Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 30654 0 e 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. 3065 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN 8 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT LOCATED SOUTH OF NAVARRA DFWE AND WEST OF VIEJO CASTILLA WAY. APPLICANT: NAVARRA CONDOMINIUMS CASE NO: CT 89-24/CP 89-12 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of Aug hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said reqx WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and corn: testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the il submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, thc Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning C as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, thc Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according "ND", dated June 21, 1990, and "PII", dated June 6, 1990, attached made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the I: have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environment 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by thc project. 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be s impacted by this project. 0 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 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of th Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of August the following vote, to wit: AYES: Vice-chairman Holmes, Commissioners: Sc McFadden, Erwin, Marcus & Holmes. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairperson Schramm. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMI /I*\ ); % /”’ fq ! \ i‘, P- y u, ;&&& MICHAEL J. H‘~ZM$LER PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 3065 -2- W 0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South of Navarra Drive and west of Viejo Castilla Way. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Eight condominium units .on .425 acres. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proj pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation 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 Departmept. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plam Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Deparhnent wi& 21 days of d of issuance. DATED: JUNE 21, 1990 CASE NO: CT 89-24/CP 89-12 Planning Director APPLICANT: WELLINGTON HOMES CORPORATION PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 21, 1990 CW:kd 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 W 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 89-2 DATE: June 6, I BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Navarra Condominiums 2. APPLICANT: Wellington Homes Corporation 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 8950 Villa La Jolla, Suite 1; La Jolla. CA 92037 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: January 12, 1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Eight condominium units on .425 acres located south Drive and west of Vieio Costilla Way, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the 6 The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. 1 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Er Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that tl any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" wi to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any i project may cause a sinnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify fol Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects car insimificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" an( respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of thl DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given t mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. W PHYSICAL ENvlRoNMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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- 0 vi? 7221 - - b - - - - - Ir BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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: 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? YES YES r (sk) (insig) YES (sig) - YES (insig) -3- W HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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? 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- e YES YES big) (insig) - - - N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES r\ (si& (insig) 33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially 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. reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- 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- w DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 0 Phvsical Environment The site has been previously graded and is currently vacant. Grading quantities are 2200 cub existing slope of approximately 8% will not be changed appreciably so there will not be a danger w Effects of the project on erosion, air and water quality, and course or flow of waters will be minil slopes which are manufactured and could have the potential to erode will be controlled thr, planting. Manufactured slopes will not exceed a 2:l ratio or exceed a height of 30 feet. Referenc 15064(i) of the State CEQA Guidelines: "if an air emission or water discharge meets the existir for a particular pollutant, the Lead Agency may presume that the emission or discharge of the PO not be a significant effect on the environment." Total project emissions will not exceed thresh0 Project location precludes potential impacts on the course or flow of marine or fresh waters. Altho. resources will be used for the construction of the project, primarily lumber, maintenance and oper; of resources, water and oil, can not be considered significant. Water consumption will be determined by the individual user for domestic and landscape purposes. Water conserving irrig be installed for common areas. Once the project has been occupied the individual consumption of fuel or energy will be determ user. Active and passive solar design, insulation and the installation of energy saving appliances cc a first step mitigation to reduce the need for excessive amounts of energy. The site has not been identified as having any archaeological, paleontological or historic signific BioloRical Environment The site has been graded and is devoid of most vegetation. There are some existing pine trees at t edge of the site which will be retained. There has not been a determination of significance for any plant species onsite. The parcel is SUI existing development so there is no threat to existing plants due to the introduction of new plan1 The project site is not designated or being used as agricultural land. No sensitive animal specie identified onsite. Therefore, there will be no significant impact to any species of animals. Human Environment The site carries a high density General Plan desigriation which allows a density range of 15-23 dv per acre. Zoning on the property is Residential Density-Multiple Zone. The General Plan charac density as low and medium rise condominium and apartment development. No zone or G amendments are proposed. export. The change in topography will be minimal because the structure will be set into the excav -6- w 0 Public utilities and services, such as sewers, schools, police, fire and emergency, can be pro7 individual responsible agencies. Noise and light levels will increase, however not to levels of significance. Noise sources after COI be human voices, radio and television, household and maintenance related appliances and aut of Carlsbad Municipal Code. Light reflectivity will change due to the future existence of residences vs. vacant property. New will be established by street lamps and individual home exterior and interior lighting. Light sc the public right-of-way will be subject to City designated standards for intensity. The use of hazardous substances in significant quantities is not a part of this project, nor is it an1 there will be storage of hazardous and/or volatile materials. Implementation of the project will not create a need for additional housing, however it will h on existing housing in the general vicinity. Those impacts will be primarily economic. The I intended for first the buyer or low to moderate income households. Traffic will be increased by approximately 64 average daily trips (ADT). This projection fal: service levels of the adjacent existing street system. No new mass transportation routes or required by the transit district. Streets and sidewalks have been designed to accommodate foot automobile traffic without compromising safety. truck traffic. Construction noise will be short term and acceptable noise levels will be governel -7- e 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) alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) The relatively small scale of the project makes phasing of development impractic environmentally superior. b) The applicant has considered alternate site designs. The proposed project significant environmental impacts, while being compatible with surrounding resit c) An alternate scale of development would not be an environmentally superior a: the site has been previously disturbed and contains no natural resources. d) The project is corisistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the e) Development at some future time rather than now has no environmental advantar is an infill lot which has been previously graded and utilities are available to sf f) There are alternative sites for the project; however, they have no environmenta: and the proposal is consistent with existing land use plans. g) The no project alternative is not in conformance with the General Plan designations for the property. -8- w 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 on the environment, and a DECLARATION will be prepared. - 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmen not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an a 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 ENVIR( IMPACT REPORT is required. - / /cl'D AJJ-wUL Dbte' L4t-6 7 \ hj/l Iq-s, Date' Planning Diregor 3 LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -9- w 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature -1 0-