HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-05-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 28451 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2845
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DEVELOP A THREE UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON ACACIA AVENUE. APPLICANT: ACACIA TOWNHOMES CASE NO.: SDP 88-7
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of F
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to cons
request , and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consic
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the i
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, th
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declarati
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Corn
f 01 1 ows :
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, tt Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative [ according to Exhibit "SCH", dated February 7, 1989, Exhibit '
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following finding! February 24, 1989 and Exhibit "PII", dated February 6, 1989
Findinqs:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidenc project may have a significant impact on the environment.
21 2. The site is presently developed with a Single-Family Dwel residence although older is not of significant historic Val
22 possible the applicant has retained existing significant land
23
24
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic genera
significantly impacted by this project. 25
proposed project.
4. There are not sensitive resources 1 ocated onsi te or 1 ocated
26
27
0..
28
0 0
1
2
3
5. The project is within the coastal zone. This requires a thirtJ review period by the State Clearinghouse. This review period s February 24, 1989 and ended on March 27, 1989. All comments rc the State Clearinghouse were incorporated into the conditior project as shown on Planning Commission Resolution No. 2846 da 19, 1989.
4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regul ar meeting of the
5
1989, by the following vote, to wit: 6
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th da
7 AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm,
Erwin, Marcus and Holmes.
8 II NOES : None.
9 11 ABSENT: Commissioner McFadden. 10
11
12
ABSTA I N :
13 ATTEST:
14 11
None.
Y
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSI
15 .tf/~&,J!vr& /P\ 'a* t\ ' < i - ; i &>
*" I
* .,&J 6 .'"--E
16 MICHAELuJ: H*LzHIL%k,L PLANNING DIRECTOR
17 11
I.8 ll
l9 I 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RES0 NO. 2845 -2-
Mai 1 to: State Clearinghouse, ,L00@th Street, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 9 I) 4 -- 916/&45-0613
NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND EYVIROYMEYTAL DOCUMENT FORM 1 See MOTE 1 I
I SCH #-
I
1. Project Title Acacia Tounhomes SOP 88-7
2. Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad 3. Contact Person: Lance Schulte
3a. Street Address: 2075 Las Palmas Or 3b. City: Carlsbad
3c. County: Sen Dieso 3d. Zip: 92009 3e. Phone: (619) 438-1161
PROJECT LOCATIOM 4. County: San Diego 4a. City/community: Carlsbad
4b.(optional) Assessor's Parcel No. 204-233-06.07 4c. Section: MA Tup. MA Range MA
5a. Cross Streets: Acacia & Carlsbad Blvd & Garfield 5b. Nearest Community:
6, Ui thin 2 miles of: a. State Huy No. 1-5 b. Airports Palomar c. Uateruayr Ocean
For Rural,
7. DOCUMENT TYPE 8. LOCAL ACTIOM TYPE IO. DEVELOPM~NT TYPE
CEQA -
01 - NOP
02 - Early Cons
04 - Draft EIR
05 _. Supplement/
03 X Neg Dec
Subsequent EIR
(if so, prior SCH #
1 -
06 - Notice of Intent
07 - Envir. Assessment/
08 - Draft €IS
OTHER
09 - Information Only
10 - Final Document
11 - Other:
FONSl
01 - General Plan Update 01 X Residentiat: Units '3 Acres
02 - New Element 02 __ Office: Sq. Ft.
03 - General Plan Amendment Acres Empl oyces -
04 - Master Plan 03 - Shopping/Commercial: Sq.Ft. .
05 - Annexation Acres Employees
06 - Specific Plan 04 - Industrial: Sq. Ft.
07 - Redevelopment Acres Employees
08 - Rezone 05 _. Seuer: MGD
09 - Land Division 06 - Uater: MGD
(Subdivision, Parcel Map.
Tract Map, etc.) 07 -Transportation: Type
10 - Use Permit 08 - Mineral Extraction: Mineral -
11 -.Cancel Ag Preserve 09 _. Power Generation: Uattage -
12 y:: Other SOP Type :
c- Other:
9 TOTAL ACRES: .28
11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT
01 & Aesthetic/Visual 08 - Geologic/Seismic 15 - Seuer Capacity 22 - Uatel
03 - Air Quality 10 - Minerals 17 - Solid Waste 24 - Ui ldl
Paleontological 12 - Public Services 19 - Traffic/Circulation 26 - I ncon
05 X Coastal 13 - Schools 20 - Vegetation 27 - Cumul
02 - Agricultural Land 09 - Jobs/Housing Balance 16 - Soi 1 Erosion 23 - Uetli
04 - Archaeological/Historicat/ 11 __ Noise 18 - Toxic/Hazardous 25 - Groul
06 - Fire Hazard 14 - Septic Systems 21 - Uater Quality 28 - Othel
07 - Flooding/Drainage
12 FUNDING (approx.) Federal S State S Total 0
u PRESENT LAND USE AND ZOMIMG: This site presently has one dilapidated Single Family Duelling. Tt
zoning for the site is Multi-Family Residential consistent with the beach area overlay zone.
14 PROJECT DESCRIPT16N; A three unit condominium pr ject on .2 ac approximately 1/2 a block fror;
The architectural style is reminiscent of Hispani cittage
15. SIGMATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE: & && $y Date: 2 -7-82
- NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all neu projects ' If a SCH Mumber alreadl
0 0 txnloIr -NLI'
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE TE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 (6 1
it^ of @nrlsbab
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 154 ACACIA AVENUE BETWEEN CARLSBAD BLVD. AND GARFI STREET
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A THREE UNIT ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON .28 ACRE
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above descri project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califor Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the C
of Carlsbad. As.a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declarat that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is herc issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in 1 P1 ann i ng Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in ' P1 anning Department , 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl sbad, Cal iforni a 92009. Commel from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Plann Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
\
DATED: 2/24/89 MICHAEL j: HOLmILLER
CASE NO: SDP 88-7 P1 anni ng Director
APPLICANT: Dennis Stewart
PUBLISH DATE: 2/24/89
e -,.. .-,. . ..
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. SDP 88-6
DATE : 2/6/89
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: Dennis Stewart
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2399-25 Jefferson St.
Carlsbad, CA. 92008 (619) 721-7928
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: 2/6/89
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
YES MAYBE - 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?
X
X
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
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
e 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 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. Liaht 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
1 0 0
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. 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 MAY BE - N
-
-4-
w e - 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. Energy - 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-
MAY BE NO
X
X
X
-
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0 0
YES MAY BE
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?
19. Recreation - Will the proposal have
significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. Archeolosical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or
historical site, structure, object or building?
21. Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed proiect such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site design c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the s
e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter-
nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
a) The project is to small to phase.
b) Alternate site designs were explored. Alternate site desig provide more environmental benefits.
c) The scale of the development has been reduced due to envi review.
d) Alternate uses for this site would be inconsistent with th Plan, Local Coastal Program and the City's Municipal Code.
e) Would continue the present deteriorated condition of the s
f) See E above. Alternative sites for the proposed project explored given the number of beach lots in the area.
g) See E above.
-6-
w 0
- YES MAYBE NO
22. Mandatorv findincrs of siunificance -
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
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is significant.) X
on each resource is relatively small,
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
1. No earth resources will be disturbed. The site is presently developed c
an existing Single Family Dwelling.
2. The project proposes three Single Family Dwellings, two more than preser exist. No significant increase in air quality impacts will be noticed,
3. See number 1 above. Also, the project has been designed to incorpo~
adequate drainage structures.
4. See number 1 above. Also, the project will retain significantly large pz on site.
5. See number 1 above.
6. The project adds two additional units to the site. A small potent .
increase in noise may be evident. However, a six foot block wall
separation between the units will reduce noise impacts from the site.
-7-
.f e 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
7. The site is Significantly landscaped to reduce light and glare im
surrounding properties.
8. The project is Consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance
General Design Direction of the Beach Area Overlay Zone.
9. See number 1 above.
10. See number 1 above.
11. See number 1 above.
12. See number 1 above.
13, Circulation on-site has been designed to assure ease of movement,
14. See number 1 above.
15. See number 1 above.
16. See number 1 above.
17. See number 1 above.
18. The project has been designed to incorporate the aesthetic concerr Beach Area Overlay Study. The project represents an irnprovc
aesthetics for the site.
19. The project has a minor increase in recreational needs. The project private recreation in side and rear yards for the condominium unit
20. See number 1 above. Also, the project site has an existing old6
Family Dwelling. This structure is not an historic resource.
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 o the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significan effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect this case because the mitigation measures described on an attachec 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.
-8-
rn e
2-7/29 Date .~ Pa Siq tu e
v. -
t 21g I @Cr
date PlanninHirdekor
-9-