HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-12-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 2765d 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2765
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE THREE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOTS INTO FIVE RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND A CUL- DE-SAC. APPLICANT: TAMARACK PROPERTY INVESTORS CASE NO.: CT 87-4
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of September and the
7th day of December, 1988, hold a duly noticed publ ic hearing as prescribed by
law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said publ i c hearing, upon hearing and considering a1 1
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as
fol 1 ows :
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibits "ND" and I'PII", dated June 1, 1988 and May 23, 1988, respectively, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinqs:
1. The initial study shows that the project access ("A" Street) does not comply with City Engineering Standards for street spacing. While this standard's non-compliance may incrementally increase traffic safety problems along Tamarack Avenue (in that 20 additional trips would be generated), this impact does not meet the test for significance per Section 15064 of the CEQA. Otherwise, there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis.
3. There are not sensitive resources located onsi te or located so as to be significantly impacted by this project.
////
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
3.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of September
and the 7th day of December, 1988, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schramm, Schlehuber,
NOES: Commissioner Erwin.
ABSENT: Chairperson McFadden.
ABSTAIN: None.
Holmes and Marcus.
ATTEST:
z-,j.b(p; d(uf ,i H pJ
MATTHEW HALL, Vice Ch%man
1’
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
MICHAEL J. HOLtPIILLW
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 2765 -2-
0 0 EXHIBIT "ND"
75 LAS PALMAS DRIVE LRLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 TELEPHONE
(619) 438-1 161
aitn a€ aarlabah
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The project site is located along the
south side of Tamarack Avenue. between Hibiscus Circle and the
AT&SF Railroad in the R-1-7500 Zone.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A tentative tract map to subdivide three
existing residential lots into five residential lots and a public cul-de-sac on a 1.7 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 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 ten (10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: June 1, 1988 MICHAEL J. H~LZMIIYLER
CASE NO: CT 87-4 Planning Director
APPLICANT: Tamarack Property Investors
PUBLISH DATE: June 1, 1988
a 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 1
15
16
17
18
I 19
1
2o I
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannin<
Commission of the City Of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of September
and the 7th day of December, 1988, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
ATTEST :
JEANNE B. MCFADDEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR
21
22
23
24
25 11
26
27
28
PC RES0 NO. 2765 -2-
0” 0 ’; EXHIBIT Irfllfi
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 87-4
DATE : May 23, 1988
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: Tamarack Propertv Investors
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 18300 Von Karman.
Suite 700, Irvine, California 92715 (6191 747-7270
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: December 10, 1987
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written
under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
1. Earth - Wil.1. the proposal have significant results in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering
of the soil?
- YES MAYBE NO -
-.~ X
X
c. Change in topography or ground X surface relief features?
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
e
2. - Air - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
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
e Q
- 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 area, 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. Lisht 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
”
X
- NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e 0
YES MAYBE
9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset - 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. Population - 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. TransDortation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existin,: parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? X
d. Alterations to present patterns of 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?
-4-
- NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0)
YES
14. Public Services - 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. Enersy - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Demand upcon 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)?
MAY BE
-._. .-
""
- NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-5-
e 0
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. Archeolosical/Historical - Will the proposal have significant results in
the alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? X
21. Analyze viable alternatives to the Droposed Droliect 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) This project specifically proposes the approval of a tentative
tract map t.0 subdivide three existing lots into five lots and a
public cul-de-sac. However, no other development (including the construction of dwelling units) is proposed at this time. Application for building permits would be phased to a later
date.
b) One alternate s'ite design would necessitate that access be taken
off of Hibiscus Circle or Long Place, both alternatives would
necessitate the condemnation of properties to achieve site
access. Another alternative would entail the creation of two
panhandle lots (total of four lots) off of Tamarack Avenue.
c) An alternate scale of development would entail the creation of
fewer. lots. (See (b) above.) Since no structures are proposed
at this time, alternate building scale is not a consideration.
d) See (.b) above. Otherwise, since the site is zoned for single
family dwelling units (R-1-7'500), alternative uses may not be
feasible without a rezone or a Conditional Use Permit.
e) See (a) above.
f 1 N/A
g) A no project alternative would result in three existing older
homes and agriculture to be maintained upon the subject
property.
-6-
e ", 0;
- YES MAY BE - NO
22. Mandatorv findinqs of siqnificance -
a. Does the proj'ect 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
'I. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This projec,t would entail the subdivision of three already
developed existing residential lots into five single family residential lots and a public cul-de-sac. For this environmental analysis, staff conducted two field trips to the
subject property. There exist no sensitive environmental
resources upon this already developed site.
Potential environmental impacts from the development of the
project include:
(1) Noise impacts from the AT&SF Railway which is located immediately adjacent and to the west of
the subject property, and
(2) Noncompliance with City Engineering Standards regarding intersection spacing.
Potential noise impacts from train operations along the AT&SF
Railway can be adequately mitigated through the construction
-7-
e 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
Of a masonry sound wall along the western property line of the
project and through the implementation of. appropriate
construction techniques to mitigate second story noise impacts.
The project as proposed violates City Engineering Standards for street spacing. Specifically, the project accessway (cul-de- sac) off of Tamarack Avenue is spaced only 153 feet from the
next nearest cross street (Hibiscus Circle) along Tamarack Avenue. City standards require a minimum 300 foot intersection spacing along Tamarack Avenue. While this standard's noncompliance may incrementally increase traffic safety problems along Tamarack Avenue (in that 20 additional trips would be
generated) , this impact is not considered a significant impact
in that it does not meet the test for significance per Section
15064 of the CEQA.
Overall, the environmental analysis and field checks conducted
by staff indicated that because there are no sensitive resources on the subject property and because the site has been previously developed and is within an urban area, no significant project
environmental impacts are anticipated. There were no public
comments received in response to the notice for a Negative
Declaration.
-8-
e @
:V. 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.
CD DdiL 5-&-(i3%
Signature
il-rb/@t?
Date Planninr Dirutor
MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-9- I
i
I I
e
MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued)
0
VI. 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
-10-