The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-12-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 3582II 0 e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3582 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAFUSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT7 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, TO BE DEVELOPED ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF CHINQUAPIN AVENUE. CASE NAME: SEA GABLES AND VARIANCE FOR A 15-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT CASE NO: CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HDP 93-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of December, 1993 I 9 /j hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and lo ll WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimonj -t 1 I1 LI 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. 12 13 14 15 as follows: 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission l7 II A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 18 19 2o I B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated September 16, 1993, and "PIT", dated June 30, 1993, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 21 /j Findings: 22 23 24 have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project. 25 3. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly 26 impacted by this project. 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may 27 28 .... 0 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 1 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 1993 by the following vote, to wit: 2 3 4 5 AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Welshons, Savary, Erwin & Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 6 7 €3 9 10 11 12 ATTEST: -ne BAILEY NOBN fl Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 13 14 15 16 PLANNING DIRECTOR 17 18 19 I 2o ! 21 22 23 24 25 26 11 PC RES0 NO. 3582 27 28 -2 - - NEGATNE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Western terminus of Chinquapin Avenue, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 15-unity 16-lot residential condominium .project 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 He 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 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4471. DATED: SEPTEMBER 16y 1993 CASE NO: CT 92-09/PUD 92-09/HDP 93-01 Planning Director CASE NAME: SEA GABLES PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1993 EB: krn 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 49 0 0 ENVIR0N"A.L IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO. CT 92-09/PUD 92-091HDP 93- DATE: JUNE 30. 1993 1. CASE NAME: Sea Gables 2. APPLICANT: Golden Sunset Ltd. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 11315 Rancho Bemardo Rd. #133. San Dieao. CA 92127 61 9) 741 -9921 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 25, 1992 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 15-unit. 16-lot residential condominium proiect 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 environme The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. T checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the prop05 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 project any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO will be check to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of I project may cause a sinnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negat Declaration however, if. adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deer insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings '"YES-sig" and '"YES-ins respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form unc DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussi mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. e e PHYSICAL m.0NMENT 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? YES big) - - - 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? - 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? - 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? - -2- YES NO (insig) X - X - - X - - - - - - - X - X X X X X X X 0 e BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES (sig) 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 banier 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. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? - - HUMANENVIRBNMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? - 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? - -3- YES (insig) - - - YES big) - - NO X X X X X NO (insig) X X e e HuMANmoNMENT 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? YES (sig) - - - - - 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? - -4- YES (insig) - - - - - - - - - - - NO X X X X X X X X X X X X X X e 0 MATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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 important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. YES YES NO big) (insig) - - 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 future projects.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - - - - - X X X -5- e 0 DISCUSSION OF EI'MRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is for 15 new condominium units (16 lots) on a 1.57 acre site on the east side Carlsbad Boulevard just north of the SDG&E power plant. The site is currently undeveloped except for 0: small single family residence on a portion of the site. The central portion of the site is relatively flat wi a steady downward slope toward the west. There are steep slopes downward to adjacent properties alo the western and southern boundaries. Properties to the north and east are developed with residential us( On the west, the property is bounded by Carlsbad Boulevard, a major arterial street. The northern( portion of Agua Hedionda Lagoon lies just south of the subject site. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT The proposed project would not have potentially significant impacts upon the physical environment. A to of approximately 6,000 cubic yards of grading (including about 5,500 cubic yards of export) is proposc There are no beach sands, rivers or streambeds on the site. The lagoon to the south would not be impact by the proposed development as the project would be required to direct all .runoff to the storm drain syste Adverse effects on ambient air quality would be of a small incremental nature for the proposed 15 resident units. Structures would be required to provide setbacks such that air movement, temperature, etc. would I be affected. The proposed 15 units would not use substantial energy or natural resources. Due to previou disturhance, the site is unlikely to contain significant archaeologicaVpaleontological resources. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT The site has been previously disturbed and contains no vegetation with the exception of occasional sm patches of grass and some iceplant (on the slope area). Adjacent sites to the north, east, and west have be developed with residential uses and a major street. The adjacent property to the south, containing 1 northernmost portion of Agua Hedionda Lagoon is currently undeveloped. ' The proposed developmc presents no threat of introducing new species into a natural area. It also presents no threat to 1 migration/movement of native animals. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT The Agua Hedionda segment of the Local Coastal Plan requires provision of a public access scenic vista PO at this location. The project is being revised to eliminate the gates and provide adequate signage to sati the vista point requirement. When completed, the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in noise or glare. So temporary noise impacts would occur during construction. No risk of explosion is anticipated with t residential project. The project would not substantially alter the density of the population, as it is consist1 with the General Plan designation for the area. It would provide additional housing to meet current dema The traffic to be generated by the proposed project (120 ADT) would also not be substantial. All park requirements would be satisfied onsite. -6- e 0 AN4.L,YSIS 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 project, and g) no project alternative. a) Phased development would not be feasible for a project of this size, and would not offer a~ environmental benefits. b) The project is being re-designed to eliminate the gates and provide adequate signage for the pub' access vista point. The re-designed plan will be consistent with the Agua Hedionda segment oft Local Coastal Program. c) The proposed scale of development is generally compatible with surrounding uses, which inclu condominium and single family residential' developments. However, the project does inclu development of a portion of the site which would have to be vacated (see b above). A desi generally similar in scale but which preserves the public access view corridor would provi additional environmental benefits by being consistent with the Agua Hedionda segment of the LOI Coastal Program. d) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan designation of the site and with surroundi development. An alternate use would not offer environmental benefits. e) Delayed development of the site would not offer environmental benefits. The site is surround by parcels already developed with similar uses. f) The proposed development would not preclude development of similar uses on other sites. g) In its undeveloped state, the site provides a totally unobstructed view corridor with full put access. However, the site is designated by the General Plan for high density residential uses a development is anticipated. The required view corridor can be provided while still allowing the s to develop. -7- e a 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 significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIV DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because tl ' environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction wi1 previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is require1 Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a. significant effect on the environment, there wi not be a sigmficant 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 ENVIRONMENT) IMPACT REPORT is required. ,/; ~" ,' /$ 1 J - - I' Date ' Signature - Planning Director LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1 ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE1 -8- .. - e 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE I"EWJRES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature EE:h -9-