HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-07-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 3403.
I ll 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3403
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
TENTATIVE MAP, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 58 RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT LOCATED ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF HARWICH DRIVE AND EDGEWAY
WAY.
CASE NAME: WVERA HILLS VILLAGE "L-1"
CASE NO: CT 92-5/PUD 92-6/SDP 92-5
8
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and Q
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of July, 1992, holc
lo j/ WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimoq
'I // and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff
12
13
14 factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissio
16 as follows:
l" A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
18
and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannin
to Exhibit "ND", dated April 30, 1992, and "PII", dated April 23, 1992, attache
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
19 Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration accordin
2o I
21 11 Findinffs:
22
23
25
2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed projec 24
have a significant impact on the environment.
3. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significani
26 impacted by this project.
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project m;
27 ...
28 Ii PC RES0 NO 3403 1
Ij 0 0
ll PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Phmhg 1
2
3
4
5
6
71
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of Jdy, 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm,
Noble 81 Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners: Savary & Welshons. 1
8 /I ABSTAIN: None.
9
10
11
12 ATTEST:
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
13
14
l5 PLANNING DIRECTOR
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RES0 NO 3403 2
0 * 0
.NEGATIVE DECLARATlON
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Northwest corner Harwich Drive and Edgemore Way,
City of Carlsbad, CA. APN: 167-554-01
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of 58 townhome residential dwelling units and
grading on a level lot to accommodate building foundations
and an internal private driveway.
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 Ordinmce of the City of Carlsbad. AS a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a sigmficant 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 La 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 Jeff Gibson in the
Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4455. -
DATED: APRIL 30,1992
MICHAEL J. HO~MI~R
CASE NO: CT 92-5/SDP 92-5/PUD 92-6 Planning Director
CASE NAME: UVERA HILLS VILLAGE "L-1"
PUBLISH DATE: . APRIL 30,1992
JC:km
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-1 576 (61 9) 438-1 161
0 a ENvlRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
- CASE NO. CT 92-5/SDP 92-5/PUD 9;
DATE: A~ril23. 1992
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Village "L-1"
2. APPLICANT: Sundance Financial Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3900 Hamev Street
San Dieao CA 92110
(619) 299-5100
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 17. 1992
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of 58 townhome residential dwellinn units and mad -
on a level lot to accommodate buildinn foundations and an internal private driveway.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environmg
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. y
checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the propc
project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare
Environmental Impact 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 sipficant 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 sidcant 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:
insinnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and 'YES-ir
respectively.
A discussion of potential &pacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form u
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discu:
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
e PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT a
WU THE PROPOSAL DtRECmY OR INDIRECmY
c
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?
YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
X - -
X - - -
-, - - X
X - - -
5. Resdt in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality? X - - -
6. Result in substantial changes in- air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? ,- - X
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?
X - - -
X - - -
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?
X
X
- -
- - -
X - - -
-2-
0 BIOLOGICAL -0 NMENP
WIU THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTZY:
-
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 mount 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. Introduce 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
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
YES YES
(sid (insis)
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
YES YES (si@ (i@
- -
- -
-3-
NO
X
X
X
X
X
NO
X
X -
0
HUMANENVIRONMENT
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
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?
m
YES
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
-
-
-
4-
YES (sid
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NO (insis)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X -
X
X
X -
X -
X
X -
X -
0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIREClZY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (si@ (iig)
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
imporcant 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
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.)
considerable? (“Cumulatively con-
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X - -
X - -
X - - -
-5-
0
* DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 0
ms project is locared on the nQawcs1 corner sf HWsh QT~R ad Edpw Way an4 entds
the further subdivision of a 6.28 acre parcel into 58 two and three-story residential townhomes.
The project's grading would consist of 6,730 cubic yards of cut, 8,000 cubic yards of fiH, and
1,270 cubic yards ofiport on a relatively level infill lot that has been previously rough graded.
Public street improvements have been constructed along Harwich Drive and Edgeway Way has
been graded but paving, curb, cutter, and sidewalks have not yet been constructed. The site is
adjacent to a two-story residential duplex development to the north, and vacant land to the south
and easi. Physical Envimnxnent
The lot is relatively level and the proposed grading to accommodate the internal private driveways
and the split level building foundations is minimal, therefore, there would be little appreciable
change in the topography. All the proposed development would remain on the flat portions of
the site and the existing 2:l slopes would not be regraded.
Drainage and erosion control facilities would be incorporated into the project as a standard
engineering condition of approval for the Tentative Map, and no unstable earth conditions or
unique geologic features are located onsite or in the general vicinity. Development of the project
would create impervious surfaces onsite which reduce absorption rates and increases surface
runoff and runoff velocities, however, the appropriate drainage facilities would be provided.
Development of the project would incrementally contribute to the depletion of fossil fuel and to
other natural resources, increase local and regional air emissions; however, this is not regarded
as a significant impact in view of the small size of the project. Residential development at the proposed density for this site has been anticipated and planned for in the City's General Plan, as
well as in the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan, therefore the above mentioned impacts
to physical resources have been addressed and analyzed in the City's long range plans.
The site is adjacent to residential development to the north and west and has been previously
rough graded, therefore, there is limited potential for cultural resources. The property was field
checked and no cultural resources were identified. In addition, the City's Cultural Resource
Inventory Map indicates that there are no cultural resources located onsite. Due to the disturbed
nature of the lot, sigmficant cultural resources are not anticipated onsite.
Biolo4cal Environment
The site has been previously disturbed by grading and is adjacent to existing residential
development, thedore, the site has limited biological resource value, and there is no threat of
introducing new species into a natural area or limiting the movement of native animal species.
The site was field checked for biological resources and the lot contains no viable native habitat.
-6-
e 0 Human Environment
Traffic impacts, increase to population, increased public facility demands and the planned land use
, of the area have all been accounted for and planned in the City's General Plan, the Calavera Hills
Master Plan, and the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan. The project conforms with the
Land Use Element ofthe General Plan, the Calavera Hills Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, and is dmlaped at the apprspriate residential density (Residential Medium High, 8-iS dufaw).
The project would be required to pay public facility fees that would be used to adequately mitigate any impacts upon utilities and public facilities.
The proposed project would incrementally increase noise levels in the area due to traffic and
would contribute to light and glare in the project vicinity, however these impacts are considered
insignlficant due to the small nature of the project. The development would be compatible with
surrounding land uses and the addition of landscaping will help reduce glare. This project is
required to meet all City standards, ordinances, and policies, therefore, no safety impacts or
human health concerns are anticipated.
-7-
e e
ANALYSIS OF WLE 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.
The analysis of viable alternatives to the proposed project revolves around two specific concepts;
the definition of the project and its significant impact and the definition of what is a viable
alternative . The courts have recognized that only reasonable alternatives need be discussed
(Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. V. Board of Supervisors, 134 Cal. App. 3d 1022 (1982).
measures. Public Resources Code section 21002 forbids the approval of projects with si@cant
adverse impacts when feasible alternatiyes or feasible mitigation measures can substantially lessen
such impacts. A "significant effect" is defined as one which has a substantial adverse impact. If
nothing is significant than there is no substantial adverse impact and no justification for requiring
a discussion of alternatives. There is no alternative to no Substantial adverse impact.
These project alternatives exist as relative measures of unavoidable adverse impacts and mitigation
-a-
rn e
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
- X t find the psposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, because the environmental effects of the proposed project have already
been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and
no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a Notice of Determination
has been prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a si@cant 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 sigmflcant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
-n
4/ 27 / zz"
Date sip%tW
4kF- hLbw .
Planning Direc
JG:h
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPucABLEl
-9-
.J. 0
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES e
mIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MJTIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
-
Date Signature
-10-