HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-04-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 3145ll w 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. 3145
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FORA SPECIFIC
PLAN TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AN
EXISTING SUBDMSION.
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
CASE NO.: SP 201
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of April, 1991, and
on the 17th day of April, 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 July 12, 1989, and "PII", dated July 5, 1989, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
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 and used for agricultural purposes.
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed
project.
...
.* 0 0
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly
1
5. The proposed guidelines will establish a comprehensive set of development 2
impacted by this project.
3
4
5
standards to ensure that when development occurs it will be aesthetically pleasing
and provide property owners with a reasonable use of their land.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
I/ Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of April, 1991, by 6
7 II the following vote, to wit:
8
9
10
11
12
AYES: Vice-Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Marcus
& Hall.
NOES: Commissioners: McFadden & Schramm.
ABSENT: Chairperson Holmes.
ABSTAIN: None.
13 I/
14
15 TOM ERWIN, Vice Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
16
17
ATTEST:
18
19
' PLANNING DIRECTOR
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 3145 -2-
I
28 ll
(* "
City
0
of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: For the area bounded by Descanso Boulevard, Old Highway 101, La Costa Boulevard, and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Development P1 an establ i shing development standards and guide1 ines.
The City of Carl sbad 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 P1 anni ng 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 thirty' (30) days.of, the. date of issuance.
L
DATED: July 12, 1989
CASE NO: SDP 89-9 P1 anning Director
APPLICANT: City of Carl sbad
PUBLISH DATE: July 12, 1989
AML: af
i
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 * (61 9) 438-1 161
mal\ 10: stare uearlngnouse, 14uua' Street, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 -mW+5-0613
NOTICE OF COMPLETIOll All) EYVIROYlEYTAL DO(XIIEYT FORM F] see NOTE Belou:
1. Project Title La Costa Downs
2. Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad 3. Contact Person: Adrienne Landers
3a. Street Address: 2075 Las Palms Drive 3b. City: Carlsbad
3c. County: San Diego 3d. Zip: 92002 3e. Phone: (619) 438-1161
PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: Sari Dieso 4a. City/Comnunity: Carlsbad
Lb.(optional) Assessor's Parcel No. 4c. Section: Twp. Range
5a. Cross streets: Descanso Blvd & Old Highway 101 5b. Nearest Comnuni ty:
6. Uithin 2 miles of: a. State Hwy No. 101 b. Airports Palmar c. Watefuays -
7. DOCUMENT TYPE 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 16. DEVELOPMENT TYPE
For Rural,
- CEQA 01 - General Plan Update Dl - Residential: Units Acres
01 - NOP
02 - Early Cons
03 X Neg Dec
04 - Draft EIR
05 - Supplement/
(if so, prior SCH #
Subsequent EIR
1
- NEPA
06 - Notice of Intent
07 - Envir. Assessment/
02 - New Element
03 - General Plan Amendment
04 - Master Plan
05 - Annexation
06 - Specific Plan
07 - Redevelopment
08 - Rezone
09 - Land Division
(Subdivision, Parcel Map.
Tract Map, etc.)
10 - Use Permit
02 - Office: Sq. Ft.
Acres Employees
03 - Shopping/Comnercial: Sq. Ft.
Acres Emp 1 oyees
04 - Industrial: Sq. Ft.
Acres Employees -
05 - Sewer: MGD
06 - Water: MGD
07 - Transportation: Type
08 - Mineral Extraction: Mineral
FONS I
08 - Draft EIS 11 - Cancel Ag Preserve 09 - Power Generation: Wattage
- OTHER 12 X Other Site Develomnt Plan Type:
09 - Information Only 10 X Other: Develomnt Standards
10 - Final Document 9 TOTAL ACRES:
11 - Other:
11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT
01 X Aesthetic/Visual 08 - Geologic/Seismic 15 X Sewer Capacity 22 - Uater Supply
02 X Agricultural Land 09 - Jobs/Housing Balance 16 - Soil Erosion 23 - Wetland/Riparian
03 X Air Quality 10 - Minerals 17 - Solid Waste 24 - Wildlife
04 - Archaeological/Historical/ 11 X Noise 18 - Toxic/Harardous 25 - Growth Inducing
Paleontological 12 X Public Services 19 X Traffic/Circulation 26 - Incompatible Land Use
05 - Coastal 13 - Schools 20 X Vegetation 27 - Cumulative Effects
06 - Fire Hazard 14 - Septic Systems 21 - Uater Puali ty 28 - Other
07 - Flooding/Drainage
12 FUNDING (approx.) Federal 0 State 0 Total 0
13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: Vacant R-1-10, 000
14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Developnent Standards
15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE: Date: 7/6/89 I
NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identificati f a SCH Nunber already exists for a
project (e.g. from a (Notice of Preparation or previous draft docwnt) please fill it in.
0 0 REVIEWING AGENCIES
Resources Agency
Air Resources Board
Conservation
Fish and Game
X Coastal Cornmi ssion
Cal trans District
CTRPA (Cal TRPA)
TRPA (Tahoe RPA)
Bay Conservation & Dev’t Comm
Parks and Recreation
Office of Hi stori c Preservation
Native American Heritage Comm
X Caltrans - Planning
Cal trans - Aeronautics
Cal i forni a Highway Patrol
Boat i ng and Waterways
Forestry
State Water Resoruces Control
Board - Headquarters
Regional Water Qual i ty Control
- State Lands Comm
Public Utilities Comm
Energy Comm
Food and Agriculture
Health Services
Statewide Health P1 anni ng (hospital s)
Housing and Community Dev’t
Corrections
-
-
Board, Region General Services
Division of Water Rights (SWRCB) Office of Local Assistance
Division of Water Quality (SWRCB) Public Works Board
Department of Water Resources Office of Appropriate Tech. (OPR)
Recl amat i on Board Local Government Unit (OPR)
Solid Waste Management Board Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Col orado River Board Other
FOR SCH USE ONLY
Date Received at SCH Catalog Number
Date Review Starts Proponent
Date to Agencies Consultant
Date to SCH Contact Phone
C1 earance Date Address
Notes:
0 w
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART If
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. SP 201
DATE : 7/5/89
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: NOVEMBER 3, 1986
11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a set of development standards formulated by the City of Carlsbad for a ttpaper subdivisiontt known as La Costa Downs. The proposed set of guidelines is intended to allow property owners the full use of their land in a manner consistent with City standards. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the general plan designations for this area and will not create any significant changes in land use. Staff has done several field inspections and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan will not create any negative environmental impacts. The proposed development guidelines may reduce
some of the impacts experienced by the future residents of the subject site.
111. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
YES MAY BE - NO
1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
X
X
X
w
d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
-2-
0
YES MAY BE - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
w
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?
4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)?
W - YES MAY BE NO -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat? X
-3-
0
6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels?
7. Lisht and Glare - Will the proposal sig-
nificantly produce new light or glare?
8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of
area? the present or planned land use of an
9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
10. Risk of UDset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions?
11. Population - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
13. TransPortation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking?
c, Impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
0 YES MAY BE - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-4-
w
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or p.edestrians?
14. Public Services - Will the proposal have
a significant effect upon, or have signif-
icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Enerav - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new
systems, or alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d, Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
-5-
w
YES MAY BE - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e
YES MAY BE NO 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of
-
any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X
L8. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction
of any scenic vista or view open to the
public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? X
19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon
the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X
20. Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant
archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? X
21. Analyze 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 proposed project is a set of standards and requirements to be followed as the existing subdivision develops. The subject site will naturally phase itself because the lots are individually owned and will develop over a period of time.
B) The subject site is already subdivided. Alternate designs are not
relevant.
C) N/A. Existing subdivision.
D) Alternate uses for this site would be inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and the City's Zoning Ordinance.
E) Development at some future time would not significantly alter the environmental impacts.
F) N/A because the site is already designated for single family homes.
G) The site would remain agricultural. A l'no-project'l alternative would
not significantly alter the environmental impacts.
-6-
W W
- YES MAY BE - NO
22. Mandatory findinas of sianificance -
a. 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
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.
population to drop below self-sustaining
X
b. 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 b,rief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X
c. 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
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
IV. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project is strictly a set of development guidelines for a existing subdivision; however, to be more complete, the environmenta
review also analyzes development of the Specific Plan area.
1. EARTH: Years ago the subject site was subdivided into 29 individual lots. As these lots are developed, minor grading may occur to create building pads but no significant impacts are anticipated.
-7-
0 e
SCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
2. AIR: Development of the Specific Plan area will create an incremental increase in air quality impacts. This incremental increase is not
considered significant.
3, WATER: Development of this project will create impervious
surfaces onsite which would reduce absorption rates and incrementally increase surface runoff and runoff velocities.
However, to accommodate this incremental runoff, drainage facilities (driveway swale) will be incorporated into the project to divert the runoff to new curb and gutter thereby mitigating this concern.
4&5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
PLANT/ANIMAL LIFE: The site is currently under agriculture with no significant plant or animal life existing on the property.
NOISE: Construction of the project may result in short term, insignificant noise impacts upon surrounding residences. Otherwise, the project is compatible with surrounding
residential/agricultural land uses and will not create
significant noise impacts. Because this is an existing subdivision, noise impacts cannot be reduced any lower than the mitigation measures in the Spec,ific Plan created.
LIGHT AND GLARE! The proposal has no significant light producing
elements.
LAND USE: Development of this project is consistent with the General Plan and the Mello I1 segment of the Local Coastal Plan.
NATURAL RESOURCES : Implementation of this project will incrementally contribute to the depletion of fossil fuels and other natural resources during construction and operation. This incremental increase is not considered significant.
RISK OF UPSET: The proposed project is surrounded by either residential or agricultural land uses. This project presents no risk of upset to these surrounding uses.
POPULATION: Implementation of this project may encourage growth upon surrounding undeveloped properties. However, since the Zone
22 Local Facilities Management Plan specifies that all public facilities will be available within this area to allow for
anticipated.
HOUSING: This project will provide approximately 25 housing units. These ‘dwellings will respond to an identified housing demand within the area.
development, no population or growth related impacts are
-8-
W
lISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: This proposed project will initiate improvements (pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk) to Descanso
Boulevard, Franciscan Road, Anacapa Road, and La Costa Boulevard. The project will add approximately 290 ADT to these streets as
well as adjacent roadways. This minor increase in traffic is not
considered significant.
PUBLIC SERVICES: As identified in the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22, a comprehensive financing plan
guaranteeing construction of the Phase B drainage facility and installation of required circulation improvements must be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. All other facilities in this zone have been determined to be in compliance with the adopted performance standards. Therefore, once the financing plans have been approved for drainage and circulation, all facility impacts will have been mitigated.
ENERGY: The project will require an incremental increase in the use of energy to both construct and to occupy the dwellings. This small increase is not considered significant.
UTILITIES : See 14 above.
HUMAN HEALTH: This project will not result in any human health hazards or impacts.
AESTHETICS: This project will not result in any impacts to scenic vistas or open space corridors. The proposed guidelines will limit building height and provide guidelines regarding building bulk and mass. Review and approval by the Planning Director will be required to ensure that proposed structures will be compatible with surrounding development.
RECREATION: This project will create a small incremental increase in demand for recreational facilities. There exists adequate recreational amenities within southwest quadrant of the City. In addition, the project lots have sufficient size to allow significant private recreational space for the occupants of the dwellings.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL: The site has been previously disturbed due to agricultural activities. No
significant archaeological or historical resources are anticipated to exist.
Rev. 12/8
-9-
'* e 0
. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
LI 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
' ;; /' *.+; 4' $A ' ,!'*__ ,>., i 7' , :-
4
I [L ' / . -_
Date Signature
9 Ddte' -
-
I. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
71. 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
-10-