0- d$ 3 ljj .z cn 03 73 -E Q) D .- E%& C -sa 3% oD=.G .- !g c g .%CEO E 'a, 5 .r 50 0 L .o 3 g 5 sc -L ag-gg aag5 -= .E a, s! S e.- a, Em:E p rn.9 - ,omz a egg -zj 3 c 0 ?-E Q*UP rn VJ 03.r 2" a, 0 ?E2 sxco 3- " Q) 3 = .E 00 35 QZ CE .- -Ea L aa, c 0s 3 or 225 per, -.rs,s -zbgE; (0 7w-a c c aDQ) 0 € a, :z c .G 0lz 3 E EBg gg: " 8 .- a,c 5: gar= L 6 II 11 g P gar E e -En 0. z ,, s! asg rn a .E 0 II 6 cz$ Q"C gz a)a)a 4cna,a Q)Sa,a a >os a, a, ,E l-ZCO>U a X 2 P n Q) Q Q U