The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-02-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 31470 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 I I? 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLTJTION NO. 3147 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, OF A NEGATrVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE MAP AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEVELOP A 11 1 LOT SUBDMSION FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. CASE NAME: TIERRA SANTA FE CASE NO.: CT 90-4/HDP 89-50 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of February, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL, of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated August 30, 1990, and "PII", dated August 30, 1990, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: I ~ Findinns: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis. 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project. 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly impacted by this project. .... I ~ ...- 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 I ~ i PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of February, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm & Hall. NOES: Commissioner Erwin & McFadden. ABSENT: Commissioner Marcus. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: n CXRLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 3147 -2- NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Camino De Los Coches and Calle Barcelona. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Development of 112 Single Family Detached Homes on 35.6 acres in the Residential Low Medium General Plan Designation. 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 21 days of date of issuance. DATED: AUGUST 30, 1990 4d.a 1 MICHAEL J. H~MILLE~ 7 CASE NO: CT 90-4/HDP 89-50 Planning Director , APPLICANT: TIERRA SANTA FE PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 13,1990 CW:lh 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL MPACI' ASSESSMENT FORM "PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 90-4 DATE: AuRust 30. 1990 3ACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Tierra Santa Fe 2. APPLICANT: Broadmoor Homes 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5405 Oberlin Drive San Dieno - CA 92121 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 23, 1989 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The develoDment of 112 single familv detached homes on 35.1 acres in the Residential Low Medium General Plan designatio1 located at the west corner of Camino De Las Coches and Call Barcelona ZNVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct a1 Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environmenl The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checkliz identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project anl provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environment: :mpact Report or Negative Declaration. f; A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project c any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checkec to indicate this determination. { r An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of thc project may cause a sidficant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negativc Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemec insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and 'YES-insig respectively. 4 discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form unde IISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussin: nitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. m PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT w 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? IO. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. AZter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? t YES big1 - YES (insig) - - - - - NO X X X x X X X X X X X -2- e 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT VILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 2. 3. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 4. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? YES YES NO (sip) (insig) - - X - X X 5. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? - X 6. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X HUMAN ENVIRONMENT TILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY; 7. Alty the present or planned land use of an area? 8. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? YES YES (sig) (insip) - - - - NO X X -3- w HUMAN ENVIRONMENT w 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 emFrgency 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 YES (sip) (insis) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO X X X - - - X X X X - X x X X X X - X -4- e 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 13. 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. 4. 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.) 5. 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.) < YES YES NO (sip, (ins%) - X - X - X 6. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X - -5- 0 W DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Phvskal Endronment The site was previously graded in accordance with an earlier approval, CT 85-11. The result of the gradir eliminated all natural features on the site. As proposed the project design includes 263,100 cubic yards c balanced cut and fill. The Hillside development Ordinance criteria accepts quantities less than 8000 cub yards per disturbed acre as reasonable. This project proposes approximately 7,960 cubic yards per acre. Generally the grading design steps the site down from the south to the north which is in close keeping wit existing conditions. Effects of the project on erosion, air and water quality, and course or flow of waters will be minimal. Tho: slopes which are manufactured and could have the potential to erode will be controlled through slor planting. Manufactured slopes will not exceed a 2:l ratio or exceed a height of 30 feet. Referencing Sectio 15064(i) of the State CEQA Guidelines: "[ilf an air emission or water discharge meets the existing standal: for a particular pollutant, the Lead Agency may presume that the emission or discharge of the pollutant wi not be a significant effect on the environment," However, because the cumulative effects of controllt emissions have gone beyond acceptable levels this section can no longer be accepted. Regional air quali standards are not being met. Project location precludes potential impacts on the course or flow of marine or fresh waters. Although natur resources will be used for the constniction of the project, primarily lumber, maintenance and operational us of resources, water and oil, can not be considered significant. Water consumption will be ultimate determined by the individual user for domestic and landscape purposes. Water conserving irrigation cou be installed for common areas. Once the project has been occupied the individual consumption of fuel or energy will be determined by tl user. Active and passive solar design, insulation and the installation of energy saving appliances could provic 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 significance. Biological Environment The site was previously disturbed by the creation of large pads. Since that time there has been no natul revegitation of the site. There are no mature trees within the proposed grading areas. Early site inspections by staff did not rev( the presence of any designated significant species. Fully developed surrounding conditions have isolated t site from areas that are more likely to accommodate sensitive plant and animal species typically found in t Carlsbad area. There are no identified sensitive species. The introduction of plants and animals usually related to residential development will not have detrimental effects or create a barrier to movement of other sensiti species. -6- e e le site has not been identified as agricultural land and has not been used as such. uman Environment le site carries a low medium density general Plan designation which allows a density range of 0-4 dwelling its per acre. Zoning on the property is Planned Community. The General Plan characterizes Low Medium mity as single family homes. No zone or General Plan amendments are proposed. lblic utilities and services, such as sewers, schools, police, fire and emergency, can be provided by the .dividual responsible agencies. The project will be conditioned to comply with the requirements of Local icilities Management Plan Zone 11. The condition requires that facilities and/or services be provided prior development. oise and light levels will increase however not to levels of significance. Noise sources after completion will : human voices, radio and television, household and maintenance related appliances and automobile and uck traffic. A noise study was prepared which identified areas of impact from traffic and provided measures ) mitigate the noise levels to acceptable levels. Construction noise will be short term and acceptable noise vels will be governed by the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. ight reflectivity will change due to recontouring and the future existence of residences vs. vacant property. lew light sources will be established by street lamps and individual home exterior and interior lighting. Light wrces within the public right-of-way will be subject to City designated standards for intensity. 'he use of hazardous substances in significant quantities is not a part of this project, nor is it anticipated that lere will be storage of hazardous and/or volatile materials. nplementation of the project will not create a need for additional housing however it will have an effect on xisting housing in the general vicinity. Those impacts will be primarily economic. The project is not Itended for first time buyer or low to moderate income households. 'raffic will be increased by approximately 1,120 average daily trips (ADT). This projection falls within the ervice levels of the adjacent existing street system. No new mass transportation routes or facilities are equired by the transit district. Streets and sidewalks have been designed to accommodate foot, bicycle, anc utomobile traffic without compromising safety. The project has been designed to follow the general existing topography. As development moves north pad :levations are lowered. The result reduces the visual effect of the development as seen from lower lying area5 ..e. RancAo Santa Fe Road. Views from the development can also be maximized by terracing the development Auman Environment The proposed architecture is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and buildings will be setbacl From the slope tops sufficiently so that the visual impact on the surrounding area is eliminated or significant! reduced by the slope. Each lot will have a private yard. No common open space/passive recreation lots have been incorporate( throughout the site. No common active facilities are being proposed. The site is adjacent to the Stage Coacl Park and other public recreation facilities are in close proximity. -7- 0 W 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 project is proposed as phased development. Because there are no significant impact: circulation or impacts to services there is no environmental advantage to delay developmc other than postponing ultimate service needs. b) Alternate site designs could further reduce visual effects as seen from adjacent properti Because street design generally follows the existing land contours, changing street directj would require additional grading. c) If an alternate scale of development were proposed relative impacts would change. A reducti in the number of units would decrease density potentially increase purchase price of the un and reduce secondary impacts such as traffic and air quality. If the number of units WI increased a different product type would be necessary. The result could reduce the cost of ur however would increase impacts on generation issues such as traffic and air quality. Clusteri the development at the same density would have generally the same secondary impa howevere could reduce impacts to grading and visual (onsite and offsite). d) The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designate this parcel as suitable for resident development. The appropriateness of any other uses can not be determined at this tir because of the lack of information. A change in use would also require a General P1 Amendment. e) Future development rather than now would not appear to have any significant advantai Services and facilities are available now. f) Other sites may be available with the same zoning and general plan designations; however, jt 1 as with the no project alternative it does not preclude development at some other time of similar project with similar impacts. -8- .. e e ZTERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: : - 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration will be proposed. - I hd the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. BW.90 [lL Date Sighature d3qiG k,)i I ! / I& i/ & - Planning DirecAr d3qiG k,)i I ! / I& i/ & - Planning DirecAr ,IST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) t ITTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -9- * 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 cw:km f -10-