HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-07-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 28900 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2890
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SEVEN DWELLING DUPLEX SUBDIVISION ON A 1,57 ACRE SITE
SOUTH OF KNOWLES AVENUE BETWEEN DAVIS AVENUE AND INTERSTATE 5. APPLICANT: LEWIS/ELSBREE CASE NO.: CT 88-6/PUD 88-7
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of JI
hold a duly noticed pub1 i c hearing as prescribed by 1 aw to con:
request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consi
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the i
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, tt i
I Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declarat
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Con
f 01 1 ows :
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
15
16
17
18
19
20
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, tt Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative [ according to Exhibit I'ND", dated March 29, 1989 and I'PII", datc 28, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on thc findings:
Findinqs:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidenc project may have a significant impact on the environment.
21
23
3. The streets, Knowles and Davis Avenue, and Laguna Drive, are 22
2. The site is presently developed with two older single family I
size to handle traffic generated by the proposed seven duplex
4. There are not sensitive resources located onsite or located
24 significantly impacted by this project.
25
26 ...
...
27 Ij .**
28
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5, A noise study was prepared for the project. Mitigation identifi study has been incorporated in the project . Consi SI Administrative Policy No. 17, a notice to future owners of noi will be required.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of th,
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th da
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Sc Erwin, Holmes & Marcus.
NOES : None.
ABSENT : Commissioner McFadden.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
MATTHEW HALL, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSI
MICHAEL J. HOL~MILLW
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 2890 -2-
-
0
City
e CXnlDII "NU..
of Carlsba
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 1101 Knowles Avenue. The site is located on the
side of Knowles Avenue approximately 200' west of Interstate 5.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A seven dwelling planned development of two-story d
type cottages on 1.57 acres.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above desc project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Calif Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declar;
that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hc issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file il Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file ir
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comr
from the pub1 ic are invited. P1 ease submit comments in writing to the P1 a1 Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: MARCH 29, 1989
CASE NO: CT 88-6/PUD 88-7
MICHAEL J. HMZMILLYR P1 anni ng Director
APPLICANT: ROBERT J. LEWIS
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 29, 1989
LBS: af
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1
0. 0 0 Exhibit 'IPII"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 88-6/PUD 88-7
DATE : FEBRUARY 28, 198
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: Robert J. Lewis
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1697 Hvcleia,
Encinitas, CA 92024
(944-74241
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED:
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written
under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
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?
e
2. && - 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-
a
YES MAYBE - NO
X
X
X -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'0 0
, YES MAY BE
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-
e
'YES MAY BE
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?
-4-
- NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
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. Enerqy - 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
e e
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? K
19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X
20. Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontoloqical - 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,
e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter-
nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site,
a) Phasing of such a small scale development would not provide any additional environmental mitigation.
b) The nature of the lot configuration limits potential site designs. Alternative site designs would most likely be more environ- mentally detrimental.
c) The scale of the development is fairly environmentally sensitive given the nature of the General Plan and zoning for the site. Alternative scales would most likely be more intense given the nature of planned land use for the site.
d) Alternative land uses would be inconsistent with the General Plan
and zoning for the site.
e) Development at some future time would continue somewhat deteriorated nature of the existing site and structures.
f) Alternative sites to accommodate the proposed use could be found
within the City. It is questionable whether significant environmental benefit would occur from alternative locations for the proposed project .
g) The no project alternative would continue the existing deteriorated condition on the site. It would not provide
additional housing opportunities.
-6-
0 e
, 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.
b. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
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.)
advantage of long-term, environmental
c. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (ttCumulatively 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.)
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 Descriotion
The project area is 1.57 acres in size. The site.is rectangular shz
relatively flat, slightly sloping to the west. Presently there existing older deteriorated buildings on the site. The two structl
have potential historic value. The area surrounding the site is developed with both multi-family and single family homes. The subjc as such is an infill development. Seven duplex-type units are prop(
the site.
-7 =
I. 0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
1. See project description above. Due to the infill nature of the site no impacts to earth resources are evident.
2. See project description above. The project will incrementally
increase air emissions. This small incremental increase is not
considered significant.
3. See project description above. The project will direct surface
waters to the street drainage system thus correcting the existing
drainage onsite.
4. See project description above. The project' will develop and
landscape ari infill lot. No substantial change to plant life is
anticipated due to this change.
5. See project description above. See number 4 above.
6. See project description above. The project will provide adequate
separation from surrounding land uses thus dimensioning potential
address noise mitigation for the units from freeway noise. The
study has shown that the noise mitigation will adequately satisfy Planning and Administrative Policy No. 17
noise impacts, A noise study was conducted for this project to
7. See project description above. See number 6 above. The project will provide landscape screening and privacy fences to assure spillage of light and glare is minimized to surrounding land
uses.
8. See project description above. The project site is a transitional
area between single family homes and land use designations to the
west and multi-family land use designations to the east. The
multi-family land use designation presently has a high density senior housing/congregate care facility. The proposed duplex type units will provide an adequate transition of intensity of
land uses from the high density/intensity uses to the east and
the lower density single family uses to the west.
9. See project description above. A small incremental increase in natural resources to both develop and utilize the dwellings will
occur. This small incremental increase in natural resources use is not considered significant.
10. See project description above. The proposed residential use does
not present significant risk of upset.
11. See project description above. The project will provide a small incremental increase in population within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. This small incremental increase is not considered significant and is well within the population and projections for the facilities.
-8-
(" a
.DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
See project description above. The project will add additiol housing to the area. This housing is an appropriate buf: between single family housing types to the west 'and h. density/intensity senior/congregate care/residences to the ea:
See project description above. The project will add a smi
incremental increase in traffic to the local street. TI increase is less than anticipated under the Local Facilit.
Management Plan for Zone 1. The small increase is well wit1
the design standards for the roadway network.
See project description above. The project is within the Lot
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. No substantial pub services shortfalls have been identified within that plan.
See project description above. The project will provide a sm;
incremental increase in energy uses both to construct *
dwellings and to occupy the dwellings. This small. increase
not considered significant.
See project description above. See number 14 and 15 above.
See project description above. See number 6 above.
See project description above. The project is developed il Spanish cottage style. This style is compatible and complement' to the senior housing development to the east. The proj,
appropriately blends in to the surrounding residences to the we
No scenic views or vistas are blocked by the project. Extens landscaping and screening walls will assure no unattractive vi
are created by the project.
See project description above. The project provides ample fro side and rear yards for most of the units for individ recreation space. The proj.ect will have a small minor incremen increase and public recreational demands for Zone 1. This sm incremental increase has been addressed by the Local Facilit Management Plan for Zone 1.
20. See project description above. Two older homes presently occ
the site. These homes are somewhat in a state of disrepair.
homes although not considered of significant historic value
older and have some non-significant historic value. The 1
owner has attempted to work with the historic commission donating and relocating the structures to an alternative si Because of this the project's potential impact to these structu
is not considered significant.
-9-
8 e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
22. a) See project description above. The project is a minor infill development. The project is basically a development of an existing developed site. No significant habitats will be lost by
this development.
b) See project description above. The project will provide housing
to meet long-term housing needs. Since the applicant has agreed
to allow removal of the potentially historic properties, no long-
term environmental impacts or goals will be impacted.
c) See project description above, The project provides a small
incremental impact. Even in conjunction with additional
developments this impact is not significant. This incremental development within the Zone 1 Local Facilities Area has been
addressed.
d) See project description above, The project will provide adequate
setbacks and screening from surrounding residential uses. The
project has submitted a noise study which shows that no
unacceptable noise conditions will be developed by the project
due to road noise from 1-5
-10-
L" e a
SV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation: b
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 significa 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 the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
3-2 I - 87
Date \ s ign2turV .
3 Izr lcfs
bat8 - Planning Direbtor
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-11-