The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-01-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 3139I% /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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3139 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP/CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO DEVELOP A 145 DWELLING UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. APPLICANT: AVIARA - PLANNING AREA 7 CASE NO.: CT 90-5/CP 90-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of November, 1990, and the 16th day of January, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated August 30, 1990, and "PII", dated August 17, 1990, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings and subject to the following condition: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis. 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project . . -6 0 0 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly 1 Conditions: 2 impacted by this project. 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Prior to the occupancy of any of the dwelling units, the project applicant shall construct a 5.5 to 8.5 foot tall noise barrier (combination wall and berm) between buildings 11, 12, 21, 22, 42. and 43 and Alga Road, consistent with the recommendations of the Acoustical Study for Planning Area 7 (Mestre Greve, 1990). The wall portion of this bder shall not be permitted to exceed six feet in height. prior to the occupancy of all units in buildings 11,12,21,22,42 and 43, the project applicant shall incorporate all required tra€iic noise mitigation measures (i.e. mechanical ventilation) into these units as described in the Acoustical Analysis for Planning Area 7. 9 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning lo 11 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of January, 1991, 12 McFadden and Hall. 13 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, 14 15 16 17 18 19 NOES: Commissioner Erwin. ABSENT: Commissioner Marcus. ABSTAIN: No .- - . -i CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 20 21 ATTEST: 22 23 9 24 11 PLANNING DIRECTOR 25 26 27 ~ PC RES0 NO. 3139 -2- 28 t MITIGATED NEGAm DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The 27.2 acre site is located at the northwest comer of the intersection of Alga Road and Ambrosia Lane. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit to develop 150 condominium units over a 27.2 acre site. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. DATED: AUGUST 22, 1990 CASE NO: CT 90-5/CP 90-2 Planning Director APPLICANT: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 7 PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 30, 1990 CD:h 2075 Las Palmas Drive * Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161 e W ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 90-.5/CP 90-2 DATE: AUGUST 17, 1990 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: AVIARA - PLANNING AREA 7 2. APPLICANT: Lyon Communities 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 130 San Diexo, CA 92122 (619)546-1200 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 20, 1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit to develop 1 condominium units at the northwest corner of the intersection of Alga Road and Ambrosia La] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environme The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checkl identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project a provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmen Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be check to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of 1 project may cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negat Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deer insinnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" and 'YES-ins respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form unc DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussi mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. w PHYSICAL, ENVIRONMENT ILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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? I 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? 1. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? t. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? -2- e ES x-% - - - - " - - - NO x x x x - x x x -x- x X - w w BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: BS 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 bamer 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 YES (sip) 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- YES (md - - - - YES (insig) - - - X - NO X - x -x- x X - NO x X - X - - " 0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sk) (insig) !. 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? I. Affect elristing hausing, ar create a demand for additional housing? i. Generate substantial additional traffic? 5. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? 7. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 3. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? 9. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 1. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? 1. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 2. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? - - - - - - -x- x x x x x x X - x x x -4- w - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE as 23 NO 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 ti.me 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.) - " x x 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - x -5- W 0 SCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION is project is a 150 unit (multi-family) condominium project located at the northwest comer of the tersection of Alga Road and Ambrosia Lane. The project site is 27.2 acres in size and has been previously ugh graded consistent with approved grading plans for CT 85-35. For this environmental analysis, staff nducted two field trips to the subject property and reviewed the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master sn, EIR 83-2(A), which already covered this property. Portions of an open space corridor, running north striction to the California Coastal Commission. Aside from this open space corridor and a grove of Oak :es, also under a Coastal Deed Restriction and which are located within the center of the site, the remainder the property has been rough graded and no sensitive environmental resources exist upon it. In that: (1) 2 proposed residential project is allowed by the underlying Aviara Master Plan and General Plan, (2) it is mounded by compatible existing or future land uses including; future multi-family PA-17 to the north, proved yet unconstructed single family residential development (PA-8) to the south, a new Carlsbad 2mentary School to the east and the Aviara Golf Course to the west, (3) the site has been previously rough aded and, (4) the project will not encroach into the Coastal Deed Restricted Coastal Sage Habitat and Oak oves located on site, no environmental impacts are anticipated. There were no public comments received response to the Notice for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. south along the western side of the project site are vegetated with Coastal Sage Scrub and are under deed WSICAL ENVIRONMENT The project requires balanced grading totaling 33,000 cubic yards. The site has been previously rough graded consistent with approved grading plans for CT 85-35. No unstable earth conditions will be created as the grading plan is required to meet City Engineering Standards. The topography of the previously graded site will not be significantly changed from its present graded state. Excluding the property to the east which is being developed with a Elementary School and the property to the north which is ungraded, other properties surrounding the project site are currently in a graded but otherwise undeveloped state. The project will not result in or be affected by erosion of soils as all necessary drainage and erosion control facilities have been or will be provided to handle runoff from the site. Impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon (i.e. erosion and runoff) will be adequately mitigated as discussed in response to #3 above. The project will have an incremental impact on air quality (as discussed in EIR 83-2(A)), in that it will generate 1,200 trips/day. However, this impact is not considered significant in itself. Long term mitigation of region wide air quality impacts will require that dependence upon the automobile be reduced regionally and statewide. The project has a minimum 20 foot separation between the structures. This design will provide for adequate air movement. -6- w w DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUED),: 7. The project will not change the course or flow of water as no streams are located in the immediate area and drainage waters will be handled by existing and/or proposed facilities. 8. Development of this project will create impervious surfaces onsite which would reduce absorption rates and incrementally increase surface runoff and runoff velocities. However, to accommodate this incremental runoff, drainage facilities will be incorporated into the project to divert the runoff to a master storm drain, thereby mitigating this concern. 9. Aside from the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat located along the western portion of the property and an Oak grove located in the center of the site (which will 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 and other natural resources during construction and operation. This incremental increase is not considered significant. 11. The site is currently disturbed and all identified archaeological, paleontological or historical sites have been previously mitigated. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12. Excluding the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat located with along the western portion of the accordance, no significant biological resources will be impacted through project site and an Oak grove located in the center of the property which will be maintained in open space) the balance of the site has been disturbed through grading activities. In development. 13. No significant impacts to the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat located along the western portion of the site are anticipated in that the landscaping proposed adjacent to this area will be compatible fire-retardant and non-invasive. 14. Implementation of the proposed project will not reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect farmland of State or local importance. 15. Project fencing located between development areas and the deed restricted open space to the west will mitigate impacts of domestic pets upon the wildlife in this open space area. 16. In that the on site protected habitat area is linked to other undeveloped open space areas within the Master Plan and because project fencing will help to deter domestic pet wildlife is anticipated to occur. intrusion into the protected habitat area, no impacts or barriers to the movement of -7- m 0 SCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION (CONTINUED): JMAN ENVIRONMENT 17. Development of this project will be consistent with the General Plan, Master Plan-177 and the Mello I LCP. The proposed multi-family produt type is compatible with adjacent land uses. 18. As discussed in the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, with the payment of all required fees, all public facilities and services 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 upon surrounding residences since the adjacent properties are undeveloped. Otherwise, the project is compatible with surrounding future uses and will not create significant noise impacts. Alga Road, which is CNEL. However, this noise impact is proposed to be mitigated through the incorporation of a solid noise barrier (wall) between the road and the adjacent dwelling units and through the use of other sound attenuation measures (i.e. mechanical ventilation) as specified within the Acoustical Study for this Planning Area. located along the southern property boundary will create noise levels in excess of 60 dBA 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 the release of hazardous substances. 23. The proposed project density of 5.5 du/acre is well below the density permitted upon the site (7.9 du/acre) per the Aviara Master Plan. In view of the reduced density, overall project environmental effects should be reduced. 24. The project will provide additional housing units to meet existing demand. 25. A total of 1,200 average daily vehicle trips will be generated by the project which will not significantly 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 spaces will be provided for each unit and adequate guest parking will be provided throughout the project. -8- w w DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUED): 27. The project will add 640 ADT and 560 ADT to Alga Road and Ambrosia Lane respectively. Other surrounding streets will also carry portions of this project. This minor increase in traffic upon all surrounding streets is not considered significant. 28. The project site is outside of the Airport Influence Area for Palornar Airport. 29. Two vehicular access points are proposed for the project and are not located to cause conflicts with intersections with Alga Road and Ambrosia Lane. 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 street scene along Alga Road and Ambrosia Lane through the use of structural setbacks, structural relief and rich landscaping. -9- 0 e NALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATWS 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 150 dwelling units proposed with this project will be completed in several phases. Phasing however will not likely 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 significant environmental impacts. In accordance, no alternate site designs would appear as environmentally superior. c) The scale of this proposal (1 50 dwelling units) is a potentially superior improvement over the maximum of 241 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 and Master Plan Amendment. e) Since the site is already rough graded and, all public facilities and services will be available to support this proposed project, development at some future time would not be regarded as an environmentally preferable alternative. f) There are alternative sites for the project; however, they have no environmental advantages, and this proposal is consistent with the existing land use plans. g) The "no project" alternative is not in conformance with the General PladMaster Plan designation for the property. Since the site is already graded, this alternative is not environmentally superior. -10- w w 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. I -7 . ., - 1 !.I -j- 72 - ;(" j/ } I' I ' . A, A*, /&/ -!,,', A" L7 s" Date Signature B/Z@hG Date Planning Director '4 U LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE] 1. Prior to the occupancy of any of the dwelling units, the project applicant shall construct a maximum 8.5 foot high sound attenuation wall/berm, as described in the Acoustical Analysis for PA-7, along Alga Road. The wall portion of the mitigation shall not be permitted to exceed 6.0 feet maximum. Prior to the occupancy of units 33-40,71-78 and 124-130 the project applicant shall incorporate all required traffic noise mitigation measures as described in the Acoustical Analysis for PA-7, (i.e. mechanical ventilation) into these units. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -11- w e 'PLICANT 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. I 7 / / . ,.-/.?o /' ,/&,. ;' L, /:; /' ' .' , ,H / .;;:..> ...-. Datesignature ., / >:km -12- w - 9 0 a i!j 5). 0 a G bi [r W m 5 3 z 2 - L b ([I s a c c c CrJ a CrJ CrJ .- - I L .- 4 w z a z tj W 7 0 LI P .. cj cj w z J a Z 0 t n z 0 0 0 U cc n" W w 5 3 0 E a 4 a g$9 -E 2 sf- + 0 ';;; F 2 $3 0 a,$ .- cEg GE a -- -F g .g 13)a 0 * .o Q) -* .- L- LC a, 2- Q:E D .E E z *e 13) =Q)o >pc 2, 0 4 0" - a,.$ :w .- a, 5 sua z .FZ o cn= 0z.2 a, tuz Sum 9 B a- .r 32 a, Z€a, QE FOEri oaaq F E- I= eao -- m gKi ZEec 5 .G .a, cf) $ 0 Q, Q)z E 0 €580 c- c 8 .o m g a8ng gcn*g 'EUrnQ, "=a 3aE" E.E 3== E-OQ 'SEW .E E sg ' C.PT 5.&p 13)zgg .G Q) -- SU E> 2 .a, .u, a "crq) 0k:rE 2552 c 8 $j.E m L .e Qm E QS CI) .e t: -0 o 6" 00 a0 '"z, 3 =E a, "a, + a- cna ma3 1-315a v) 5 E a, U C 0 ([I c ua, .- - - .- a€ 'c p? >E cn c ([I h c 0 c 3 c 0 cn 13) C LC; OQ .e a, .- sn 2 Q, c 2 3 u) m 2 c 0 .- 5 T .- cr ! i .- F c c ([I h 2 U v) a ea ls u)gm3 ZEN a,g *- € 3 'F; g .g a> -- 0.e.as +Is c= 3& a.- Q)€ 9zq*s~~oQ)$ Ln 5 ([I 02 $-E "E? E :?kia 13)0 m E= OW a,v+mnig=2 rea, 32 FgZ 0 0- g @; 82"- CE;&9 tu tna OC E 0; $..- cn %xn r*sO- v) ([I OF= .cng .- w e 3cu 2 .F a, n yjj + 0C.E Q) L >p2+ (II 0 0g~~a.~>neE9 0 0 ([I Q) s 0 a, It$-= a0Q) cn C U tu .- 2 y .- - - W X u a, a U U C m +" ajuz 5EZ v, ([I 'i; ([I 73 -E Q) u " %& s .- 0UI.G y+y mz != E z-c E 5 €';$E .- ZiiD 0 L .o 3gg 2s cn a, 5c -L Q5BP ([IzEL 00 a, O .E cn Ea)" L" 5 .- 95 Qv, c 6.E 2 Ot ESSE L aa, c $2 c.q a,ocn([I 3 c2.g g 5 2.E QcnU)? !3p SIC0 2 2.G- 0a);i;O 2: -.F; =.e* 3 os E+ a E-Ezg gig5 Ii 5: .- a,C 53 g0z-Z L, g II II 2 P ~acEz 4Lrna,a -3Qn Q Q) a,Ssa &-EgE; 11 g cz$ g.5 L 0 'C E - or 3 ul u) a.- E-- a 0 .- ?"([I c E Q, -= i= .s c oa, u-) r t2zcn>fr Is00 ? L ij n 0 a X U c a, Q 2 d U