The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-09-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 3290r 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 0 e PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3290 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE!, DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 12 UNIT CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GIBRALTAR STREET EAST OF JEREZ COURT. CASE NAME: GIBRALTAR GREENS CASE NO: CT 90-39/CP 90-12 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of Septembt 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said reque: and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering 2 testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the informatic submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Plannir Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissic ~ as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planni~ I Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhib "ND", dated May 23, 1991, and "PII", dated May 1, 1991, attached hereto ar made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project m: have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysi 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposf project. .. j. /I e e I1 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significant impacted by this project. I. /I 2 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planni~ 3 by the following vote, to wit: 4 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of September, 199 5 6 AYES: Chairperson Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schram Savary, Erwin, Noble & Hall. 7 NOES: None. 8 9 10 11 12 13 ATTEST: 14 15 j ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. . .. - CAEUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSIOIV 16 PLANNING DIRECTOR 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PC RES0 NO. 3290 -2- 27 ll 28 .' NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Gibraltar Street between Jerez Court and Romeria Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 12 unit condominium project on .882 acres. 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. If you have any questions, please call Christer Wesunan in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4448. DATED: MAY 23, 1991 CASE NO: CT 90-39/CP 90-12 APPLICANT: GIBRALTAR GREENS 4\d.<& -A a MICHAEL J. NOLZ&LLER Planning Director PUBLISH DATE: MAY 23,1991 cw:h 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 (619) 438-1 161 .. . 0 0 ENWRONMENTAL IMPAm ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT .90-39/CP 90-1; DATE: Mav 1. 1991 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Gibraltar Greens 2. APPLICANT: Gibraltar Greens. LTD. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 119 South Atlantic Blvd. #301 Monte Park, CA. 91754 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITED: December 21.1990 5, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A twelve unit condominium Droiect on ,882 acres of land. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct Environmental Impact Assessment to detemine if a project may have a significant effect on the environmc The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This check 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmel rmpact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the projec any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be chec to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of project may cause a &ificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Nega Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be dee: insidficant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings WZS-sig" and "YES-ir respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form UI DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discus mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 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 come 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 YES big) - - - - - - - - - - - YES (insig) - - - - - - - - - - - NO X X - X -x- X X X - X X X X ,. . .. . 0 0 BIOLOGICAL ENMRONMENT 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)? YES YES NO (sW (insig) X 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. tntroduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 17. Alter the present or planned land use . 18. Substantially affect public utilities, of an area? schools, police, fin, emergency or other public services? - - - - - - - - YES YES (+TI (insit9 - - - - X X -. X X NO X - X - -3- 0 HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECnY OR INDIRECTLY: 19. ' Result in the need for new or modifled 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 mfflc? 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? 0 YES (si@ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4- YES (insig) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO - X X - - X X - X - X X - - X - X - x X - X - X - X - ... .’ ..- e 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PRopo~&, btRECKY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (si& (insig) 33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitar 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, - - 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.) 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 f‘uture projects.) - - 7 - X X 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - - X -5- .. . .+ -* DIkCUSSION OF ENVTRONM l!B AL EVALUATION 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT The project proposes approximately 870 cubic yards of fill. Grading quatities based on a net pad a: .882 acres will be 767 cubic yards per acre. Grading will eliminate a split pad situation and create a developable pad. Because the site has been previously graded, the change in the topography will r considered significant. Manufactured slopes along the northern edge of the site will be planted for aest and erosion control. The project is not adjacent to any significant bodies of water, The La Costa Golf Course is contiguous north which is in a one hundred year flood plain. That flood plain will not be affected by the prc development. Although CEQA does allow for a certain percentage, of particulates to be released in the air, the cum effect of development will contribute to the further degradation of the San Diego air quality basin. residential project there are not many opportunities to adequately address the issue of air quality. No : ride share programs can be required for the operation of the project nor can there be restrictions on t. of fireplaces, bar-b-ques, etc. It is not anticipated that the proposal will have an effect on air movement, odor, moisture, or tempel The buildings proposed are two stones over a garage adjacent to other existing projects of the same Si No uses have been identified specific to the residential nature of the project which would have offensive create moisture or change the general temperature of the area. The project is located adjacent to a one hundred year flood plain which is the La Costa Golf Course. will be no project encroachment into the golf course. As with all construction, the rate at which percolates to the water table will be altered. Alteration however does not mean adverse impacts becal area h question is relatively smd. The project will also include a drainage system which will filter pollutants further protecting the ground water. No significant natural resources have been identified a used for construction or operation of the site. It is not anticipated that substantial amounts of fuel or 1 will be necessary to operate the proposed residences. The use of water on-site can be regulated throu installation of low flow fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping with automatic inigation. The project site has been previously disturbed by grading. There is no evidence of archeol paieontological or historical resources present on the site. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT Field observation revealed the presence of a single mature tree on-site. The assessed value of the tref significant and can be replaced by a new tree located more strategic to the finished product. It is sus that the lack of overall growth on the site is a result of previous grading. Once the project is built, thf be formal landscaping. The site has not been used as an agricultural site nor is it a viable location for crop production. Then enough acreage for agriculture and its proximity to adjacent residences may have negative effects due tc particulates, smell and crop chemicals if there was farming. -6- .. 0 e- It is assumed that because there is an absence of vegetation on the site that there are no species of anima which are dependent on the site. No wildlife was observed during field inspections. nuww ENVIRONMENT The site is designated as a residential site on the General Plan and Zoning maps. The proposed use consistent with those designations. There is no pending or anticipated future applications for a change to [k designated Zoning or General Plan. It is not anticipated that there will be a significant increase in demand for services provided from pub] utilities, schools, police or fie. Sewer needs can be accommodated by the existing system so there is no ne( to expand or create a new system. Noise and light will be generated from the project, however not in significant quantities. Lighting on the SI will be designed to provide enough light for safety purposes on-site and will be directed away from adjace residences. Noise will be produced from everyday Occurrences typical to a residential development. Noi levels will not exceed exiqing levels of adjacent uses. By nature Providing assumed x full width of a residential development, the population will change because there will be additional housir housing will have a beneficial effect on the housing demand. Traffic will be generated at mate of eight average daily trips (ADTs) per day per unit. This equates to 96 ADTs. Gibraltar is and has been designed to accommodate local residential traffic. All parking will be provided c site. With these circumstances there will not be a signilicant adverse effect on the environment. The projf or interfere with emergency response plans. will not impact existing transportation systems; alter waterborne, rail or air tra#ic; increase traff’ic hazarc The proposal will neither add nor remove existing recreational opportunities. -7- ,. . ,. . *- ANALYSIS OF WLE ALTE TIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJE SUCH AS: .. a 9 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. If the development was phased the ultimate impacts of the project would be delayed until all phase complete. However, the ultimate impacts are not considered sigmficant so there would not be an ove environmental benefit by phasing. The project could be redesigned, the scale of development could be reduced or the uses could be dif Any combination'of the above alternatives may have an effect on the overall impacts. Because relatively small size of the site any changes made would not have a significant beneficial environmental Development at a future date will postpone impacts until that time, Services are available now and th no sideant bialogkd impacts that have been idenrified. No alternate sites have been reviewed. The no project alternative would have no environmental imp existing conditions but could have an economic impact. -8- c ,. a e 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 sipficant effect on the envirOnment,'and a NEGATIJ DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there C? not be a siplicant 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 signXcant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. - I " A/' I- -y4< J ,* ~ . 1; :>73rC !?-J W Date Signature 4%tLiLdW p2L. *, q- ;;-/q ( L. i I Date Planning Director cw:h LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1 ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APp~~~l -9- I . c. 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH "?E ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature cw:h -1 0-