Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-12-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 27700 e 1 I/ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2770 2 3 4 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE MAP/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP A 34 LOT/32 UNIT PATIO HOME SUBDIVISION LOCATED BETWEEN ELM AVENUE AND HOSP WAY AT THE EXISTING TERMINUS OF WINTERGREEN DRIVE. APPLICANT: VISTA DE LA VALLE CASE NO.: CT 88-2/PUD 88-2 6 and 8 a duly noticed pub1 ic hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, 7 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of November, 1988, hold 9 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 10 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning 16 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 15 fol 1 ows : 14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1 anning Commission as 13 Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. 12 by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning 11 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according 17 to Exhibit "ND" dated September 7, 1988 and "PII", dated August 24, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: l8 11 Findinqs: 19 show that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a 20 I 1. The initial study and review process comments received during the public significant impact on the environment. 21 22 proposed project. 2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the 23 3. There are no sensitive resources located onsi te or located so as to be significantly impacted by this project. 24 I1 /// 25 26 27 /// /// 28 0 e PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of December, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: 1 2 3 /I AYES: Vice Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schramm, Schlehuber, 4 ABSTAIN: None. 7 ABSENT: Chairperson McFadden. 6 NOES : None. 5 Holmes, Erwin and Marcus. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1E 17 1E I 1 I I ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION MICHAEL J. HOLBILLW PLANNING DIRECTOR l9 I/ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 2770 -2- e 0 Exhibit 'IND" 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1 161 aitg rrf anr1sttnb PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The project site is located between Elm Avenue and Hosp Way at the terminus of Wintergreen Drive. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to develop 34 single family dwelling units, two recreation lots, and a public street over an 8.2 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 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 ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: September 7, 1988 o-rn\-\P Q4 ,, MICHAEL J. HOL~MILEE~ CASE NO: CT 88-2/PUD 88-2 Planning Director HDP 88-3 APPLICANT: Vista de la Valle PUBLISH DATE: September 7, 1988 i@ # Exhibit "PII" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA - ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 88-2/PUD 88-2 DATE : Auqust 24. 1988 I. BACKGROUND 1. APP.LICANT : Vista de la Valle 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Wesco DeveloDment Co. 23545 Crenshaw Blvd., Suite 200, Torrance, CA 90505 (213) 539-9579 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: 11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) - YES MAY BE - NO 1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in cbanges in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X X X X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X X e a 2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? - YES MAY BE No - - 1 - 1 - - 1 - X - X - X - X - X h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X - -2- e 0 4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:' a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? - YES MAY BE " - NO X x X X X X X X 7. Lisht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- X nificantly produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X -3- 0 9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of UDset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Powlation - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generatisn of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? -4- 0 - YES MAY BE - NO 7 1 - x - X - X - X - X - X X X X X 0 0 - YES 14. Public Services - Will the proposal have . a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d, Parks or other recreational facilities? , e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Eneray - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities - Will the proposal have Significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17- Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? -5- MAY BE; - NO - X X X X X -. X X X X X X X X ~. X a e - YES MAY BE . NO I 18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public; or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? X - 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? - E 20. Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontoloqical - Will the proposal have significant, archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? , results in the alteration of a significant x - 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the ProDosed Droiect 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). N/A. (b) Because of the narrow shape of the site and the need to provide an access road through the property, alternate site designs are not feasible. (c) The scale of this 34 du, single family project is a significant improvement over the multi-family project (75 du's) already approved on this property. (d) The single family residential use proposed for the project is consistent with the residential zoning and general plan designation. Because of this zoning and general plan, the only conceivable alternative use would be a higher density multi- family project. (e) In view of the fact that Local Facilities Management Zone 1 indicates that all public facilities and services are adequate, development at some future time is not a reasonable alternative. (f) N/A* -6- 0 e - YES MAY BE ,NO 22. Mandatory findinqs of sianificance - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? X b. 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-) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X " "- X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? " X 111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This project would entail the subdivision of the subject 8.2 acre property into 36 lots for the development of 34 single family dwelling units, 2 recreation lots, and a public street. The subject property already has a tentative map/planned unit development approved over it (75 multi-family dwelling units). For this environmental analysis, staff conducted two field trips to the property. The property is presently vacant, sloping gently from south to north and covered with low scrub vegetation- There are no sensitive resources located upon or in close proximity to the site. However, the site is very visible from the Buena Vista Valley, including Highway 78. Potential environmental impacts from the development of the project include visual impacts to the view corridor along Highway 78. Visual impacts to this view corridor along Highway 78 have, however been mitigated through the i.ncorporation of the following design measures into the project: -7- 4 e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) (a) Utilization of contour grading techniques along the northern property bluff edge. (b) Incorporation of heavy landscaping along the northern project boundary. (c) Setting structures an adequate distance back from the bluff edge. (d) Designing structures to incorporate one and two story elements. (e) Limiting structural heights to a maximum of two stores (22' maximum) . No comments were received in response to the notice for a Negativl Declaration. -8- 0 e IV. DETERMINATION (TO Be completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: - X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 Auuust 24. 1988 (3Ru, &a Date Signature " Date Pkanning Dire&&& V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) (See Part 111. ) -9- 0 0 MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued) VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURE: AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature -10-