Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 38210 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. 3821 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A TENNIS COURT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND EAST OF THE SEAPOINTE RESORT WITHIN THE NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT CASE NAME SEAPOINTE RESORT TENNIS COURT CASE NO: CUP 93-04(A)/SDP 95-10 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of November, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said reques WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all test and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by sta: considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all f relating to the Negative Declaration. DEVELOPMENT BOARD RIGHT-OF-WAY. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1; Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the P1; Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Decla according to Exhibit "ND", dated September 22, 1995 and "PII", September 20, 1995 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based ( following findings: Findines: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project mq a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental an 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed p I1 0 e 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 I 28 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be signj impacted by this project. 5. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein id for this project and any comments thereon prior to approving the project. B the EIA Part-11 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds th; is no substantiual evidence the project will have a significant effect environment and thereby approves the Negative Declaration. 6 The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflel independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbac PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the P Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of November, 1 the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble and Savary NOES: None ABSENT. None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMl MICHAEL JXOLWILLER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 3821 -2- II NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECI' ADDRESS/LOCATION: Adjacent to and east of the Seapointe Resort within the North San Diego County Transit Development Board right-of-way. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Conditional Use Permit amendment and Site Development Plan to allow a tennis court and landscape area. 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 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4448. DATED: SEPTEMBER 22, 1995 1 CASE NO: CUP 93-04(A)/SDP 95-10 Planning Director CASE NAME SEAPOINTE RESORT TENNIS COURT MICHAEL J. HOL%ILLER PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1995 CWfr 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CUP 93-04(Al/SDl DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Seapointe Resort Tennis Court 2. APPLICANT Continental Commercial Corporation 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT 5050 Avenida Encinas. Suite 200. California, 92008 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: September 1.1995 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tennis Court and Landscape Area SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involvi one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless P( Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Land Use and Planning - Transportation/Circulation - Public Services - Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service - Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics - Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources - Air Quality - Noise - Recreation - Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 312819 0 0 . DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATI DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have b added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least 1 potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applics legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as descri on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATI is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL N be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequal in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) h been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATX including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a No of Prior Compliance has been prepared. &*J)& %Qk 123, Q45 Planner Signature Date 4.1 zD/q y- Planning Directz Signatlhr'e Date 2 Rev. 312819 a 0 . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Envh Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Envh Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any biologicd and hum factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with in to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative De or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequate supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impac answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simp does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “NO Impact” answer should be explained whr there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as gener standards. 0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impe is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policic 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigatic measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significa Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigatit measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect significant. 0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on tl environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier El or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstanc requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures requirt by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepa; an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicab standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has bet made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the proje or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if the1 are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigatic measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriai “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigate Negative Declaration may be prepared. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limit( to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed t mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overridir Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR, (3) propost mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Pa 11 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, 1 determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fol DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to d mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 3/28/95 0 e . Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Impact Significant I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): ) - b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? () - c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? () - d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? () - e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? () - II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? () - b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? () - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? () - III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? () - b) Seismic ground shaking? () - c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? () - d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? () - 5 Potentially Significant UnleSS Less Than Mitigation Si%nificant Incorporated Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - Rev. 312819 0 0 . Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): e) Landslides or mudflows? () f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? () g) Subsidence of the land? () h) Expansive soils? () i) Unique geologic or physical features? () lV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? () b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? () c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? () d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? () e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? () f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? () g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 h) Impacts to groundwater quality? () Potentially Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - - Potentially Significant UdeSS Mitigation Incorporated - - - - - - - - - - - - - Less% Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 Rev. 312819 0 0 . Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 0 - V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? () - b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? () - c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? () - d) Create objectionable odors? () - VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 - b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? () - c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? () - d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? () - e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? () - f') Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? () - g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? () - Potentially Significant UdeSS Mitigation Incorporated - - - - - - - - - - - - Less Than Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: 7 Rev. 312819 0 0 . Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? () - - b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? () - - c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? () - - d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? 0 - - e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? () - - VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 - - b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? () - - c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? () - - IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? () - - b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? () - - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? () - - d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? () - - Less Than Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 Rev. 312819 0 0 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? () - X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? () - b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () - XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? () - b) Police protection? () - c) Schools? () - d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 - e) Other governmental services? () - XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? () - Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant unless Less Than Incorporated Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - b) Communications systems? () - - - c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? () - - - d) Sewer or septic tanks? () - - - e) Storm water drainage? () - - - f) Solid waste disposal? () - - - g) Local or regional water supplies? () - - - 9 Rev. 312819 0 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? () b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? () c) Create light or glare? () XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? () b) Disturb archaeological resources? () c) Affect historical resources? () d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? () e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? () XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? () b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () e Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Less Than Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - 10 Rev. 312x19 0 @ , Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS LesSThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to 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 endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? - - - b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a 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) - - - c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - - XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the followin on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were review. within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures base on the earlier analysis. Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are Tess than Significant with Mitigation 11 Rev. 312819 0 0 . DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AIR QUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 Gen will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequen in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and su suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as il Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emis considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of n measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and in1 improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips thr implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage a modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient buildin, design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applic appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of tl or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located withi attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. Th is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the cel of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of C Considerations” for. air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all SI projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further envh review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 Gel will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build0 however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over 7 City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major int( along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intl are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous I measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the prc circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportatio trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) partic regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing In1 State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to con applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporate( design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. 12 Rev. 312819 0 0 , Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intf at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist i “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparal EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resol 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Stat( Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. GENERAL DISCUSSION: The proposed use can not have any significant effects on the environment. The proposed tennis court i within the zone if approved by a Conditional Use Permit which is consistent with the General Plan. 1 on which it is proposed has been disturbed by previous grading and is immediately adjacent to the Resort, which is a 78 unit timesharefiotel. The addition of the tennis court to the parcel adjacent to the hotel will not create a need for additiona will not create or expose people to geologic problems, will not result in a significant change to water a or expose people to flooding, will not create significant additional average daily (automobile) trips, will n a biologically sensitive area, will not use or require significant amounts of energy and/or mineral resou not expose people to hazards as listed in the EIA part 11, will not create significant noise impacts tc properties, will not require additional public services but will contribute to the public availability of re1 facilities, will not require the need for new utilities or service systems, will not create a significant aesthel because there will be no lighting and the tennis court area will include landscaping, and will not disturb a: cultural resources. 13 Rev. 312819 0 0 , LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) N/A ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) N/A 14 Rev. 3/28/95