HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 30094. 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3009
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR A TENTATIVE MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO
CREATE 5 LOTS AND DEVELOP 4 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED
RESIDENCES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF UNICORN10 STREET
BETWEEN EL FUERTE AND CACATUA STREET.
APPLICANT: LOS CUATROS
CASE NO.: CT 89-34/PUD 89-16
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of April, :
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tt
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted I:
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considere
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Cc
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to I
dated February'8, 1990, and "PII", dated January 31, 1990, attached hereto
part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the projec
significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental a
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposec
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be
impacted by this project.
....
....
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
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of th
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of April, 1'
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Holmes, McFad
Marcus & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Schlehuber.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMIS
MICHAEL J. H
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 3009 -2-
t
0
City
0
of Carlsba
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Lot 522 of La Costa Meadows Unit No. 3\ APN: 215-360-10/on the north side of Unicornio
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 4 unit/5 lot Planned Unit Development/Subdivision
The City of Carl sbad has conducted an environmental review of the above desc project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Calif Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declar
that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is h issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on fi' the P1 anning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file i P1 anni ng Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl sbad, Cal i forni a 92009. Com from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Pla Department within 10 days of date of issuance.
DATED: February 8, 1990
CASE NO: CT 89-34/PUD 89-16 P1 anni ng Director
APPLICANT: Robert Campbell
PUBLISH DATE: February 8, 1990
AH: kd
2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 (619) 43E
w ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 89-34/PUD 89-16
DATE : January 31, 1990
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: CT 89-34/PUD 89-16
2. APPLICANT: Robert Campbell
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1568 Hiahland Drive
Solana Beach, CA 92075
(619) 481-3235
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED:
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 5 lot Dlanned unit develoDment subdivision
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may ha significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assess appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This check1 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacte the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the b for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Nega Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substan. evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant ef on the environment. On the checklist, ttNOtt will be checked to indicate ' determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substan evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sianificant effect on
adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be del insiunificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the head ttYES-sigtt and tlYES-insigml respectively.
environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appc at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Partic1 attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which wc otherwise be determined significant.
e 0
& PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: R? (x$$
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-
W v
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 738 (inYs;Esi;
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: M &$f
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-
NO
X
X
X
X
X
NO
X
X
X
X
X
e e
8 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 587 $E&
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?
-4-
0 w
MDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
788 @, NO
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. X
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.) X
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
X
-5-
0
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION \
0
1. Earth - NO environmentally significant earth resources or im be caused by development of the proposed project. The sitl previously graded in accordance with an approved grading plar
2. Air - The project will not create objectionable odors or product that will significantly deteriorate ambient air quality a residential project. The projects low height of less than 3 the separation between buildings will not disturb air flows.
3. Water - The project site will be graded so that surface water
to Unicornio Street. Approximately 53 percent of the si1 landscaped so as not to significantly affect absorption rate:
4. Plant Life - There are no rare or endangered species of plant
site. The site has been previously graded with existing consisting of weeds and grasses as well as some ice plant c slopes.
5. Animal Life - Due to the disturbed nature of the site as w location in an area surrounded by development, no signific
population is likely to be disturbed.
6. Noise - The project will result in 4 units being construc project site. The site is separated from property to th Unicornio Street which has a 60 foot right-of-way.
7. Lisht & Glare - The project will not significantly produce n( glare as only standard outdoor residential lighting will be
8. Land Use - The project is consistent with the General Plan Ordinance. The density proposed is at the lower end of the Gt density range applicable to the property. The project also
good transition between existing single family development tc and multiple family development to the south.
9. Natural Resources - The site has been previously graded. resources exist on site.
10. Risk of Utxet - The proposed project does not require the use o
substances as it is not an industrial/manufacturing use.
11. Population - The proposal is in conformance with the General P
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6.
12. Housinq - The proposal will provide additional housing conformance with the General Plan and the density applicable t
13. TransPortation/Circulation - The project will generate a t
average daily vehicle trips. The resulting vehicle tri accommodated by the existing circulation system as they were i by the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6. The proj,
-6-
e m required to pay the applicable Traffic Impact Fee and Bri,
Thoroughfare District fee. Onsite guest Parking will be provided DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (continued)
14. Public Services - The project is located in Local Facilities Manac Zone 6. Services will be provided through the implementation of tha
plan.
15. Enersv - The proposal will not use substantial amounts of fuel or c and is located approximately 2 miles from commercial development ser the daily needs of residents located on El Camino Real so that vc trips to obtain goods and services can be kept to a minimal distal
16. Utilities - Utilities exist within the right-of-way adjacent to thc
and will be able to provide service to the project. Sewer and
project service availability letters have been obtained by the appl.
17. Human Health - The project will not create any health hazards as a residential project proposed for an entirely residential area. Th
is not impacted by unacceptable noise levels and is located well 01 the airport influence area of Palomar Airport.
18. Aesthetics - The project site will not obstruct any scenic vista 0: open to the public. The units are set back from the top of slc minimum of 10' to reduce visual impacts.
19. Recreation - The project has a minor increase in recreational needs project provides private recreation areas in side and rear yards fc individualunits. In addition 400 square feet of common recreationa is provided for project residents.
20. Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontoloaical-Theprojectsitewasprev~ graded and there is no evidence of significant resources of this I
being located on this site.
-7-
0 0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
I
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site desi5 c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter-
nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative
a) The project consists of only 5 lots and 4 single family 2 The project is too small to apply phasing as a viable alt
b) Alternate site designs such as attached units have been c
Attached units would not provide a superior alternative proposed 4 unit single family PUD provides a good transit: existing large lot single family and multiple family pro:
c) The proposed scale of development complies with required c standards and is compatible with surrounding development,
d) Possible alternate uses for the site include attached mult units. The proposed use is preferred since it provic transition between single family units to north and mult: units to the south.
e) Development at some future time on this infill lot is not with general plan goals.
f) Alternate sites for the proposed project include other sim
to the proposed project and would not provide a superior a:
g) The no project alternative on this previously graded inj
infill lots in the RDM zone. These sites are not any bel
inconsistent with General Plan goals.
-8-
w w 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.
$+0/70
Date
A q,. -, I w wwyw7-L
Date
1 ,o /Go 44- L1
1I Date Planning DiGctor
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-9-