HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-07-09; Planning Commission; Resolution 30410 *
1
2
3
4
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3041
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO
DEVELOP A 14 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT.
APPLICANT: MASADER I
CASE NO.: CT 89-30/PUD 89-14
6
8
day of June, 1990, and the 9th day of July, 1990 hold a duly noticed public 7
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of June, 195
prescribed by law to consider said request, and
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 ~
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te:
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted bl
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considerec
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning COI
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
17 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
29, 1989, and "PII", dated November 29, 1989, attached hereto and made a 18
hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", date
based on the following findings: 19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Findings :
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project
significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental a1
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be
impacted by this project.
28
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
of the city of Carlsbad, California, held on the 9th day of July, 1990, by the following vote,
AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners Schlehuber, Holmes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Erwin, Marcus & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None. I'*", .,.. .... : .. ...
s- -._ , ""?."*.".-~ "" .
a SHARON SCHRA", Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSI SI ATTEST:
10
11 A*i,
.. .' . , . i\; i I . \ 1 i-j. ~ .' is !/ ~ [. 't i 4, :iL,l<,$.u:.L.,k:-fj ., j--,y.. , ;.?,:x,;";-i"
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLERJ' l2 PLANNING DIRECTOR
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 3041 -2-
28
NEGATNE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESSILOCATION: South of Alga Road, west of Santa Isabel.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 14 unit Condominium Development on 7.2 acres of land in 1
Residential Density - Medium Zone. APN: 215-330-05,06
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proj
pursuant to the Guidelines for lmplementation of the California Environmental Quality Act a.
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on 1
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file
the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planni
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 10 days of d
of issuance.
DATED: December 29, 7989
CASE NO: CT 89-3OlPUD 89-14
MICHAEL J. HOLZMLER
Planning Director
PROJECT NAME: Masader I
APPLICANT: Masader Investments, LTD.
PUBLISH DATE: December 29, 1989
CW:kd
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1
0 0 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 89-30/PUD 89-
DATE : November 29, 19E
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Masader I
2. APPLICANT: Masader Investments, Ltd.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4675 MacArthur Court
Nemort Beach, CA 9266
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 13, 1989
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 14 Unit condominium development on 1.2 acr
located south of Alsa Road and west of Santa Isabel - APN 215-
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 i appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This c identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be il the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report OX Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no si
evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a signific
on the environment. On the checklist, 11N019 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 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 tht llYES-sigll 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 w
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: E3 YES (insig) NO
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards? X
2. Appreciably change the topography or any X unique physical features?
3.
4.
' 5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
10.
11.
Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site?
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?
Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality?
Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply?
Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources?
Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-2-
0 0
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES (sig) (insig)
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) YES (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 w
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) NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-4-
0 0
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
YES (sig) YEEnsig) 1
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 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? (IICumulatively con-
siderablell 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-
e e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Physical Environment:
The site has been graded and has been vacant for 13 number of years.
During that time there has not been any evidence of an erosion problem.
The project will stay substantially within the existing contours of thc
site. Grading onsite will be limited to cut.
There are no natural or man-made water bodies or water ways on or adjacent to this site. The extent of development is relatively small
and the height of the proposed buildings are within the City's maximum height limits, therefore, ambient air quality and physical air patterns
will not be changed significantly.
As a residential project extended use of natural resources, fuel or
energy is not anticipated.
The site is located in an area that has a high potential for fossil
content, however, the review of adjacent project I s environmental assessments has not shown the existence of significant artifacts in the
area.
Biological Environment:
At present, the site is devoid of significant plant life or animal life.
The introduction of plants and animals after development of the property will be common species which may already exist in adjoining
developments. The site has not been used for agriculture and is not large enough to be considered for a significant agricultural site.
Human Environment:
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and existing zoning. The type of project and density will be compatible with surrounding
uses. Development has occurred on surrounding properties and as a
result, existing infrastructure can accommodate the project's proposed
increase in use. As a residential project, housing stock is increased and traffic, noise, and light and glare impacts are minimal.
The estimated traffic count will be eight ADTs per unit, and noise will be generated by household appliances and other sources common to residential development.
Exterior lighting will be directional to reduce impacts on adjacent properties with an emphasis on security.
/
-6-
0 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 site e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
a) The project's size does not allow phasing as viable alternativt
b) Alternate site designs could reduce potential impacts. Becau!
which the project could be designed. Each solution will ha'
limited impacts.
the site is small, there is not a significant number of ways
C) A reduction in the intensity of the development would redul
density related impacts. A reduction in the number of units wou also allow the potential for providing meaningful open spa onsite and to pull away from the bluff edge thereby reducing a visual impacts.
d) Because of the existing surrounding uses, a residential proje on this site is the only viable project allowed.
e) Services can be provided to the site and the pads are existin There would not be any advantage to postponing development.
f) The site is intended for the proposed type of development. The would not be any advantage to developing on another site.
g) Because the site has been disturbed, the no project alternati has no positive effect.
-7-
m e 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.
1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
*I Date I I 1qm Ilk
I.
a , ;.. / {e. .,
' ' Date
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH IWITGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-8-
0. 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES e
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASU:
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
CW:af
-9-