HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 2767T
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2767
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW MINOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WITHIN THE REARYARDS OF ALL PHASE I SINGLE FAMILY LOTS (PLANNING AREA "Cgt) LOCATED ON THE WEST AND SOUTH SIDES OF NAVIGATOR CIRCLE ALONG THE SOUTH FACING
BATIQUITOS LAGOON BLUFF EDGE AND OVERLOOKING THE DESILTATION BASIN. APPLICANT: SAMMIS PROPERTIES CASE NO. : MP 175(A)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of
October, 1988, the 2nd day of November, 1988, the 16th day of
November 1988, the 4th day of January, 1989, and the 15th day of
March, 1989 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 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 Negative Declaration according to Exhibit ltND1t dated November
2, 1988 and I1PIII1, dated August 16, 1988 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinqs:
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.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
3. Although there exists coastal sage scrub vegetation along the Batiquitos Lagoon bluff, adjacent to the setback area, biological impacts from the construction of accessory structures will be avoided in that all permitted accessory structures will be setback a minimum of three feet from the
Batiquitos Lagoon bluff edge, thereby not permitting
encroachment into the habitat area. Potential visual impacts from permitting accessory structures within the 45 foot
setback area will be mitigated through specific design
criteria for permitted accessory uses, which will specify
guidelines.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 15th day of March, 1989, by the following vote, to wit:
~
~ permitted uses, and maximum height and setback encroachment
AYES : Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schramm, Schlehuber, Holmes, Erwin, & Marcus.
NOES : Commissioner McFadden.
ABSENT : None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
MATTHEW HALL, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
" -
MICHAEL J. H~LZMI~LER PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 2767 -2-
0 0 Exhibit "ND"
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE TELEPHONE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 (61 9) 438-1 161
aitg af aarlsbab
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The south side of Navigator Circle, along the south facing Batiquitos Lagoon bluff edge.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An Amendment to Master Plan 175 (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park) to a1 low mi nor accessory structures and improvements within the required 45' structural setback areas of approved single family lots located along the south facing Batiquitos Lagoon bluff edge.
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 P1 anni ng 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: November 2, 1988
CASE NO: MP-l75(A)
*a MICHAEL J. H MILL
Planning Director
APPLICANT: Sammis Properties
PUBLISH DATE: November 2, 1988
0 0 Exhibit I'PII"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. MP 175(A)
DATE : Auqust 16, 1988
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: Sammis Properties
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2650 Camino Del Rio North
#loo, San Dieqo, CA 92108 (619) 298-7112
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: May 18. 1988
I. 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 changes 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? X
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
0
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?
h. Reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies?
-2-
0
- YES MAYBE - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e 0
- YES
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?
7. Lisht and Glare - Will the proposal sig-
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?
-3-
MAYBE - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0 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 Upset - 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?
t1. Population - Will the proposal signif-
icantly alter the location, distribu-
tion, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
L2. Housinq - Will the proposal signif-
icantly affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing?
L3. Transportation/Circulation - Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. Generation 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?
- YES MAYBE - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-4-
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. Enersv - 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?
L6. 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?
-7. 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
X
e 0
YES - MAYBE - NO
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? X
20. Archeolosical/Historical/Paleontolosical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant
archeological, paleontological or
historical site, structure, object or
building? X
21. Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed project such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter-
nate sites for the proposed, and 9) no project alternative.
a) N/A.
b) N/A.
c) The project (proposed accessory structures) have been reduced in height (scale) to reduce visibility.
d) The only other environmentally acceptable use for the
site would be open space.
e) N/A since the dwelling units are already constructed and occupied.
f) N/A.
g) See d) above.
-6-
0 0
- YES MAY BE NO
22. Mandatory findinss of sisnificance -
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.) X
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
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
I. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project applicant is proposing to amend Specific Plan 175
(Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park) to allow the development of typical minor accessory structures (spas, decks, barbecues, trellis, planters) within the required 45 foot structural setback areas of already approved single family lots, from the south facing Batiquitos Lagoon bluff edge. An environmental impact report (EIR 84-3) has already been certified for Master Plan 175. For this Master Plan Amendment environmental analysis, staff conducted several field trips to the subject property. Although there exists coastal sage scrub vegetation along the Batiquitos Lagoon bluff edge, biological impacts from development (accessory structures) will be mitigated in that all
permitted accessory structures will be setback a minimum of 3' from
the Batiquitos Lagoon bluff edge, thereby not permitting encroachment into the habitat area. Potential visual impacts from permitting
accessory structures within the 45' setback area will be mitigated
through specific design criteria which will, specify allowed uses, maximum height of structures and maximum allowable distances from the external wall of the dwelling units.
-7-
0 0
CSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
The project applicant has also been willing to grant to the City a 45 foot open space/consewation easement over the setback area whereby
the City will be able to clearly regulate that accessory structures proposed within the 45 foot easement are in strict compliance with the development standards established for uses within this easement.
Overall, because the structures that will be permitted: (1) Are
typical accessory structures, the use of which are enjoyed by other property owners; and (2) Will not result in any significant biological or visual impacts, no project specific environmental impacts are anticipated. There were no public comments received during the public review period for the negative declaration.
-8-
I. 0 e
. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
XI 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.
8-17-88 &W
Date Signature
g, / 1 ,.?$g, g
I bate
MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-9-