HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-05-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 30130 *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3013
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP A FOURTEEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM
PROJECT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF PIRINEOS WAY, ONE LOT
EAST OF VIEJO CASTILLA WAY.
APPLICANT: GOLF HEIGHTS
CASE NO.: CT 89-25/PUD 89-13
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of May, 1
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tf
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted b
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considere
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Co
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", date
1990, and "PII", dated March 12, 1990, attached hereto and made a part here
the following findings:
Findings:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the projecf
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.
....
....
I I
I! 0 a
II PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of th
I. /I Co&sion of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of May, l!
2
3
following vote, to wit:
4 II AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Holmes,
Erwin, Marcus and Hall.
5 II NOES: None.
6
7
8
9
10
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
11 // ATTEST:
.> ' *"".." I.. .. .
"" . . "' ' I .. . .. ""_ -.-, .. .
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMI:
12
13 PLANNING DIRECTOR
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 3013 -2-
28
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The project site is located along the north si
Pirineos Way, one lot east of Viejo Castilla Way.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Tentative Tract Map and a Planned Unit Develor
to allow a one lot, fourteen unit multiple family project over a .883 acre site.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above des(
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environn
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad.
result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not h
significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justific
for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Pla
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments fror
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department \
twenty-one (21) days of date of issuance.
DATED: March 22, 1990
MICHAEL JYIOLYMILLER
CASE NO: CT 89-25/PUD 89-13 Planning Director
APPLICANT: Golf Heights
PUBLISH DATE: March 22, 1990
CDD:af
2075 Las Palrnas Drive * Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-
w 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 89-25/PUD 89-
DATE : March 12, 1990
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Golf Heishts
2. APPLICANT: Nohtan Partnership
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7143 Caminito Pantoi
San Dieqo, CA 92112
~~
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 4, 1989
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 14-unit condominium project on a .883 a located on the north side of Pirineos Way.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires tha
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 (
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 01 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, IINO" will be checked to ind. determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is s1 evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a siqnificant eff
environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration h
adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can insisnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under thc
llYES-sigll and ltYES-insiglf respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measurc
at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts wk. otherwise be determined significant.
w a
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 75% ljinsig) YS
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 0
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig)
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: YES (sig)
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-
'Ens ig)
YES (insig)
0
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig)
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?
YES (insig)
-4-
w 0
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
YES (sig) YEcnsig)
33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality
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.
of the environment, substantially
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?
-5-
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This project is a 14-unit condominium project located along the nor1 of Pirineos Way. The site is -883 acres and previously rough grade( gradient across the property varies from 79 feet MSL (southeast cor1
86 feet MSL (northeast quadrant of site), The site is landscaped W:
lying grasses. For this environmental analysis, staff conducted twc trips to the property. In that: (1) the site has been previously (
(2) there exists no sensitive environmental resources upon it; (3)
surrounded by already developed properties: and that (4) the p:
project is permitted by the existing zoning, no environmental impac
anticipated. There were no public comments received in response Notice fur a Negative Declaration.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
1. The project requires cut grading totalling 1,225 cubic yards ai fill grading of 2,100 cubic yards. Approximately 975 cubic yarc of earth are proposed to be imported. The site was previous: rough graded. No unstable earth conditions will be created the grading plan is required to meet City Engineering Standard
2, The topography of the site will not be significantly change
Import of earth is proposed to balance the site.
3. Properties on the perimeter of the site have been developed wi condominium projects. The project will not result in or affected by erosion of soils as all necessary drainage and erosi control facilities will be provided to handle runoff from t site.
4. As a result of the projects location, no impacts to beache
rivers, streams, bays, or lakes are anticipated.
5. The project will not have a significant effect on ambient a
quality as it will generate only 112 average daily vehicle triF
6. The project has a minimum 18 foot separation between t
structures. This design will provide for adequate air movemer
7, The project will not change the course or flow of water as
streams are located in the area and drainage waters will
handled by existing and/or proposed facilities.
8. Surface waters will not be impacted by the project and water wl be supplied to the site by the Carlsbad Municipal Water Distric
9. No natural resources exist on this previously graded site wh: is bordered by existing development or public improvements.
10. Because of the projects relatively small scale (14 du's) it is I expected to use substantial amounts of fuel or energy.
11. This previously graded site does not have a significant potent:
-6-
e 0
for containing archeological or paleontological objects.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
12. Vegetation onsite consists primarily of weeds and grasses as th
property has been previously graded.
13. Existing species of vegetation on the property are no
environmentally significant, therefore, the introduction of ne species of plants will not cause an adverse impact.
14. Implementation of the proposed project will not reduce the amour:
of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect farmland of Stat
or local importance.
15. Because the project is surrounded on three sides by existir
development and by an improved public street on the other side it is not valuable as habitat for any animal species.
16. Domestic animals added to the area as a result of this projec
will not result in a barrier to the migration or movement c
animals.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
17. The proposed project complies with the present and planned lar
use of the area as the site is designated R-H (Residential-Hic Density) on the General Plan Land Use Map and is zoned RD- (Residential density-Multiple Zone). The proposed land use : compatible with adjacent uses.
18. Public Utilities exist in the adjacent public street to serve tl
site and public services will be provided through tl implementation of the Local Facilities Management Plan for ZOI
6.
19. Sewer systems exist to accommodate the use.
20. Construction of the project may result in short-ter:
insignificant noise impacts upon surrounding residence; Otherwise, the project is compatible with surrounding uses a: will not create significant noise impacts. No significant noi, producing land use or facility will impact the project.
21. Lighting utilized onsite will be directed so as to not impa
adjacent properties.
22. Because this is a residential project it will not involve
significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardo
substances.
-7-
e 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
23. The proposed net density of 18.27 du/acre is within the rang
specified by the General Plan Land Use designation for the. sit
of 15-23 du/acre and below the Growth Control Point of 19. du/acre.
24. The project will provide additional housing units to meet existir demand.
25. A total of 112 average daily vehicle trips will be generated k
the project which will not significantly impact the circulatic system.
26. The demand for parking facilities created by this project will k
satisfied onsite. Two garage spaces will be provided for ea( Unit in addition to a total of 6 guest parking spaces and 01 recreational vehicle storage space.
27. Street improvements presently exist along the properties fronta! on Pirineos Way.
28. The project is outside the Airport Influence Area for Palomar
29. One vehicular access point is proposed for the project and : located so as to not cause conflicts with its intersection wil Pirineos Way.
30. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans.
31. The project will not obstruct any scenic vista and will crate <
aesthetically pleasing street scene.
32. Areas for private recreational amenities are proposed as well a passive common area.
-8-
e 0
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site design! c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the s 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 c
development impractical and is not environmentally superior.
b) The applicant has considered alternate site desiqns. The proposc
project creates no significant environmental impacts, while beil
compatible with surrounding residential uses.
c) An alternate scale of development would not be an environmental:
superior alternative as the site has been previously disturbc and contains no natural resources.
d) The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoni~ designations for the site.
e) Development at some future time rather than now has : environmental advantages since this is an infill lot which h, been previously graded and utilities are available to serve t: site.
f) There are alternate sites for the project: however, they have : environmental advantages and the proposal is consistent wi, existing land use plans.
g) The no project alternative is not in conformance with the Gener Plan and zoning designations for the property.
-9-
e 0
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 0:
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significan
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attachec 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.
3- 1WU
Date Signature
7\13/qo
' Da6e Pl>nnind biddctor
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-10-
1. e 0
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE! ABOVE! MI'I'IIGATINC MEAgI AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
CDD: af
-11-