HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-01-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 27739
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
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2773
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
A 540 SQUARE FOOT ROOM ADDITION TO THE EXISTING GIRLS' CLUB LOCATED AT 3368 EUREKA STREET. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD GIRLS' CLUB CASE NO.: CUP 150(A)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of
January, 1989, 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit v1ND't dated September 9, 1988 and I'PII'*, dated August 22, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinss:
1. Part I1 of the initial Environmental Impact Assessment study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The site is located on a 1.14 acre lot containing the
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic
existing Girls' Club in an urbanized area.
generated by the proposed project.
////
ll 0 0
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located
1 so as to be significantly impacted by this project.
2
3
4
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 18th day of January, 1989, by the following vote, to wit:
5
6
AYES : Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schramm, Schlehuber, Holmes, McFadden and Erwin.
7
8
NOES : None.
9
ABSENT : Commissioner Marcus.
ABSTAIN : None.
10
11
* la MAT H HALL, Chairman I CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
I.2 I1 ATTEST:
13
14 " MICHAEL J. HMZMILUR 15 // PLANNING DIRECTOR
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 2773 -2-
28
0' Exhibit "ND"
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859
TELEPHONE
(61 9) 438-1 161
ai$ af Mnrlsbab
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Carlsbad Girls' Club, 3368 Eureka Place,
Carlsbad, California 92009
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit for a 540 square foot room expansion to the Girls' Club.
' 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: September 9, 1988
CASE NO: CUP 150(A) Planning Director
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILL~R "4
APPLICANT: Carlsbad Girls' Club
PUBLISH DATE: September 9, 1988
*
'I
0 @ Exhibit lIPIl"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CUP-150 (A)
DATE : Ausust 22, 1988
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT : Carlsbad Girls' Club
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Eileen Olson
3368 Eureka Place, Carlsbad, CA 92009
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: June 17, 1988
11. 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 or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
X
X
X
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
0
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
” K
X
X
X
e 0
4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:
YES MAY BE NO -
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-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0 e
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. Powlation - 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. Transportation/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 systems?
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?
YES MAYBE
X
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-4-
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. Enercw - 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 heal.th)?
-5-
MAY BE
~
~~
- NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
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/Paleontolosical - Will the proposal have significant
results in the alteration of a significant
archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or
building? X
21.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
9)
Analyze viable alternatives to the prorsosed 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) alter-
nate sites for the proposed, and 9) no project alternative.
Phasing the 540 square foot expansion is not necessary or
practical.
The proposed location of the expansion is compatible with the existing use.
The scale of the expansion is appropriate for the existing use.
The site already contains the Girls' Club as well as some
agricultural use. Alternate uses are not needed nor
recommended.
The proposed expansion is needed at this time and the funds are available.
Girls' Club expansion should be located on same site as existing Girls' Club use.
A no project alternative would leave the site as it currently
exists with an undersized Girls' Club facility trying to serve Carlsbad's growing population.
-6-
0 0
- YES MAY BE - NO
22. Mandatory findinss of sisnificance -
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
The proposed expansion of the Girls' Club may create an increase in the demand for new onsite parking. One condition of approval will be to prqvide nine paved parking spaces, based on the number of Girls' Club staff and the fact that most club users will not drive to the site but rather will be driven and dropped off there, walk there, or bike there.
-7-
0 e
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.
AUd 22, /9@8 L 4 “3 d Date ’ Signature
3& 27; rm3
Date PlanniniDirddor
. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-8-