Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-01-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 3180ll 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3180 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 TWELVE UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF PIRINEOS WAY, ONE LOT EAST OF VIEJO CASTILLA WAY. APPLICANT: GOLF HEIGHTS CASE NO.: CT 90-29/PUD 90-27 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of January, 199 8 9 10 11 testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the inforrnati 12 submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planni I.3 Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. 14 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissil l5 I/ as follows: 16 17 18 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planni Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhi hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 19 "ND", dated November 1, 1990, and "PII", dated November 2, 1990, attack 20 21 Findings: 22 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project IT 23 I! have a significant impact on the endronment. 24 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analy 25 26 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the propo: project. 27 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significar impacted by this project. 28 I/ 1 2 0 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannin 3 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of January, 1991, b 4 the following vote, to wit: 5 6 7 AYES: Chairperson Holmes, Commissioners: Erwin, Schlehube Schramm, McFadden, Marcus and Hall. NOES: None. 8 ABSENT: None. 9 ABSTAIN: None. 10 11 12 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 13 ATTEST: 14 15 16 17 18 19 PLANNING DIRECTOR 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ll 27 11 PC RES0 NO. 3180 -2- 28 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The project site is located along the north side of Pirineos Way, one lot east of Viejo Castilla Way. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Tentative Tract Map and a Planned Unit Development to allow a one lot, twelve unit multiple family project over a .883 acre site. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within twenty-one (21) days of date of issuance. DATED: NOVEMBER 1, 1990 CASE NO: CT 90-29/PUD 90-27 Planning Director APPLICANT: GOLF HEIGHTS PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 8,1990 CDD:km 2075 Las Palmas Drive 0 Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 - (61 9) 438-1 161 I e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 90-29/PUD 90-27 DATE : November 2. 1990 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Golf Heiahts 2. APPLICANT: Nohtan PartnershiD 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT; 7143 Caminit0 Pantoja San Diecro, CA 92112 (619) 453-9020 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: SeDtember 28, 1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 12-unit condominium project on a .883 ac parcel located on the north side of Pirineos Way. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the Cj conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may havc significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessme appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklis identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the bas for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negat Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substant evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant ef fi on the environment. On the checklist, llNO1l will be checked to indicate t: determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substant evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sianificant effect on environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be dee insiqnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headi "YES-sig" and llYES-insigll respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appe at the end Qf the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particu attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which wc otherwise be determined significant. w W PHYSICAL mR0- ILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig) 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? 5. 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)? 3. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? 3. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? I. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? L. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? YES (insig) NO X X X X X X X X X X X -2- I 0 0 BIOLOGICAL EHvIRom WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants) ? - - X 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? X 15, Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms " ~ and insects? A 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X mJmx mm- WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO big) (insig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 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? X 18. Substantially affect public utilities, X X X X 20. Increase existing noise levels? 21. Produce new light or glare? HullzLlo Exvxmllam!r -3- w w ILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 3. 3. 3. L. 2. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Generate substantial additional traffic? Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X X X X X X X X X X X -4- 0 0 MANDATORY FIl4DIHGS OF SImFIaCg YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 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 dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. restrict the range of a rare or en- X 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.) X 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.) X 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X -5- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This project is a 12-unit condominium project located along the north side of Pirineos Way. The site is .883 acres and previously rough graded. The gradient across the property varies from 79 feet MSL (southeast corner) to 86 feet MSL (northeast quadrant of site). The site is landscaped with low lying grasses. For this environmental analysis, staff conducted two field trips to the property. In that; (1) the site has been previously graded; (2) there exists no sensitive environmental resources upon it; (3) it is surrounded by already developed properties; and that (4) the proposed project is permitted by the existing zoning, no environmental impacts are anticipated. There were no public comments received in response to the Notice for a Negative Declaration. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. The project requires cut grading totalling 1,225 cubic yards and fill grading of 2,100 cubic yards. Approximately 975 cubic yards of earth are proposed to be imported. The site was previously rough graded. No unstable earth conditions will be created as the grading plan is required to meet City Engineering Standards. 2. The topography of the site will not be significantly changed. Import of earth is proposed to balance the site. 3. Properties on the perimeter of the site have been developed with condominium projects. The project will not result in or be affected by erosion of soils as all necessary drainage and erosion control facilities will be provided to handle runoff from the site. 4. As a result of the projects location, no impacts to beaches, rivers, streams, bays, or lakes are anticipated. 5. The project will not have a significant effect on ambient air quality as it will generate only 96 average daily vehicle trips. 6. The project has a minimum 40 foot separation between the structures. This design will provide for adequate air movement. 7. The project will not change the course or flow of water as no streams are located in the area and drainage waters will be handled by existing and/or proposed facilities. 8. Surface waters will not be impacted by the project and water will be supplied to the site by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. 9. No natural resources exist on this previously graded site which is bordered by existing development or public improvements. 10. Because of the projects relatively small scale (12 du's) it is not expected to use substantial amounts of fuel or energy. 11. This previously graded site does not have a significant potential -6- I e * for containing archeological or paleontological objects. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12. Vegetation onsite consists primarily of weeds and grasses as the property has been previously graded. 13. Existing species of vegetation on the property are not environmentally significant, therefore, the introduction of new species of plants will not cause an adverse impact. 14. Implementation of the proposed project will not reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect farmland of State or local importance. 15. Because the project is surrounded on three sides by existing 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 project will not result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 17. The proposed project complies with the present and planned land use of the area as the site is designated R-H (Residential-High Density) on the General Plan Land Use Map and is zoned RD-M (Residential density-Multiple Zone). The proposed land use is compatible with adjacent uses. 18. Public Utilities exist in the adjacent public street to serve the site and public services will be provided through the implementation of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6. 19. Sewer systems exist to accommodate the use. 20. Construction of the project may result in short-term, insignificant noise impacts upon surrounding residences. Otherwise, the project is compatible with surrounding uses and will not create significant noise impacts. No significant noise producing land use or facility will impact the project. 21. Lighting utilized onsite will be directed so as to not impact adjacent properties. 22. Because this is a residential project it will not involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances. -7- w w DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued] 23. The proposed net density of 15.66 du/acre is within the range specified by the General Plan Land Use designation for the site of 15-23 du/acre and below the Growth Control Point of 19.0 du/acre. 24. The project will provide additional housing units to meet existing demand. 25. A total of 96 average daily vehicle trips will be generated by the project which will not significantly impact the circulation system. 26. The demand for parking facilities created by this project will be satisfied onsite. Two garage spaces will be provided for each unit in addition to a total of 6 guest parking spaces and one recreational vehicle storage space. 27. Street improvements presently exist along the properties frontage on Pirineos Way. 28. The project is outside the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport. 29. One vehicular access point is proposed for the project and is located so as to not cause conflicts with its intersection with Pirineos Way. 30. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans. 31. The project will not obstruct any scenic vista and will crate an aesthetically pleasing street scene. 32. Areas for private recreational amenities are proposed as well as a passive common area. -8- I. 0 e 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 relatively small scale of the project makes phasing of development impractical and is not environmentally superior. b) The applicant has considered alternate site designs. The proposed project creates no significant environmental impacts, while being compatible with surrounding residential uses. c) An alternate scale of development would not be an environmentally superior alternative as the site has been previously disturbed and contains no natural resources. d) The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the site. e) Development at some future time rather than now has no environmental advantages since this is an infill lot which has been previously graded and utilities are available to serve the site. f) There are alternate sites for the project; however, they have no environmental advantages and the proposal is consistent with existing land use plans. 9) The no project alternative is not in conformance with the General Plan and zoning designations for the property. -9- w w ZTERMINATION (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. -1 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_ (I. 1, : J". / L I , )l ' LC, 1)' ! .c I, ' ." Date Signature II I. h II 12/40 bate Planning-Diraor ID: km ST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE] 'TACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -10-