Loading...
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-