Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-06-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 2870ri . e e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 3.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2870 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSB CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CARLSBAD TR AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEVELOP 12 SINGLE FAR DETACHED LOTS ON A 4.2 ACRE SITE AT THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION JAMES DRIVE, BETWEEN HILLSIDE DRIVE AND PARK DRIVE. APPLICANT: HILLSIDE PARTNERS CASE NO.: CT 88-5/HDP 89-1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of June, 1 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider saic and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consid 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 Declarat NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Comr fol 1 ows : A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, tl Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative C according to Exhibit "ND" , dated March 29, 1989 and "PII", ( 7, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on tht findings: Findinqs: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidenc project may have a significant impact on the environment project is conditioned to mitigate any impact on palec resources. 2. The site is presently parti ally eroded due to drainage impac. existing James Drive. In addition, the site has been previa to accommodate the existing single family structure on the 5 3. James Drive and Tamarack Avenue are adequate in size to han ADT of traffic generated by the proposed project. 4. There are no significant resources located onsite or si impacted by this project. //// .\ < 1 0 e PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of thc 2 1989, by the following vote, to wit: 3 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th da 4 5 6 7 8 AYES : Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Marcus & Erwin. NOES : None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Commi ssi oners Holmes & McFadden. 9 10 11 ATTEST : CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 12 13 39 \ )- MICHAEL J. HOLmLLERu 14 11 PLANNING DIRECTOR 15 16 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 2870 -2- .' 0 " of Carlsba NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: At the southern terminus of James Drive, so Tamarack Avenue between Hi 11 side Drive and Parkside P1 ace. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 12 dwelling subdivision of 7,800 sq. ft. - 22,O ft. lots and 2,500 sq. ft. to 3,200 sq. ft. homes on a depressed 4.2 hi 11 side site. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above des project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Cali Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of tt of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (decla that the project will not have a significant.impact on the environment) is issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file P1 anni ng Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Co from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the P1 Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: March 29, 1989 CASE NO: CT 88-5/HDP 89-1 P1 ann i ng Di rector APPLICANT: Hillside Partners PUBLISH DATE: March 29, 1989 LBS: af 3075 Las Palmas Drive * Carlsbad, California 9?009-4859 - (619) 43E "__"_ . . - - - - - -. - - - - - 0 e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANI$ING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 85-5/HDE DATE : March 7, 1985 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: Hillside partners 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 411 Park Drive, C California 92008 (619) 729-8466 ~~ 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: March 7, 1989 11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be writter under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluatior YES MAY BE 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? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? 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? 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 patterns, 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- - YES MAY BE - NO X X x X X X X X X X X . 1' , e 0 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? - YES MAY BE - 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- 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 Umet - 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. TransDortation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation movement? 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 - NO - - " 1 - 2 > X -4- 0 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. Enerqv - 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 - 0 0 - YES MAY BE 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? - 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? - 20. Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - 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 proposed 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 g) no project alternative. a) The project is relatively small. Phasing of this project wou: provide any significant environmental benefits. b) Through the course of review alternative site designs were exp: Site designs are limited due to restrictions of access in the topographical relief of the site. The proposed site design environmentally preferred. c) Through review the scale the project has been reduced to prov: environmenal benefit. d) Alternative uses for the site would be inconsistent with the Gc Plan, Zoning and surrounding land use. e) Development at some further time would continue the current e: process the site. This would be detrimental to the Agua Hec Lagoon. f) There are a few alternative sites for the project. Other infill would most likely provide less environmental benefits. g) No project alternative would continue the present erosive prc on the site. This would continue to cause potential siltat. Agua Hedionda Lagoon. -6- - '. .I 0 0 - YES MAY BE 22. Mandatory findinss of siqnificance - a. Does the project have the potential to substantially 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 en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 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.) c. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (ttCumulatively con- siderablel' means that the incremental effects a€ an individual 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.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Project DescriDtion: The project is a 12 dwelling subdivision at the southerly terminu! Drive, just east of Hillside Drive. The project site is 4.28 acres i has a deep gullied wash area at the end of James Drive. This wash a to drainage running from James Drive and emptying into the site. So slopes along with an existing structure are also present on the site. has varying topography that has been partially disturbed by gradir deposition of soils due to erosion. The dwellings are approximatel: -7- 1) e 3,200 square feet in size. The lots are 7800 square feet to 22,000 squal in size. 1. The project will Correct an existing erosive problem. In SO doing fi: be needed for the site. The project through its grading attempts to me the integrity of the naturalized hillside topography. Several lot split pads and small intermittent slopes and retaining walls are u terrace the site and terrace the lots throughout the site. AI significant earthwork is being done this earthwork is considered rc to resolve the present erosion problem on site. 2. The project is a smaller infill development. The project will cre incremental increase in air quality impacts. This small incremental ir is not considered significant. 3. The project Will Correct an existing drainagejerosion problem. In S( this will help alleviate siltation into Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Flooc and drainage will adequately be provided by for by this development, 4/5 The project is presently developed with one single-family dwelling a] larger outside storage areas. Through development of the site available for plant life and animal life will be lost. Since the.5 an infill lot this loss is not considered significant. Large slope be retained on the site and will be potentially available for pla animal life. 6. The project is in a depressed site. Surrounding areas are higher an( the site. No significant noise producing land uses or facilities will the site. The project is consistent with surrounding land use and w: provide significant increases in noise level to surrounding land USC 7. The project will be continuation of the surrounding land use. Lic glare impacts will be consistent with the present light and glare 1 of the surrounding land use. This is not considered significant. 8. The project is an extension of the surrounding land use. The projec provide medium to larger size lots consistent with the surr( residential land use. 9. The project will require the use of a natural resources for bo construction and occupancy of the dwellings. This incremental incrc not considered significant. lo. The project is surrounded by single-family dwellings. The project PI no risk of upset to the proposed project or the surrounding area project will correct an existing erosive problem which has a potent provide a risk of upset to the surrounding land use. 11. The project will create 12 new dwellings. These dwellings are con: an extension of the surrounding land use and are not considered a sign: increase in population. 12. The project will provide 12 additional housing units. These dwellinc be consistent with the surrounding residential character ofthe neighbc -8- ..L .C 0 0 13. The project will extend James Drive to the south. The project additional 120 average daily trips to James Drive. This minor traffic on James Drive is not considered significant. 14. The project will require a small incremental increase in : services, This Small incremental increase has been identified the growth control point, the Local Facilities Management Plan has accounted for this increase. adopted Local Facilities Plan for Zone 1. Although the developr 15. The project will require a small incremental increase in the us to both construct and to occupy the dwellings. The small incr considered significant. 16. See No. 14 above. 17. The project will correct an existing erosive problem. This alleviate potential human health concerns due to flooding. No public health concerns have been identified for the project L project is an extension of the surrounding residential area. 18. The project will develop a partially developed infill area. 7 infill area has both an existing structure, some grading and canyon. Through the hillside development permit and the site's gl the proposed development attempts to address aesthetics by the c small intermediate slopes and terracing of the house lots to cc the general, hillside nature of the surrounding area. The lots enough to incorporate significant landscaping to assure that aesl maintained within the neighborhood. The project is within a dep~ and therefore, will have minimal impact on views. 19. The project will create a small incremental increase in c recreational facilities. The project will be required to confor park standards of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zc addition the lots have sufficient size to allow significar: recreational space for the occupance of the dwellings. ' 17. The site is presently disturbed due to erosive action and du grading. The site has potential to harbor paleontology reso mitigating condition to address the situation is being made a co this Negative Declaration. -9- 0 0 IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect il 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 equired. 3-7-07 gd Date Signature 31 z e/& ' Date PlannSng DW.ector V.MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first, report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad. If thc report indicates the presence of potential fossil bearing material standard two phased program, on file in the Planning Department, SF undertaken to avoid possible significant impacts on paleontological re! under the direction of the Planning Department. -10- **- 8 0 VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEA AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. / I. fl/ I? 6, I/, , a ', \I "" M&*L pa 3/q I f.7 nate Signature a -11-