The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-08-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 30763 f // 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3076 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 5 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF JEREZ COURT EAST OF GIBRALTAR STREET. CASE NAME: JEREZ COURT CASE NO: CT 89-15/PUD 89-6 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of August, 1 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tea arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted bj considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Cox 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", date1 15, 1989, and "PII", dated December 5, 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 streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed 3. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significan by this project. .... .... .... II 4 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of tf Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of August, 1' following vote, to wit: AYES: Vice-chairman Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Erwin, Hall & Marcus. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairperson Schramm. a ABSTAIN: None. 9 10 11 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ~ ~ Jq/?j~~&(+"w+ * fl $!) \ \ /" I ,A /A>*'"; .L G ic I MICHAEL J. HOLZ~IILLERJ I PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 3076 -2- NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: JEREZ COURT - APN: 216-290-07 - Cit Carlsbad, CA 92008 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 6 unit multi-family residential project located on a level graded lot. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above descr project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmc Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. 1 result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not ha significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justifics for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plan Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department w ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: December 15, 1989 CASE NO: CT 89-15/PUD 89-6 APPLICANT: Apec Civil Engineering PUBLISH DATE: December 15, 1989 Planning Director JG:lh 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 (619) 438-1 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 89-15/PUD 89-0 DATE : DECEMBER 5. 1989 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: JEREZ CONDOS 2. APPLICANT: APEC CIVIC ENGINEERING 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2341 FIFTH AVENUE SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-1 (619) 234-7501 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: JUNE 6, 1989 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 6 UNIT CONDO PROJECT ON PRE-GRADED FLAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires thal conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project IT significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact A appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This c: identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be irc the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no su evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significz on the environment. On the checklist, llNO1l will be checked to indi determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is su evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sisnificant effc environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration hc adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can insisnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the "YES-sigV1 and l1YES-insig1! respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measure at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. E attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts wh otherwise be determined significant. 0 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES (sig) (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? 1 -2- 0 e BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig) 'E,SSig) 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, and insects? land animals, all water dwelling organisms 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 glare? -3- 1 e 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 30. Interfere with emergency response plans or vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 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- a 0 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. YE8nsig1 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? (I1Cumulatively 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- m 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT The project is located on a level pre-graded site therefore there no significant impacts to topography, increased erosion, archeologi cultural resources, surface water and other physical resources. The is too small to have a significant impact on ambient air quality or a disturbance to air movement, moisture or temperature. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT The site was previously disturbed when the area was originally grade lot is denuded of vegetation and the surrounding area is develop' residential housing units, therefore, the project will not significant affect on biological resources. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT The site is an urban infill lot that is surrounded by multi residential units. The land is designated and zoned for residenti and all off site improvements are in place to serve this developmen site is located in Local Facilities Management Zone 6 and the approv 6 Plan has guaranteed the adequacy of public facilities for the p development. The project will help decrease the demand for housing development within the project will be required to meet all City ordi standards and policies, therefore the project will not create hazards surrounding area. The project is too small to have a significant im noise levels nor increase light and glare in the area. The pro: reflection from the structures or pavement. required to be landscaped which will help counter any increa -6- 0 0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site desigr c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the E e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES The small nature of this six dwelling unit condo project located on pre-graded lot prohibits any phased development and does not lend it alternative site design or scale of development. The property is zo residential uses and the project conforms to the adopted residential for the area, therefore alternate uses or alternative sites appropriate in this case. Development of the site at some future 1 the no project alternative is not a viable solution because the i zoned for the use and delay only postpones the inevitable development site. -7- *, 0 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 the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significa effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effecl this case because the mitigation measures described on an attachc 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. 12- 1%" 89 Date "-i;p"/ e ,:' / -/ )/ : /z c .+ Li, 7 (/AH> , I' &L/&,< Date ., , .,.',y/~l&ning Dirkctor ", LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -8- 4 *- 0 e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES 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 JG: Ih -9-