The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-05-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 36610 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3661 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY C CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEN ZONE CODE CHANGE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAl AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF TE GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM FROM OFFICE T TRAVEL SERVICE COMMERCIAL AND THE ZONING OF TI- PROPERTY FROM OFFICE TO COMMERCIAL TOURIST. CASE NAME: SEAPOINTE RESORT CASE NO: GPA 93-04/ZC 93-O5/LCPA 93-04 ~ 8 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and - 9 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of May, 15 10 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all t8 11 12 13 14 15 16 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 17 as follows: and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission cod factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning COI 18 19 20 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative DE according to Exhibit "ND", dated March 22, 1994, and "PII", dated h 1994, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the : 21 ll findings: 22 I1 Findins: 23 24 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the prc have a significant impact on the environment. 25 I/ 11 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental 26 27 3. The streets will be improved to an adequate size to handle traffic generat proposed use. 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be six 28 impacted by this project. II !I 0 0 1 5. The change of use will not have any impact on the environment. 2 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the I 3 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of May, 1991 4 5 6 Schlehuber & Welshons. following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Savary, Commissioners: Betz, Erwin, Hal 7 /I NOES: None. 8 9 10 ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 11 12 13 14 ATTEST: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CAEUSBAD PLANNING-COMMI: x Planning Director 26 11 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 3661 -2- a City of 0 Carlsbac AMENDED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: East of the intersection of Anacapa Road and Carlsbac Boulevard. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An 78 unit, three story timeshare resort with undergrounc parking located on 8.02 acres of land. Associated with th application is a request for a General Plan Amendment, Zon Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change th land use of a 2.35 acre portion of the site from Office to Trave Services Commercial on the General .Plan Land Use Map an1 Local Coastal Program Land Use Map and from Office t' Commercial-Tourist on the Zoning Map. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmenral review of the above described projec pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Ac and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of sail review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significan impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for thi action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannin Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from th public are invited. Please submit commenrs in writing to the Planning Department withi 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in th Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4448. DATED: MARCH 22, 1994 Planning Director CASE NO: GPA 93-04/ZC 93-O5/LCPA 93-04 CT 93-10/CP 93-07/CUP 93-04/ HDP 93-10 CASE NAME: SEAPOINTE RESORT PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 22, 1994 CW:vd 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1 1 f 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. GPA 93-04/ZC 93-05/LCPA 93-04/CT 93-10/CP 93-07/CUP 93-04/H1 DATE: March BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Seapointe Resort 2. APPLICANT: Continental Commercial Corporation c/o Timothy Stripe and David B 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: SOSO Avenida Encinas, Suite 20 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 431 -8500 4. DATE EIA FORM PART 1 SUBMITTED: Aumst 20, 1993 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 78 unit, three story timeshare resort with underground located on 8.02 acres of land. Associated with the application is a request for a Gen Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the la1 a 2.35 acre portion of the site from Office to Travel Services Commercial on the Gen Land Use Map and Local Coastal Promam Land Use Map and from Office to Commerci on the Zoning Map. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City co Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the env The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. Thi: identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed pr provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Envir Impact Report or Negative Declaration. ;': A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will b to indicate this determination. ': An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any asp project may cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can bl insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" and '' respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fc DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to ( mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 0 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES big) 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? 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? - -2- YES (insig) - - NO X - X - X - x - x - X - X - x - x x - - 3 - 0 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 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)? 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? YES YES NC (sig) (insig) x - E - 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? E - 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? - E 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? > - - - HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 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 N( big) (insig) X - E - -3- 0 0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig) 1.9. Result iri 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? -4- YES (insig) X - X NC X X - - - x - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - E - E - E - E - - > - 0 0 MANDATORY 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. 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? YES YES big) (insig) - - NO X - X - X - X - -5- 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Physical Environment There are no known conditions on the site that would expose the project to geologic hazards of Grading proposed for the project will be in accordance with standard grading principals and pact: include erosion control and compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System standards. Although the site is near the Pacific Ocean, it is not contiguous and development of the propeq directly effect beach sand or modify a channel of free flowing waters. The project is a commercial residential timeshare and the typical operation of such uses does no' change to air flow, movement, or temperature and does not consume great quantities of natural I fuel or energy. The project will be required to obtain gas and/or electric service from San Diegc Electric and will be charged the appropriate service fees. BioloRical Environment The site is currently in a disturbed state as a result of previous grading and agriculture. There are r sensitive species of plants or animals within the area of development on the site. There is also no that there will be adverse impacts to the biological environment offsite as a result of this develop] Human Environment The project proposal to develop a timeshare includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, : Coastal Program Amendment. The requested change is from Office (0) to Travel Services Commerl The change will have some effect on the distribution of traffic and the hours of activity on the site. change iris anticipated rhat activity on the site will change from daytime, 8:OO a.m. to 5:OO p.m., to Future traffic patterns may change from heavy peaks in the morning and evening hours for an offi a more even flow throughout the day and mid-day on Saturdays when guests are checking in and timeshare. Parking for the proposed use will be provided in an onsite garage and existing and future street imprl will adequately serve circulation needs. All of the utility services required by this development will be provided by standard methot development would introduce new levels of noise and light into the area. However, those levels are not considered significant. A California State campground is located cross the street and may be during the evening hours by ambient light. Mitigation for the potential impact could be shiel, landscaping. Although the sight is visibly prominent from Carlsbad Boulevard, construction of a building within t: limits will not be an adverse visual impact because views of the site are from a distance to the predominantly from a higher elevation. The combination of height and distance allow the resider east of Interstate 5 horizon views of the Pacific Ocean. -6- e 0 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 project, and g) no project alternative. Analysis of the proposed project indicates that there will not be any adverse effects to the env Phasing or redesign will not contribute to a reduction of impacts when no significant impacts 1 identified. -7- 0 0 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 h DECLARATION will be prepared. - 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, be environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunc previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an atta sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed - 1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIROh IMPACT REPORT is required. +E&- * Planning Dire&& u- - &$&I-)J&&$wn Signature LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE] -8- v e .i 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:vd -9-