The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-01-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 36980 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. 3698 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEVELOP 6 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT ON A .72 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF OLIVE AVENUE, SOUTH OF DATE AVENUE, EAST OF GARFIELD STREET AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: PACIFIC POINTE CASE NO: CT 94-02/PUD 94-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of Janu hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said reque: WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consic testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information : by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Co considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. WEST OF THE NCTD RAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY IN LOCAL NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according tl “ND”, dated June 14, 1994 and “PII”, dated June 8, 1994, attached hereto i a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the prc have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously disturbed and contains no native vegetatior ~ 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the propose 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be sig impacted by this project. I I 0 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 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeti Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day o 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Welshons; Commissioners Compas, Erwb Nielsen, Noble and Savary. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: KIM WkLSHONS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING CON 0 MICHAEL J. HOLZMIL!!ER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 3698 -2- NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: North of Olive Avenue, south of Date Avenue, east Garfield Street and west of the NCTD Railroad right-c way in the Northwest Quadrant of the City of Carlsba County of San Diego, State of California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a tentative tract map and planned developme: permit to include six (6) single family residential lo (minimum of 4,900 square feet), and one (1) open space 11 on a .72 acre site. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proje pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality A and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of sa review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significal impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for th action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannir Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from tl public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department with 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Tem Woods in t€ Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4447. DATED: JUNE 14, 1994 /Qd!l CASE NO: CT 94-02/PUD 94-01 fi !:rZ$$ector CASE NAME: PACIFIC POINTE PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 14, 1994 J. HOLZM~LLER W:vd 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 (61 9) 438-1 1 t e e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART XI (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO. CT 94-02/P DATE: Jun - 1. CASE NAME: Pacific Pointe 2. APPLICANT: Lucas & Mercier DeveloDment. Inc. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 29712 Avenida de la Banderas Rancho Santa Margarita. CA ; (714) 589-4480 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 2.1994 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a tentative tract map and Dlanned unit develc permit to include six (6) single family residential lots (minimum 4,900 square feet, an oDen space lot on a .72 acre site. 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 1 any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will bc to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspc project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can br insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" and "I respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fo DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to 1 mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. e 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 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? YES (sig) - - - - 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? - 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? YES (insig) - - - - - - - - - - -2- N(: - E J! - 1 - - X X - X - X - X - - X - X - X 0 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (si@ 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 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? HUMANmoNMENT 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 big) -3- YES (insig) - - - - YES (insig) N 7 1 - ' - . A - J - )I - NC X - X - 0 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? YES (sigl - 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 waterbsDme, 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) - - - - - - - N( 1 1 1 - - - 2 - 8 - 3 X - - - X X X - - X - X - X - X - 0 a MANDATORY F'INDINGS 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 clf long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while 1.ong-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 cbf probable future projects.) YES YES (sig) (insig) - 36. Does the pmject have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either direcrly or indirectly? Nc 7 A - 1 - 1 - 1 - r -3- e 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of the subdivision and development of six (6) single family lots a: open space lot on a .72 acre site located between Date Avenue and Olive Avenue, west of the right-of-way and east of Garfield Street in the Northwest Quadrant of the City. The site i! undeveloped and contains a few old Citrus and Eucalyptus trees. The site is relatively flat. Prope north, east and west are developed with single family residences and the property to the south is with a multiple family project. The property is located in the Beach Area Overlay Zone and lies in ' Zone. The NCTD Railroad right-of-way is located approximately 60 feet to the east, and the Agu; Lagoon lies just beyond the multiple family project to the south. PHYSICAL ENVIR.ONMENT The proposed project would not have potentially significant impacts on the environment. approximately 1500 cubic yards of grading (including approximately 1480 cubic yards of import) is There are no beach sands, rivers, or streambeds on the site. The Lagoon to the south would not bl by the proposed development as the project will direct all runoff to the Storm Drain System in Olil Adverse effects on ambient air quality would be of small incremental nature for the propos residential units. Structures would require setbacks such that air movement, temperature, etc. wc affected. The proposed six (6) units would not use substantial energy or natural resources. Due t disturbance, the site is unlikely to contain significant archeological/paleontological resources. BIOLOGICAL ENVJRONMENTAL, The site has been previously disturbed and .contains no natural vegetation. The site does contain I native grasses, Citrus and Eucalyptus trees. The properties to the north, south, east and west : developed with residential uses. The proposed development presents no threat of introducing nr into a natural ares. It also presents no threat to the migration/movement of native animals. HUMAN ENVIROIVMENT The proposed prcject would not result in a sigTllficant increase in noise or glare. Some tempo impacts would occur during construction. No risk of explosion is anticipated with this residenti The project would not substantially alter the density of the population, as it is consistent with tl Plan Designation .for the area. It would provide additional housing to meet current demand. Thc be generated by the proposed project (60 ADT) is insignificant. All parking requirements would b on-site. -6- e 0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, 1)) alternate site designs, c:) alternate scale of development, (1) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed project, and 5;) no project alternative. a) Phased development would not be feasible for a project of this small size, and would r environmental benefits. b) The proposed site design meets all City Standards and Policies and therefore, an alter is not desirable. c) The proposed scale of development is compatible with the surrounding area, which cor family and multiple family residential uses. An alternate scale of development wou environmental benefits. d) The prmoposed use is consistent with the General Plan designation of the site and with : development. An alternate use would not offer environmental benefits. e) Delayed development of the site would not offer environmental benefits. The site is by parcels that are already developed with similar uses. f) The proposed development would not preclude development of similar uses on other g) The no project alternative is not consistent with the General Plan designation or m density residential use and would not offer substantial environmental benefits. -7- e e DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the bask of this initial evaluation: X E find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a N DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, be environmen:al 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. - I 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 attz sheet have heen added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposec - I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIROI IMPACT REPORT is required. djj& L 4 -or-, Date Signse 6- 7- 74 Dz.te LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -8- 0 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TC) CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature W:vd -9-