HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-07-09; Planning Commission; Resolution 30500 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. 3050
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP A SIX UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT.
APPLICANT: MASADER I1
CASE NO: CT 89-31/PUD 89-15
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of June, 195
day of June, 1990, and the 9th day of July, 1990, hold a duly noticed public
prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted b
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considerec
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", datc
29, 1989, and "PII", dated November 29, 1989, attached hereto and made a
based on the following findings:
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 a
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the propose(
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be
impacted by this project.
....
....
0 e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commissio
of Carlsbad, California, held on the 9th day of July, 1990, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Holmes, McFadden, Em
Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None. .. .. ..
ATTEST:
SHARON SCHRAMM, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
.. /'. , . i \
.r" j\ \. . ,'..,,, ' 1 i ' '1, 1 , \.., * (. .,,b/lJ., \i' ,; /: ,,b: -"&< i, b \,(,!\.-%. L ,- ~
f ,id^.
MICHAEL J. HOLiMILLER.
PLANNING DIRECTOR
1 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RES0 NO. 3050 -2-
NEGATNE DmmmoN
PROJECT ADDRESSILOCATION: South of Alga Road, west of Santa Isabel.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 6 unit Condominium Development on .52 acres of land in
Residential Densify - Medium Zone. APN: 21 5-330-03
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described prc
pursuant to the Guidelines for lmplementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the Cily of Carlsbad. As a result of said revie1
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on fil
the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planr
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 (
of issuance.
DATED: December 29, 1989
CASE NO: CT 89-31fPUD 89-15 Planning Director
PROJECT NAME: Masader 11
APPLICANT: Masadei Investments, LTD.
PUBLISH DATE: December 29, 1989
\
CW:kd
2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 (619) 438”
EmIROmENrAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Faw @PART 11 0
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 89-31/PUD 89
DATE : November 29, 19
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Masader I1
2. APPLICANT: Masader Investments, Ltd.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4675 MacArthur Court
Newport Beach, CA 926
~~~~
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 20, 1989
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 6 Unit condominium development on .52 a of land located south of Alsa Road and west of Santa Isabel - APN 215-330-03.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires thi 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 o
Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no E evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a signif ic on the environment. On the checklist, oNO11 will be checked to in6
determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is I evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sisnificant efj environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration 1 adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can insisnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under tt "YES-sigtl and tlYES-insig't respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measux at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts w otherwise be determined significant.
0 W
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: E3 YES (insig)
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?
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-2-
0 0
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig) 'RISsig)
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 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 qlare?
-3-
e W
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
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 (sig) YES (insig) NO
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-4-
e
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
YES (sig)
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? (99Cumulatively 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.)
YEznsig)
36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
-5-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRO NP aNTAL EVALUATION w
Physical Environment:
The site has been graded and has been vacant for a 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 the 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 maximun 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 adj acent pro j ect 1 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 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PRO 9 ECT 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.
a) The project% size does not allow phasing as viable alternatiu
b) Alternate site designs could reduce potential impacts. Becau
the site is small, there is not a significant number of ways
which the project could be designed. Each solution will ha
limited impacts.
c) A reduction in the intensity of the development would redu 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 w DETERMINATION (To Be CO eted 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.
r Date I ;Mq l"h - 'signature
/-\
; ; '., ./ L'i .,, : I
I,, /ar c '~, . / , !/ - , L ', i(.+ .T-rt;;A -,, , ! ' (T
I . 8, 'I '.,J, :' ;/ . ,' ! I c .I" YZ' --".
Date Piannim Direstor ~ - , .I
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-8-
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES 0 e
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEAS' AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
CW:af
-9-