HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 2991', 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. 2991
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND PLANNED
SUBDIVISION ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAS FLORES DRIVE AND TUTT'LE
STREET.
CASE NAME: VISTA SAN MALO
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEVELOP A FIVE LOT SINGLE-FAMILY
CASE NO.: CT 89-35/PUD 89-17
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of April, 15
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tes
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Con
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning (
January 17, 1990, and "PII", dated December 6, 1989, attached hereto and n
hereof, based on the following findings:
hereby APPROVES of the Mitigated Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
FINDINGS:
1. Sound mitigation measures have been required to mitigate noise imp,
insignificant leveL These measures have been specified as a condition of thi:
and included in the Mitigation Monitoring horn
2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed
3. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be !
impacted by this project.
....
....
II 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
3.8
19 I
20
21
22
23
CONDITIONS:
1. Prior to the occupancy of individual units, the applicant shall construct an eighl
sound attenuation wall along the front portion of Lot 1 as shown on approved E
2. Interior noise levels shall be mitigated to 45 dba CNEL when openings to the
the residence are closed. If openings are provided, mechanical ventilatio~
provided.
Engineering:
3. No grading permits shall be issued for this subdivision prior to recordation o
map.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Ci
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of April, 1990, by the follo
to wit:
AYES : Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Holr
McFadden, Erwin, Marcus & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None. : . . .”. .. . .
ATI’EST:
’I & &- c
SHARON SCHRA”, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
.-
MICHAEL J. HO”LZMILLCE~
PUNNING DIRECTOR
24 11
25
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 2991 -2-
28
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: TUTTLE STREET AND LAS FLORES DR
(APN: 155-160-12)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: FIVE LOT SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION 0:
LEVEL LOT.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above desci
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmt
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. , result of said review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project
not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject prc
Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file iI
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments
the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Depart]
within thirty (30) days of date of issuance.
DATED: January 17, 1990
CASE NO: CT 89-35/PUD 89-17
* Li L' 1:' ,& ' /. ( c \ccL- ~ ,ka.& 'L L <.;
MICHAEL J. H~LZX~ILLER
Planning Director
APPLICANT: Ray Escano
PUBLISH DATE: January 17, 1990
JG:af
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-11
.. W 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 89-35/PUD 89
DATE : December 6, 198
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Vista San Malo
2. APPLICANT: Ray Escano
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 800 Grand Avenue, Ste
Carlsbad, CA 92008
720-1000
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 26, 1989
5. PROJECT' DESCRIPTION t Five latlfaur dwellincr unit sin subdivision.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires thz conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This 1 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be i the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report 0: Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no s evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a signific
on the environment. On the checklist, llNO1l will be checked to ind
determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is s evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sianificant eff environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration h adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can insiqnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under th I1YES-sigv1 and llYES-insigll respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measur at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts wl otherwise be determined significant.
W a
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: FgS,
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-
YES (insig)
0 0
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig) 'EnSSig)
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?
'1.4'. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
or other farmland of state or local importance?
' 1 .agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
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 YES (sig) (insig)
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-
W 0
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(sig) (insig)
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?
'2.5. 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?
-4-
m 0
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
YES (sig) YEEnsig)
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
I ' 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.)
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
-5-
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This project entails the subdivision of a 1.21 acre parcel i
single-family residential lots and 1 common recreation lot. The px
is a Planned Unit Development. which utilizes a 31 foot wide PI street for access. The topography is relatively level and the si1 been utilized to cultivate and sell horticultural products. Curl the lot contains an old retail flower stand, single-family dwellil several dilapidated accessory buildings.
Physical Environment:
The subject property is relatively level and at this time no grad.
proposed, therefore, there will be little appreciable cham topography. Drainage and erosion control facilities wil incorporated into the project by conditions of approval and no un:
, ' earth conditions or unique geologic features are located on the p:
' ' site or in the general vicinity. Development of the project create impervious surfaces onsite which reduce absorption rat6 increase surface runoff and runoff velocities, however, dri
facilities will be provided.
Development of the proposed project will incrementally contribute depletion of fossil fuel and other natural resources, increase loc regional air emissions; however, this is not regarded as a signi impact in view of the limited scale of the project. Resid( development on this site at the appropriate density has been accl and planned for in the City's General Plan, as well as the Zone 1 Facilities Management Plan, therefore, the above-mentioned impac physical resources have been anticipated.
The property is an infill site surrounded by existing single- residences, and the area has been previously disturbed by horticu uses, therefore, no cultural resource impacts are anticipated t
site.
Biological Environment:
The property is currently developed with several structures and pa
present hort'icultural uses of the site have greatly disturb6
natural plant or animal communities, therefore, the site has 1
biological value. The site is surrounded by existing developmj there is no threat of introducing new species into a natural a limiting the movement of native animal species. The project will the availability of agricultural land, however, the parcel is so that it is an insignificant reduction.
-6-
m 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
Human Environment:
Traffic impacts, increase to population, increased public fa( demands and the planned use of the are have all been account€ planned for in the City's General Plan and Zone 1 Local Faci: Management Plan. The project will be required to pay public fac fees that will be used to adequately mitigate any impacts upon uti: and public facilities.
The proposed project will incrementally increase noise levels : area due to traffic and contribute to light and glare in the p:
vicinity, however, these impacts are considered insignificant due small nature of the project. The development will be compatiblc surrounding land uses, and the project is required to meet
standards, ordinances, and policies, therefore, no safety impac.
, ' anticipated.
..
The project site is located just west of Interstate 5 and di
across the street from the Las Flores Drive freeway off-ramp. project will be impacted by noise from traffic on Interstate ! Flores Drive exit and Las Flores Drive. Peak hour traffic measurements on the subject property indicated a maximum projected level of 69.7 dba CNEL near the northern property line along Las Drive.
A noise study was prepared for the project stating that attenuation walls would be required along the northern property 1 mitigate noise levels down to 60 dba CNEL for the exterior useable around Building 1 and additional sound insulation at the nor corner of Building 1 to mitigate interior noise levels in this bu to 45 dba CNEL. The project will be specifically conditior mitigate noise levels to 60 dba CNEL 5 feet inside the pr
project! s property line at six feet above finished grade, and to
CNEL on the interior of the dwelling units.
-7-
e 0
ANALYSIS OF 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 sit€ e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, -and g) no project alternative.
The small nature of this 5 lot single-family subdivision located I
and previously disturbed lot limits any phased development, nor doe itself to alternative site design or scale of development. This pro: infill type development, the property is zoned for single-family rt
uses, and the project conforms to the adopted residential density for
therefore, the consideration of alternative uses or sites is not apprc this case. Development of the site at some future time or the r alternative is not of benefit and only postpones the site's . development.
-8-
W
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
2 I find that although the proposed project could have a signif ica effect on the.environment, there will not be a significant effeci
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative this case because the mitigation measures described on an attachc
Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
7 &* !! ,?x c*
Y
Date
',"
4
\ -5 , >Xk> ' u Yignajure
' ' , 'i ., - /', (t .I ; ' .' I\ , 7! . y 7. ; cy,, . , ?, .,:.,I.?'%, 1,1 ',<,I* * ; \)y",,' ', -<j x,..< ~
Datb - Plannisg Director
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)-
Noise levels shall be mitigated to 60 dba CNEL five feet withi property lines by using sound attenuation walls, Noise levels interior of the dwelling units shall be mitigated to 45 dba CNEL k
sound insulating building materials where it is deemed necessary by
study.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
Noise mitigating measures will be implemented as a condition of apprl prior to the issuance of a building permit.
-9-
0 0
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.
/- 7" qv7 $Ac-i
Date Signature
JG: af
-10-