Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-06-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 2880I/ 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 13 14 ~ I 15 16 17 18 19 20 'I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2880 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLS CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTA MAP/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP A 5 LOT/4 DWELLING PROJECT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF LOCUST STREET, ONE LOT WES' ADAMS STREET. APPLICANT: KLETT CASE NO.: CT 88-8/PUD 88-9 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of June, a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider sail and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consid testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the ir submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, thc Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declarat NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Comm follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative De according to Exhibit 'IND" dated April 26, 1989, and "PII", da 21, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the findings: Findinas: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence project may have a significant impact on the environment. 21 2. The site has been previously graded and is currently under agr' uses (avocado orchard). 22 23 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so 24 proposed project . 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generate significantly impacted by this project. 25 I1 //// 26 27 /I// 28 I/ 0 0 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of tt 2 1989, by the following vote, to wit: 3 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st d 4 5 AYES : Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, McFadden, Schramm, Holmes & Erwin. NOES : None. 6 ABSENT: None, 7 ABSTAIN : None. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 2880 28 ATTEST: ? 6. P> . '. PLANNING DIRECTOR CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION - -z- 0 Exhibit "ND CORRECTED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The project site is located along the north sid Locust Street, one lot west of Adams Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to a a five lot, four unit multi-family project over a .49 acre site. . The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above descr project pursuant to' the Guide1 ines for Implementation of the Califo Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the 1 that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is he issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in P1 anning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. CommE from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planr Department within thirty (30) days of date of issuance. DATED: April 26, 1989 .'q;l&"/&4u of Carlsbad, As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declara MICHAEL J. HOLMILLERU CASE NO: CT 88-8/PUD 88-9 Planning Director APPLICANT: KLETT PUBLISH DATE: April 26, 1989 COD : af 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 (619) 438 3 1 ~- '0 w LA,*.-.. . .. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT'ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 88-8/PUD 88-9 DATE : MARCH 21, 1989 I. BACKGROUND 1, APPLICANT: GORDON AND EDNA KLETT 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P.O. BOX 4086, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (619) 729-6625 ~~ ~ ~~~ 3. 11. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: NOVEMBER 16, 1988 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? X X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief 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 e 0 2. j4& - 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? ‘1ES MAYBE -2- ,. 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? X 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 micro,fauna) ? 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. Liqht 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- MAYBE - NO X X X X X X X X X X 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 UDset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (inciuding, 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 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? -4- YES MAY BE - 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 NO - X x 3 X - 2 x 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 J x 0 e 18. 19. 20. 21. a) b) c) d) e) f) 9) - YES MAY BE 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? Recreatioq - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontolosical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? Analyze viable alternatives to the DroDosed lsroject such as: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site desigl c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the ! e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and 9) no project alternative. This project will include only 4 dwelling units, all of which wi be developed as a single phase. This project has been redesigned to mitigate all potenti environmental impacts while being compatible with the surroundi uses. This project is proposed at 8.16 du/acre, whereas the zoning wou: allow up to 11.5 du/acre. Any change of land use upon the site (commercial, nonresidentia: would necessitate a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Since all public facilities and services are available to SU~~OK the proposed project, development at some future time would nc be a preferred alternative. N/A The tlNo Project1@; alternative would maintain the subject propert in its existing agricultural use. However, the property woul some day be developed in view of its desi.gnation for residentia development (RMH). -6- a 0 YES MAY BE NO - 22. Mandatorv 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. 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 X C d 111. . Does the project,have the possible environmental effects which are in- considerable? ("Cumulatively con- siderable" means that the incremental effects of 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.) dividually limited but cumulatively X . Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This project is a four unit (multi-family) subdivision located along t north side of Locust Street, one lot west of Adams Street. The project si is .49 acres in size, previously graded flat, and currently unc agricultural use (avocado orchard). For this environmental analysis, ste conducted one field trip to the subject property. There exists no sensiti environmental resources upon or in close proximity to this previously grad site. In addition, the proposed residential project is (1) allowed by t zoning and General Plan and (2) is compatible with surrounding residenti uses. Rev. -7- .. < ,. e e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION (Continued) OVerilll, because (1) the property has been previously gl agricultural uses, (2) there exists no sensitive environmental re: ar near the property, and (3) the proposed residential project compatible with surrounding residential/agricultural uses, no sj environmental impacts are anticipated. There were no public received during the public review period for this Negative Decla 1. Earth - The project site is level as a consequence of prer, grading for agricultural purposes. Grading required for project would be only 145 cubic yards (cut). In view of pregraded site condition and limited grading required, no E related impacts are anticipated. 2. && - This project is a small (4 du) infill development. project will create an incremental increase in air qua impacts. This incremental increase is not consid significant. 3. Water - Development of this project will create impen surfaces onsite which would reduce absorption rates incrementally increase surface runoff and runoff velocit However, to accommodate this incremental runoff, draj facilities (driveway swale) will be incorporated into the prc to divert the runoff to new curb and gutter along Locust Str thereby mitigating this concern. 4/5. Plant/Animal Life - The project site is presently L agricultural use (avocado orchard). The Mello I1 agricult policies do not pertain to this property. Since this sit already under such use, and is an infill site, its loss is considered environmentally significant. 6. Noise - Construction of the project may result in short t insignificant noise impacts upon surrounding resider Otherwise, the project is compatible with surrour residential/agricultural land uses and will not CI significant noise impacts. No significant noise producing uses or facilities will impact the project. 7. Liqht and Glare - This project will be a continuation of surrounding residential land uses along Adams, Chinquapin Harrison Streets. Light and glare impacts will be consis with the present light and glare impacts of surrounding uses. This is not considered significant. 8. Land Use - Development of this project will be consistent wit1 General Plan and the Mello I1 Local Coastal Plan. The devel01 of attached single family product types will result in a transition land use between the standard single family uses z Adams Street to the east and the multi-family attached use E Harrison Street to the west. -a- ,a w DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) 9. Natural Resources - Implementation of this project will incrementally contribute to the depletion of fossil fuels and other natural resources during construction and operation. This incremental increase is not considered significant. 10. Risk of UDset - This project is surrounded by residential or agricultural land uses. This project presents no risk of upset to these surrounding uses. 11. Population - Implementation of this project may encourage growth upon surrounding undeveloped properties. However, since the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan specifies that all public facilities are available within this area to allow for development, no population or growth related impacts are anticipated. . 12. Housing - This project will provide 4 additional housing units. These dwellings will respond to an identified housing demand within the area. 13. This project will initiate the improvements (pavement, curb, ADT to Locust Street and other surrounding streets. This minor increase in traffic is not considered significant. gutter and sidewalk) to Locust Street. The project will add 40 14. Public Services - As discussed in the adopted Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan all public facilities are available to meet demands anticipated within this zone. 15. Enerqv - The project will require an incremental increase in the use of energy to both construct and to occupy the dwellings. This small increase is not considered significant. 16. Utilities - See 14 above. 17. Human Health - This project will result in no human health hazards or impacts. 18. Aesthetics - This project will result in no impacts to scenic incorporate structural relief and rich landscaping along the Locust Street frontage, thereby providing a more visually appealing pro j ect . vistas or open space views. The project has been designed to 19. Recreation - This project will create a small incremental increase in demand for recreational facilities. There exists adequate recreational amenities within Zone 1 of the City. In addition, the project lots have sufficient size to allow significant private recreational space for the occupants of the dwellings. -9- e 0 SION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) 20. Archaeoloqica~/Historical/Pa~eontoio~ical - The Site has b previously disturbed due to agriailtural activities. significantarchaeologicalorhistorical resources are anticipa to exist. 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 the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signific; effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effec this case. because the mitigation measures described on an'attach 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 thc environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. March 21, 1989 & &LA Date Signature I .. - _. - 31 ZI )eel AAI 1-1 /)/I I \ /I 1 I .I 1'1 1 LLb.i-p -4 ~LJX Date Plannine Direat& V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) .. -10- KITIGATING MEASURES (Continued) e e VIo APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES TH1S Is To CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CoNCUR WITH 'I'HE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature -11-