The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-12-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 3734I1 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3734 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A NINE AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. CASE NAME ALDEA II CASE NO: MP 177(M)/CT 94-03PUD 94-02 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of December, 199~ LOT/FIFTY-FOUR UNIT MINOR MASTER PLAN 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 anc arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, an4 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factor relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissio as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planninl Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaratior according to Exhibit “ND”, dated October 1, 1994, and “PII”, dated December 13 1994, revised, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the followin1 findings: Findings : 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have 2 significant impact on the environment. 2. Based on the information contained in the initial study, it has been determined that this is a subsequent project within the scope of the project covered by MER 93-01, and thai the subsequent project will have no additional significant effect on the environment which was not identified already in the MEIR, and that no new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required. All feasible mitigation measures required by MEIR 93-01 have been incorporated into or imposed by conditions on this project. 28 3. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis. 0 e 1 4. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project. 2 5, There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significant' impacted by this project. 3 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pl'lannir 5 following vote, to wit: 6 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of December, 1994, by tl 7 a AYES: Chairperson Savary; Commissioners Welshons, Noble, Erwi~ Cornpas, Nielsen, and Monroy. 9 ABSENT: None. 10 NOES: None. l1 1i ABSTAIN: None. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 1 U MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR 21 22 23 24 25 26 11 27 2a I PC RES0 NO. 3734 -2- e NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Within the Aviara Master Plan Area at the southern end of Black Rail Court in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 54-unit townhome Planned Unit Development with guard-gated entry and recreation area. 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 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 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. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1 161, extension 4471. L DATED: OCTOBER 1, 1994 CASE NO: CT 94-03/PUD 94-02 Planning Director CASE NAME: ALDEA I1 PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1994 MICHAEL JXOLZAHLLER EB:vd 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 d 0 e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESS- FORM - PART 11 gmm ................................................ (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 94-03/PUD 94 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Adea 11 - MR@&&/CT ............ ;...... n.. ... ...... ..i. .... % .,.. ......*. 94-03/PUD 94-02 2. APPLICANT: D. R. Horton. Inc. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 101 79 Huennekens St. Suite 1 10 San Diego. CA 92121 (619)452-370( 4. DATE EXA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: A~ril20, 1994 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 54-unit townhome Planned Unit Development with guard-ated - en and recreation area ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmer Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmer Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physit biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with informat to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indic this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the proj may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualifjr for a Negative Declaration howe\ if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insimificant. These findings shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the .end of the form un DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussi mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 0 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES big) 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? - - - X - - - - 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? - YES (insig) - - - - - - - NO X X X X - X X X X X - X -2- 0 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL, THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES bid 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. YES (Sid 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? YES NO (insid - X - X - - X - X - X YES NO (insig) X X -3- 0 0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES (si& 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? - 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? -Jg+ . . . . . . . . . 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 traffc? - 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? 52. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? - - - -4- YES (isig) - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO X X X X X X -x X X X X X X X 8 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sip> (insig) 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.) - X - - - X 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? - - X X - - -5- e 0 . DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Project Description: The proposed project is a 54unit townhome Planned Unit Development with guard-gated entry and recreation ar The total planning area (Planning Area 15) is a 23.3-acre site. The developed area will be approximately 7.09 ac~ The project involves finish grading only. (The area was mass graded previously in accordance with the appro. Aviara Master Plan.) The project area is a prominent site which slopes generally downward from the northeast a to the southwest. The site is surrounded by the Aviara Golf Course on the west, east and south, and by Alga Rc (a major arterial roadway) on the north. The proposed residential product will consist of attached single-family ui (2 to 4 units per cluster). Phvsical Environment: 1. The proposed project will not result in unstable earth conditions or exposure to geologic hazards. The m grading for the site was done in compliance with the approved Tentative Map for the Master Plan ar Finish grading proposed is also consistent with the approved Master Plan map. 2. There will be no appreciable change in topography as a result of the proposed development. The fin grading associated with the project will be balanced on the site (23,400 cy of cut and 23,400 cy of fill). 7 site was previously mass graded in compliance with the approved Master Plan. The proposed finish grad is also consistent with the approved Master Plan. The site does not contain any unique physical features 3. The proposed project will not result in or be affected by erosion of soils on or off the site. The developer v be required to implement erosion control methods as required by the City Engineering Department. 4. No changes to beach sands or other water bodies will result. There are no water bodies on or closely adjacc to the site. 5. Dust from finish grading activities will be of a short-term nature and will be controlled by watering. TI development of residential units on the site will contribute incrementally to an increase in local and region air pollution. However, this increase was anticipated in the City's General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and tl related General Plan Master EIR (EIR 93-01). The MEIR concluded that development of the City consiste with the General Plan would result in unavoidable significant impacts to air quality, and a ikdmg a~a@$g of overriding considerations was adopted. ..................................... 6. The project will not result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature. TI proposed project will provide adequate distances between structures to allow for air circulation and sunligk 7. There are no water bodies which flow over or near the site, and the project is required to provic infrastructure to accommodate all anticipated stormwater runoff. Therefore, there will be no potential significant impacts. 8. The project will not adversely affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water, or public watc supply. The project will provide adequate facilities to handle any increased runoff resulting from developmer of the site. -6- e e .* 9. The subject site contains no natural resources. 10. The project will not require substantial amounts of fuel or energy. Energy needed for construction will b short-term need. The need for energy for the resulting residential units will be incremental and has b( anticipated by the City's General Plan (GPA 94-01) and the related General Plan Master EIR (EIR 93-0 11. All mitigation for archaeological, paleontological, and historic sites required by the Master Plan EIR has bc done. This planning area contained no identified sites. Bioloeical Environment: 12. The subject site is a previously graded pad on a terrace. There are up-slopes to the east and down-slopes the north and west of the site. These slopes contain native and non-native vegetation. Portions of these arc were identified as Coastal Resource area in the original EIR (EIR 83-2) prepared for the Master Plan. T resource area is, in turn, surrounded by a golf course. Development of the proposed units may result in so1 required thinning of portions of this resource area for purposes of creating an adequate fire suppression 201 This encroachment would affect approximately 2.5 acres of native vegetation. However, additional biologi analyses conducted in August, 1994, state that "...there is little to no chance that any state or federally lis( rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal utilizes the site in a viable manner @e., to reproduce establish a territory." The analysis concludes that, "It is possible that the fuel management zone would r result in a loss of coastal sage scrub, but the quality of the coastal sage scrub in these zones would diminished". Although the necessary fire suppression requirements may result in encroachment into habi, area, such encroachment is consistent with fire suppression plans recently approved for Aviara Phase I11 the Coastal Commission and Fish 8c Game Department. Therefore, there will be no potentially significa impacts resulting from this possible encroachment. The applicant is proposing to trade a 0.07 acre portion of current open space (on the northeastern portion the site) for a 0.16 acre portion (not currently open space) on the northwestern edge of the site. TI additional biological analyses conducted in August, 1994, resulted in the following conclusions: "1) Both sites .have equivalent habitat values (equal quality), that is, both areas encompass non-native, IC 2) The proposed open space area is adjacent to good habitat @.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub and chaparra 3) The proposed open space area (0.16) is roughly twice as large as the current open space area (0.07)." Because the proposed open space trade will result in habitat of greater or equal quality and quantity ar habitat located contiguous to better quality habitat, the proposed trade will not result in potentially significa impacts. quality habitat types. while the current open space area is adjacent to disturbed areas. 13. See Item 12 above. The subject site is a previously graded pad surrounded by a mixture of native and nor native vegetation. Ornamental planting is present along the southwestern edge of the site. The site is in a urbanized area. Therefore, the development of the residential units will not result in potentially signifim impacts from the introduction of new species of animals or interference with animal migration or movemen 14. The site is a pregraded site planned for residential development. It is not used for agricultural purposes ar contains no farmland of state or local importance. -7- 0 0 ''1.5. See Item 12 above. Since there is little to no chance that any rare, threatened, or endangered plant or ani utilizes this site in a viable manner, the proposed project will not result in potentially significant impacts 16. See Items 12 and 15 above. Since the site is probably not utilized in a viable manner, the proposed pro will not result in potentially significant impacts. The subject site is in an urbanized area and is surroun by developed properties containing similar residential uses and a golf course. Therefore, there will not be 1 animal species introduced. Human Environment: 17. The project will not alter the planned land use of the site because the use is consistent with the General E multiple land use designation (RM/RLM/OS/RC/N) on the site and with the approved Master Plan for area. 18. The proposed project will not substantially effect public utilities/services because the project will conditioned to C6mply with all requirements of the local facilities management plan, thus meeting the dema created by the proposed development. 19. The development will not substantially effect sewer or waste systems. The project will be conditione< provide all necessary infrastructure improvements as identified by the local facilities management plan for site area. 20. Construction activities may result in minor increased short-term noise. This increase can be adequal controlled by regulation of the hours of such activities. The proposed residential uses are not anticipatec result in significant noise increases. 21. Any lighting provided for the project will be required to be directed such that it does not result in substan glare. 22. The proposed residential development is not expected to involve any significant risk of explosion or the relc of hazardous substances. 23. The project proposes construction of new residential structures on currently undeveloped land, there5 increasing density on the subject site. However, these structures were anticipated in the City's General P and Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 19. The proposed number of units (54) is less than maximum number (192) allowed on the site, resulting in a lower density than anticipated. The propo: development is consistent with the approved Master Plan and the underlying General Plan designat (RM/RLM/O/RC/N). Therefore, significant impacts are not anticipated from the proposed developme 24. The proposed residential development will provide housing to meet current demand. 25. & .. -8- e 0 26. Any parking demand created by the proposed residential development will be provided on-site. Parking 1 be provided for each residential unit by a garage. Guest parking will be provided by a combination of ( street and off-street spaces, including several spaces to be located adjacent to the common recreation are 27. The additional 432 average daily vehicle trips generated by the development will be accommodated by existing and planned circulation network. This minor increase in traffic will not significantly impact existing transportation system or patterns of circulation. 28. The project will not alter impact waterborne, rail, or air traffic. There are no waterways or railways near site, and the site is not within the airport influence area. 29. No traffic hazards will be created. The proposed private street will be built to comply with all City standa 30. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans. 31. The project will provide additional recreational opportunities for the City, The project is designed to inch a private yard (minimum 15'x15') for each unit and a common recreational facility (swimming pool) for community residents' use. 32. The proposed project will provide both private and common recreational opportunities. The proposed UI will each have a private yard of approximately 15'x15'. There will also be a common recreational facilit! swimming pool). -9- 0 0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROTECT 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, €) alternate sites for the proposed project, and g) no project alternative. I.\ UJ - m bJ ,. b nT - 10- 0 e ‘$DETERMINATION Po Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ..... 2:. Y:: md the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATI ::x 1 f i.... ......_.,.... DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previot certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a No1 of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will no1 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 ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. X I find that, although the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, this projec a subsequent project whose impacts were analyzed under a Master EIR for which a statement of Overrid Considerations was made. L?-I3 - 7 y Date * Planning Director v U LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -1 1- 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. Date Signature EB:d -12-