The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-12-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 4435e e 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. 4435 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO CONSTRUCT 90 AIRSPACE CONDOMINUM UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AMBROSIA LANE AND POINSETTIA LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 19. CASE NAME: BRNDISI CASE NO.: LCPA 97-10MP 177(W)/CT 97-17/CP 98- 1 O/CDP 97-46 WHEREAS, Brehm-Aviara I11 Development Associates, L.P., “De7 has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by, Aviara I11 Development Associates, L.P., “Owner”, described as Lots 3 and 4 of City of Carlsbad Tract 92-3, Aviara Phase I11 Unit No. 1, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 13434, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, on June 23,1997 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of Decembc 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 te; and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by st considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the I Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the P Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated b Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, accor Exhibit “ND” dated July 27, 1998, and “PII” dated July 7, 1998, attache( and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 0 e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2s Exhibit “ND” dated July 27, 1998, and “PII” dated July 7, 1998, attacl and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinys: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, ana! considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impact identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monit Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to RECOMMI APPROVAL of the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project w significant effect on the environment and hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVl Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progr; 2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Dt have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Envir Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedur City of Carlsbad. 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program reflect the independent judgme Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. 4. The Planning Commission finds that: A. the project is a “Later Activity” proposed subsequent to and in keepia certified program EIR (EIR 83-02(A) for the Pacific Rim Country C Resort) and a subsequently adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration Aviara Phase 111 Master Plan Amendment); B. the project is consistent with the General Plan, Aviara Master Plan (1 and its amendments; C. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as si; in the prior EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and on13 mitigation measures related to noise have been carried forward current Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitor Reporting Program. D. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or a Supplemental El CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 162 or 15 163 exist. 5. The Planning Commission finds all feasible mitigation measures identified in : 02(A) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (for the Aviara Phase 111 Mas. Amendment) have been previously implemented with the development previously approved Master Plan Amendment (MP 177 (G)) and Tentati PC RES0 NO. 4435 -2- e 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 I (CT 92-03), and only minor mitigation measures have been carried forwa current environmental document. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of December 19 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, 1 Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BAILEY NOB@!%, Chairperson CmSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director ~ PC RES0 NO. 4435 -3 - e e - City of Carlsbac MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: The northeast comer of Ambrosia Lane and Poinsettia Lane in LOC Facilities Management Zone 19. Project Description: Request for the approval of a Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Mas\ Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Developme Permit and Coastal Development Permit to construct a 90 unit, mu1 famil.y, attached condominium project and associated recreation, facilities on a pregraded 8.2 acre site located in Planning Area 19 of tk Aviara Master Plan. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant 1 the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environment, Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Mitigated Negati\ Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereb 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 Plannin Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invite( Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. I you have any questions, please call ,4drienne Landers in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1 161 extension 445 1. DATED: JULY 27, 1998 CASE NO: LCPA 97-1 O/.MPA 177(W)/CT 97-1 7PUD 97- 1 S/CDP 97-26 CASE NAME: BRINDISI, AVIARA PLANNING AREA 19 PUBLISH DATE: JULY 27, 1998 MICHAEL J. HOLzMILl%R Planning Director 2075 La Palrnas Dr. - Carlsbad, (CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-0894 e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: LCPA 97-1 OMPA 177(W)/CT 97- 17PUD 97- 1 S/CDP 97-L DATE: July 7, 195 BACKGROUND I, CASE NAME: Brindisi 2. APPLICANT: The Brehm Companies 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2835 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 23( q San Diego. CA 92 108-3882 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SIJBMITTED: 10/9/97 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: &laster Plan Amendment, LCP Amendment to modify developmer standards applicable to Aviara Planninp Area 19, Aviara Master Plan and a Tentative Tract Mal and Coastal Permit to construct 90 multi-family units on a m-eviouslv-graded site. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impacl Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation C1 Public Services Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics c] Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev.7/6/98 0 DETERMINATION. 0 (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed. project COULD NOT have a significant effect on t environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatic measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and E ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. B I find that the proposed prqject MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlid document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negativ Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential1 significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in earlier EIR pursuant to applicabl standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, includin. revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. r. .fP/ Illc /+J/ Planner Signature ’ Date ~ ~~~~ . 7A w4 8 Planning DirectoTs SigngftCire Date 2 Rev.716198 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 0 STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Ci conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followir pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum: factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negatil Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that a] adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. “No Impact” answer shoulcl be explained when there is no source document to refer to, ( it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that th potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopte general standards and policies. e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatio of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to ; “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and th City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce th( effect to a less than significant level. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a~ effect is significant. e Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significan effect on the environment, but a potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze( adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicablc standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigate( Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upor the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to 01 supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). e When “Potentially SignificLmt Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev.716198 0 0 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing ; EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, a~ those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate( may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includir but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h; not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and ti developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less the significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduc the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is nc possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, c determine the effectiveness; of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significar effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of th form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentiol should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determine1 significant. 4 Rev.716198 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant lmpa, Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:, a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Sources #(s): (#l;Pgs 5,6-1 - 5.6-18, #2 #2 EIR b) Conflict with applicable e:nvironmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.,6-18 and #2 #2 EIR d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (# 1 :Pgs 5.6- 1 - 5.6- 18) 83-02(A)) 83-02(A)) 171 0 0 0 0 0.B 171 0 El 0 0 !XI 0 w 0 0 IXI 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING.. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 0 cl El b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an 0 0 0 w undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#I:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6 , #2 pgs. 4-1- c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6, #2 pgs. 4-1-4-26) 0 0 IXI 4-26) 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 EIR 83- b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 02(A) pgs. 4- 150 - 4 - 156) 0 17 0 w #2 #2 EIR 83-02(A)) 0 R 0 IXI (#l:Pg~ 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 0 0 0 IXI - 5.1-15) 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 [XI conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 0 0 0 5 (#I:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 EIR 83-02(A), #3, pg.~ 6-7) EIR 83-02(A)) 0 0 El g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2 h) Expansive soils? (1:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #3 pgs. 6- i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1:Pgs 5.1-1 7) 0 0 0 5 - 5.1-15) 0 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: 5 Rev.7/6/98 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff’? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2- 11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ((# 1 :Pgs 5.2-1 .- 5..2-11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#I :Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 #2 d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 EIR 83-02(A)) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs EIR 83-02(A)) body? (#l:Pg~ 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 #2 EIR 83-02(A)) (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 EIR 83-02(A)) 1 1, #2 EIR 83-02(A)) 5.2-1 - 5..2-11, #2 EIR 83-02(A)) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- €3 1 - 5.3-12; #2 P~S. 4-1 10 - 4-1 18) - 5.3-12) 0 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 0 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#1 :Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (eg bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? proposal result in: 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2, P~S. 4-63 - 4-80) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#I :P~s 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) [XI 0 17 0 cl 0 6 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 c3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impac Impact DE3 0 1xI IXI 0 w 0 w cl w 0 IXI 0 IXI o w 0 U 0 IXI w o w 0 0 0 IXI 0 El 0 €3 0 w 0 w Rev.7/6/98 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 0 Potentially Potentially Significant Significant lmpact Unless Mitigation lncorporated g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 0 0 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2 , pgs. 4- b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, #2 , d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 119 - 4-149) (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2 , pgs. 4-1 19 - 4-149) pgs. 4- 119 - 4-149) (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2, P~S. 4-119 - 4-149) - 5.4-24; #2 PgS. 4-1 19 -4-149) 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? proposal? (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9; #2 pgs. 4-94 - 4- 109) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 1 - 5.13-9; #2, P~S. 4-94 - 4-109) & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9; #2, P~S. 4-94- 4-109) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#1 :Pgs 5.10.1-1 - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, 5.10.1-5) hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) grass, ortrees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) 1 - 5.9-15) 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 [x] Less Than No Significant lmpa Impact 0 [XI 0 [x] €3 0 [x] IXI [XI 0 €3 0 [x] 0 w 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 [x] 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 w 0 0 Rev.7/6/98 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1, e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-7) XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the faqllowing utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & b) Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#I :Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 5.12.3-7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5. #2 #2 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 0 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5, #2 #2 EIR 83-02(A)) 0 EIR 83-02(A)) 0 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- b) Disturb archaeological resources'? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-1 0; #2 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#I:Pgs e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the IO; #2 pgs. 4-160 -4-167) 10; #2 pgs. 4- 150-4- 157) , pgs. 4-1 50 - 4- 157) 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 0 0 0 0 XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: 8 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 Less Than No Significant lmpac Impact cl IXI 0 [x1 0 €3 0 w cl IXI 0 IXI O w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 IXI cl IXI w IXI 0 0 0 0 0 IXI El w IXI [XI 0 El Rev.716198 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - cl 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (# 1 :Pgs Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impac Mitigation Incorporated Unless lmpact 0 0 [XI 0 IXI XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 0 habitat of a fish or wildlife 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 endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? 17 0 0 (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, 0 0 0 either directly or indirectly? El Ix1 !XI XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQP process, one or more effect:; have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negativc declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following 01 attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available fo review. Final Environmental Impact Report for Pacific Rim Country Club and Resorl (EIR 83-02(A)), dated August 1986. MEIR for the I994 General Plan Update, both on file in the Planning Department at 2075 Las Palmas, Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009, b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed ‘in an earlier document pursuant tc applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigatior measures based on the earlier analysis. All the effects from the above checklist werz adequately analyzed in EIR 83-02(A) and MEIR 93-01. Overriding Findings oj Consideration were adopted for air quality and cumulative circulation impacts ar part of the MEIR for the 1994 General Plan Update. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the 9 Rev.716198 0 0 earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the proje Please see section “Noise” on page 12 below. AI1 impacts have been reduced to a level less than significant. 10 Rev.716198 0 e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION A. Project DescriDtion The proposed project includes a master plan amendment, local coastal program amendment, tentatil tract map , condominium permit and coastal development permit for Planning Area 19 of the Avia Master Plan (MP-177). The tentative tract map includes 90 multi-family units at a density of 10.9 du/a The development is proposed as 13 six-plexes and 4 triplexes with accompanying recreational amenitit to be constructed on a previously-graded site of 8.2 acres in size. Currently, the site is vacant an primarily devoid of vegetation. The site is surrounded to the north and west by a City park site; to th east by a 184 unit condominium project and to the south by a proposed 298 unit apartment project. Tk proposed density is consistent with the number of units (109) allowed under the latest amendment to tk Aviara Master Plan. The proposed discretionary actions also include a master plan amendment ar! accompanying Local Coastal Plan Amendment which would amend the Aviara Master Plan to perm minor modifications to development standards (i.e., setbacks from roadways and width of driveway For this environmental analysis, staff conducted several field trips to the subject property and review€ the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan Environmental Impact Report EIR 82-03(A) whic covers this property. The proposed project is consistent with this document as follows: 1. The site has already been ireviewed under Master Plan EIR 83-02(A); 2. The project implements all recommended mitigation measures of EIR 83-02(A); 3. The project site design and architectural style will complement existing or future land uses. B. Environmental Impact Discussion Air Quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 199 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors tc air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulativ significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety o mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions fc roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reducc vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3, provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) condition! to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth managemen strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measure! have either been incorporated into tht: design of the project or are included as conditions of projec approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located withil a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is no1 required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Oi Overriding Considerations’’ applies to .all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Mastel EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required This document is available at the Planning Department. 11 Rev.716198 9 e TransportationKirculation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 195 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted t regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include a freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with th implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numeral mitigation measures have been recom:mended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensu: the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes { transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter ra systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of region: through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are nt within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulatio mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included 2 conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure ( intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial StudJ checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plar therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master E11 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” fc circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent project covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environment2 review of circulation impacts is required. Biology A small .5 acre sliver of disturbed coastal sage habitat is located along the northern boundary of the sit( with slightly more vegetation located on the City park site. This area was included as part of the mas grading approved for Aviara Phase 111 in 1995. At that time it was determined that this and other Aviar, sites created 8.68 acres of impact to coastal sage scrub. A 4(d) permit was issued and 8.68 acres of thl best coastal maritime scrub were placed in placed in permanent open space for preservation. Mitigatiol was deemed acceptable by the resource agencies. Although grading of this portion of the subject site i occurring later than the rest of the mass grading operation, the impacts to the coastal sage at this locatio: are considered to be mitigated. Noise Homes in the proposed project will be subject to noise from Poinsettia Lane with a projected ADT o 17,600. First floor exterior living areas located along Poinsettia Lane would be exposed to a maximun unmitigated traffic noise level of about 68.2 CNEL. In order to meet the City required CNEL exterio noise standard of 60 CNEL, a noise barrier will be required to be constructed at the top of slope alonl Poinsettia Lane. The noise attenuation wall will vary in height from 6.0’ to 6.6’ In addition, prior to thc issuance of building permits, the applicant will be required to provide proof that interior noise levels will be reduced to 45 CNEL and that mechanical ventilation will be provided for homes located alone Poinsettia Lane. The proposed development is also located within three miles of McClellan-Palomal Airport. Residents of this area may frequently see, hear, and interference of certain activities by aircrafi operating to and or from the Airport. As a note of disclosure to future property owners, the developel 12 Rev.716198 e will be required to file a Notice Concerning Aircraft Environmental Impacts, Noise Forms #2 and #3, file in the Planning Department. All above conditions have been included as mitigation measures in tl Mitigated Negative Declaration. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS, CIRCULATION The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 19! General Plan will result in increaised traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted 1 regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include ; freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with t implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the CiQ adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerol mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measures ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alteiatil modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, a1 commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. TI diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creatl impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate Gener Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or a, included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure ( intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Stud) checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plal therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master E1 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” fc circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projec covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environment; review of circulation impacts is required. 111. EARLIER ANALYSES USE2 The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsba Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760) 438- 1 161 extension 447 1. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Updat, (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. Final Environmental Impact Report for Pac$c Rim Country Club and Resort, (EIR 83-02(A)) dated August 1986. 3. “Report of Preliminary Geo1:echnical Investigation - Update”, Magellan Corporations, Apri 1995. 4. “Exterior Noise Analysis for Aviara PA- 19”, Mestre Greve Associates, October 1997, 5. Habitat Loss Permit for Aviara Phase 111, September 18, 1995. 13 Rev.7/6/98 LIsr OF MITIGATING M F A~~~~~~ (IF APPLICABLE) 0 1. Prior to the issuance of building permils for homes located adjacent to Poinsettia Lane and as sho on Exhibits S1 and S2 of the M.estre Greve (#97-204) noise study, the applicant shall demonstr that interior noise levels will be mitigated to a level of 45 CNEL and that mechanical ventilation \ be provided. 2. Prior to a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct a noise barrier consisting of a wal berm, or a combination of the two for the homes specified on Exhibit S1 of the Mestre Greve nc study, #97-204. The noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square f< and shall have no openings or gaps. The wall may be constructed of stud and stucco, 318 inch p’ glass, 5/8 plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. 3. Prior to the recordation of the final tract map or the issuance of building permits, which ever occ first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to nc impacts from the Transportation Corridor (Poinsettia Lane), in a form meeting the approval of Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1) on file in the Planning Department. 4. Prior to the recordation of the fi:nal tract map or the issuance of building permits, which ever occ first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise 1 other impacts from the McClellm Palomar Airport in a form meeting the approval of the Plann Director and City Attorney (see Noise Forms #2 and #3) on file in the Planning Department. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) See attached 14 Rev.7/6/98 e 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AN CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. GULY 1b1 lq98 Date Signature Richmond 0 I Nei 11 Project Manager 15 Rev.716198 & o\ B e f; t-L h o\ y 5 b H r s 2 & o\ 2 u d 2 2; Z$ .. mw Zo\ Za n C4-l .I v1 % f .I !3 9 4 z f? V 0 2 2 eo o\ 5 t- 5. a c, - .. v R w $ B 2 z c3 5 w + 4 Q $ g 2 a d TJWE $ 2 .o .- ,at; Q) zm ZmQ) $EO &P .t: *G 3 E .2 2 +d Ed" 0 .z (I) -E52 5 .z .5 5 % s go 24 si 5 2 .P m q = .z m = ga L gjs ea€ -€% > g; E -G 0 4 .z $ &€% (I)% 2 0 a,g E 8 3 25 u;; 2 2 .g sz 2 X *Gi .g ELQ, 0-0 .- 0 ul m us ma m amu Q.2 u 0 em owe 03 e bobo "0 0 ome -5 e E != .t: e-0 0 og€ 2% (I) -- ""0 a, E .- g gu (1)*4 2 2s ;$z E .2 s G.5 3. 'C .- % jj T';ss 5 m.g g:2 .- Et; = + Eg EE3 .- 2 ai am '2 TJ -z rA EZ E .5 B .E ego " -0 g %E -€g - s>a .f E f? 81) Ea a e a '$,