HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-02-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 2975' c 1 ll 0 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. 2975
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
CREATE THIRTEEN LOTS AND DEVELOP SIX DUPLEXES (TWELVE
UNITS) ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EL FUERTE AND LUCIERNAGA STREETS. CASE NAME: CASA DEL SOL (EL FUERTE LIMITED) CASE NO.: CT 89-23/PUD 89-11
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of
1990, hold a duly noticed pub1 ic hearing as prescribed by law to cor
request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consi
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the i
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, tt
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaral
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1 anning Con
f 01 1 ows :
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
8) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, th
"ND", dated December 29, 1989, and I'PII", dated December
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the fol lowin5
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according
Findinqs:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidenc
project may have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier en\
analysis.
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic general
proposed project.
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located s significantly impacted by this project.
....
....
.. /I w e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 I
18
~
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of th
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21
February, 1990, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES : Chairperson Schramm, Commi ssioners: Schl ehub
Hal 1 , McFadden , Holmes & Marcus.
NOES : None.
ABSENT : None.
ABSTAIN : None.
ATTEST:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSI
t 1:;; !l -:
,. i > :,’ ’., % i : ! :-
*“U+”
- ;- ,.
{$ ,,, y gJ . ‘dl $?.. *-/”-<>< ; /-;y I , l , , ?J’,. ”A- q _1 : ’ ’ f L* b’ ,/ :
.I ..._’. ’I_ _.- +?A.
MICHAEL J. UOLZk!ILLER’
PLANNING DIRECTOR
j
~
~
I
PC RES0 NO. 2975 -2-
I ,
W 0
Exhibit
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESSILOCATION: Northwest corner of fl Fuerte Street and Luciernaga Si
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 13 lot Tentative Tract Map and a 12 unit Planned Develop
consisting of 6 duplexes on 1. I acres (Casa Del Sol)
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described pl
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Ac,
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said revic
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact 01
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on 1
the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plal
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the publi
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) d;
date of issuance.
DATED: December 2 9 I. 1989
CASE NO: CT 89-231PUD 89-77 Planning Director
APPLICANT: El Fuerte Limited
PUBLISH DATE: December 29 I 1989
DN:kd
307.5 I a" Palma= nrive m Carlchad Califnrrri- a3nnQ AQFQ - (=*a\ AQQ
3, W 0 Exhibit I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 89-23/PUD 89-:
DATE : December 20, 198!
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Casa Del Sol
2. APPLICANT: El Fuerte Limited (Attn: Robert Campbell)
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1568 Hishland Drive
Solana Beach. CA 9207E
(619) 481-3235
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: July 5, 1989
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 13 lot Tentative Tract Map and a 12 Planned Unit Development on 1.1 acre$
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires tha' conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project n.
significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact A appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This cl identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be im the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as
Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no su evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significa on the environment. On the checklist, 8vN011 will be checked to indi
determination.
for decidiny whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is su: evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sisnificant effe environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration ho
adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can 1 insisnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the v8YES-sigv8 and I8YES-insign1 respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measure; at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. P
attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts whi otherwise be determined significant,
W - PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: K? (X38
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?
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site, structure or object?
-2-
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
>1 w 0
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: Y% (inY@
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: 7% cinyS$i;
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services?
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare?
-3-
- - HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: El?
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
24, Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
30, Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
&%$) NO
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-4-
-.
.I w m
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
7% fgg,
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
environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.)
35. Does the project have the possible
goals? (A short-term impact on the
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?
-5-
w
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION - PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
1. The project requires cut grading totalling 3,800 cubic yards and fill gra
of 600 cubic yards. Approximately 3,200 cubic yards of earth are prop to be exported. The site was previously graded into two pads differin
created as the grading plan is required to meet City Engineering standa
2. The topography of the site will not be significantly changed. Expori earth is proposed to create the private driveway 5 to 7 feet below exis, grade and construct garages with basements below grade level. Finish f
elevation of the living areas of structures will approximate existing gr
No unique physical features exist on this previously graded site.
elevation by approximately 3 feet. No unstable earth conditions wil:
3. Properties on the perimeter of the site have been developed with exception of the area on the east side of El Fuerte Street. The project '
not result in or be affected by erosion of soils as all necessary drai. facilities will be provided to handle runoff from the site.
4. As a result of the projects location no impacts to beaches, rivers, stre( bays, or lakes are anticipated.
5. The project will not have a significant effect on ambient air quality a
will generate only 96 average daily vehicle trips.
6. The project has separations between duplex structures ranging from 20 :
to 43 feet in addition to a 30 foot wide driveway which runs north to SI through the site which will provide for air movement.
7. The project will not change the course or flow of water as no streams
located in the area and drainage waters will be handled by existing an( proposed facilities.
8. Surface waters will not be impacted by the project and water will be supp: to the site by the Vallecitos Water District which has provided a wi service availability letter.
9. No natural resources exist on this previously graded site which is bordc
by existing development or public improvements.
10. Because of the projects relatively small scale it is not expected to
11. This previously graded site does not have a significant potential
substantial amounts of fuel or energy.
containing archeological or paleontological objects.
-6-
I ., W 0
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
12. Vegetation on site consists primarily of weeds and grasses as tht has been previously graded.
13. Existing species of vegetation on the property are not envirc significant, therefore, the introduction of new species of plant: cause an adverse impact.
14. Implementation of the proposed project will not reduce the amount t of any agricultural crop or affect farmland of state or local iml
15. Because the project is surrounded on two sides by existing deve1( by improved public streets on the other two sides it is not vz
habitat for any animal species.
16. Domestic animals added to the area as a result of this project result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
17. The proposed project complies with the present and planned land I area as the site is designated RMH (Medium-High Density) on the Ge: Land Use Map and is zoned RD-M (Residential density-Multiple Zc proposed land use is compatible with adjacent uses.
18. Public Utilities exist in the adjacent public streets to serve thl public services will be provided through the implementation of Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6.
19. Sewer systems exist to accommodate the use.
20. A Noise Study was prepared for the project pursuant to Planning 1
Administrative Policy 17. The conclusion of that study was that I
is not required along El Fuerte Street in order to achieve the 6( CNEL exterior noise level requirement. In addition, the exterior C: by traffic on El Fuerte and Luciernaga Street is not high enough 1 mechanical ventilation in any of the units. Only standard glazil required for the units.
21. Lighting utilized on site will be directed so as to not impact properties.
22. Because this is a residential project it will not involve a signif. of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances.
23. The proposed density of 10.91 du/acre is within the range specif: General Plan Land Use Designation for the site of 8-15 du/acre and growth control point of 11.5 du/acre.
24. The project will provide additional housing units to neet existil
25. A total of 96 average Daily Vehicle Trips will be generated by tl which will not significantly impact the circulation system.
-7-
W w
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT (cont'd)
26. The demand for parking facilities created by this project will be satis on site. Two garage spaces will be provided for each unit in additiol a total of 6 guest parking spaces and one recreational vehicle storage sp(
27. Street improvements presently exist along the properties frontage on : El Fuerte and Luciernaga Streets.
28. The project is outside the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport.
29. One vehicular access point is proposed for the project and is located s to not cause conflicts with the intersection of El Fuerte and Luciernal
30. The project will not interfere with emergency response 'plans.
31. The project will not obstruct any scenic vista and will create
aesthetically pleasing street scene.
32. Areas for private recreational amenities are proposed as well as a pas, common area.
-8-
It w 0
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site desigl c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the I e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative
a) The relatively small scale of the project makes phasing of dc
impractical and is not environmentally superior.
b) The applicant has considered alternate site designs. Thc design meets city standards and creates no significant env. impacts.
c) An alternate scale of development would not be an envirc superior alternative as the site has been previously disl contains no natural resources.
d) The project is consistent with the General Plan a: designations for the site.
e) Development at some future time rather than now has no env
advantages since this is an infill lot which has been 1 graded and utilities are available to serve the site.
f) There are alternate sites for the project; however, the
environmental advantages and the proposal is consistent wit
land use plans.
g) The no project alternative is not in conformance with the Ge and Zoning designations for the property.
-9-
- - 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
Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
sheet have been added to the project e A Conditional Negative
December 20. 1989 .&-a Date Signature
IZ/ZZ/@S Da’te Plann-g Dikctor
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-10-
tc w W
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEA!
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
-11-