HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-11-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 2788I 0 *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2788
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DEVELOP A FOUR UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF HEMLOCK AVENUE BETWEEN GARFIELD AND WASHINGTON STREETS. APPLICANT: HEMLOCK APARTMENTS CASE NO.: SDP 88-5
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of November, 1988,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said
request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony 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.
I I I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1 anning Commission as
I
f 01 1 ows :
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
16 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
17 Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit I'ND" and "PII", dated September 26, 1988 and
18 September 20, 1988 respectively, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
19
20
21
22
23
24
Findinqs:
1. The initial study and comnents received during the public review process
show that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded.
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the
proposed project.
25
26
4. There are not sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be
27
significantly impacted by this project.
////
28
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
0 1)
I I PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of
November, 1988, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson McFadden, Commissioners: Schramm, Schlehuber,
Holmes, Erwin and Hal 1 .
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Marcus.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING 'COMMISSION
MICHAEL J. HOL7MILLEw
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 2788 -2-
/'
28
a EXHIBIT “ND”
., 0 w
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 I TELEPHONE (619) 438-1161
aitv uf aarlsbnb
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NEGATIVE DECLARATIOH
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The project site is located along the north side of Hemlock Street between Garfield Street and Uashington Street in the R-3 Zone.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A site development plan to develop 4 apartment units in the form of 2 duplexes within the Beach Area Overlay Zone on a .31 acre site
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 Pl anni ng 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 ten (10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: September 26+ 1988 MICHAEL J. HaZMIL%R CASE NO: SDP 88-5 Planning Director
APPLICANT: Hemlock Apartments
PUBLISH DATE: September 26, 1988
,' 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regul ar meeting of the P1 anni
ty of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day
following vote, to wit:
9
10
$.
11 i t
\\
JEANNE B. MCFADDEN, Chairpersc CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
12 ATTEST:
13
l4 MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER \
I \ \
15 PLANNING DIRECTOR 1 , \
16
\* 17
'\ x\
\\ ', \ 18 1 \
\~ \
19 I '\ \\
20 \\.
\\
21 \\
\,
22 \ \~
23
24 'h;
25 1
26
27
28 PC RES0 NO. 2788 -2-
0 e EXHIBIT "Pll"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSE88MBNT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. SDP 88-5
DATE : SeDtember 20. 1988
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: Rodnev Miles
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
29571 Seahorse Cove. Lauuna Niquel, CA. 92677
(714) 474-7270
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: Ami1 21, 1988
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
- YES MAY BE - NO
1. Earth - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Unstable earth conditions
or in changes in geologic
substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements,
compaction ar overcovering of the soil?
X
X
c. Change in topography or ground surface reli'ef features? X
d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X
e. Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or
off the site? X
f. Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel or a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X
*
2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
odors? b. The creation of objectionable
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
3. Water - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements,
in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and
amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not
limited to, temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?
-2-
0
- YES MAY BE NO -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a. 0 0
- YES
4. Plant Life.- Will the proposal have Significant results in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals
into an areap or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement of
animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly
increase existing noise levels?
7. Licrht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare?
8. Land Use - Will the proposal have
significant results in the alteration of
the present or planned land use of an area?
-3-
MAY BE NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e 0 .*
9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable
have significant results in:
natural resources?
natural resource?
10. Risk of UDset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions?
11. Pomlation - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?
12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
13. TransDortati.on/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation
d. Alterations to present patterns of
systems?
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
- YES MAY BE
-4-
- NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
,. 0 0 - YES
14. Public SeHices - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or
altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Enerav - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health - Will the proposal have
significant results in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health
hazard (excluding mental health)?
-5-
MAYBE - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0 e .x
- YES MAYBE - NO
18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have
significant results in the obstruction
of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in
creation of an aesthetically offensive
public view? X
19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X
20. Archeolouical/Historical/Paleontoloqical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? X
21. Analyze viable alternatives to the rxoposed Droiect 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) alter-
nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
a) Since the project only includes 4 dugs, phasing of development sou, not result in less significant impacts.
b) Alternate site designs could include a north-south driveway throu? the site with 2 du's along each side. However, this would not result :
less significant impacts.
c) A reduction in the mass and scale of the dwelling units would be mol aesthetically pleasing, however no aesthetic impacts associated with tl proposed project are anticipated to occur.
d) N/A, since the site is designated for multifamily residentia development.
e) Development at some future time would not be environmentally preferabl since all public facilities and services currently exist to serve th proposed project.
f) N/A since the site is designated for such use.
g) The Isno projectv1 alternative would not be environmentally preferabll
since the subject property is already developed with 2 single famil: residences.
-6-
, -- 0 e
- YES MAY BE NO -
22. Mandatorv findinus of sianificance -
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? X
b. 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.) X
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is
significant.) X
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? X
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This project would entail the development of a four unit apartment projec upon an existing' graded and developed (2 single family dwelling units property. For the environmental analysis, staff conducted two field trip to the subject property. There exist no sensitive environmental resource upon or in close proximity to this already developed site. In that th, proposed project is permitted per the existing zoning and that no sensitiv, environmental resources exist on site, no significant project environmenta impacts are anticipated. There were no public comments received in respons, to the notice for a Negative Declaration.
-7 -
0 0 .' I
IV. 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
A
Y' a-86 w QGiA
Date Signature
Q+/BB
Date PlanninG Diwctor
V.MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-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 MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
-9-