HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 2911i 7'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Q e
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2911
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLS CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO ADD 4 GUEST ROOMS, A NEW MANAGER/OWN
BEDROOM, AND A FAMILY ROOM TO AN EXISTING BED AND BREAKFAST CONTAINING 3 GUEST ROOMS.
APPLICANT: HALE CASE NO.: CUP 89-6/V 89-3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of Septen
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
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, t
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declara
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Con
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, t Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative according to Exhibit "ND", dated July 7, 1989, and "PII", dat
1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on th findings:
Findinqs:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial eviden project may have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously disturbed and is presently deb
a duplex.
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic gener proposed project.
4. There are no sensitive resources 1 ocated on site or located significantly impacted by this project.
....
....
1
I. .. 0 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
1
2
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20
September, 1989, by the following vote, to wit:
3
4
5
AYES : Chairman Hail, Commissioners: Marcus E McFadden
NOES: Commissioners : Erwin E Holmes.
I ABSENT: Commissioners: Schlehuber & Schramm. 6
7
8
ABSTAIN : None.
'9
10
11
12
ATTEST:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
13
14
15
16
17
I
l8 I
PLANNING DIRECTOR
~
l9 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 2911 -2-
28
I,
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 320 and 330 Walnut Avenue/North side of Walnut AVI
approximately 60 feet east of Lincoln Street.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The addition of 5 guest rooms, a new manager'own bedroom, and a family room to an existing bed and breakfast inn conraini guest rooms on a total site area of .253 acres in the multiple-family residen zone, Local Faci 1 i ti es Management Zone 1.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above descr project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califc Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declari 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 i P1 anning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file il PI anning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl sbad, California 92009. Coml from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Pla Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: July 7, 1989
CASE NO: CUP 89-6/V 89-3
44d MICHAEL J. HMZMILY'ER Planning Director
APPLICANT: Robert L. & Celeste Hale
PUBLISH DATE: July 7, 1989
DN: af
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 * (619) 43
41- IL vr ~murwnt*lnurrlCE OF THE GEORGE DEUKMEJI
.OFFICE OF PLANNING
14CU TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
August 7, 1989
Don Neu
City of Carl.sbad
2075 Las Palmas
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Ai::' 100, dl
.:'I. . .' . ,, ,?! ,:;y ,,; ,. ! <\*>l; . . .?
Subject : Hale Bed and Breakfast Inn-Remodel and Addition
SCH# 89070516
Dear Mr. Neu:
The State Clearinghouse submittsd the above named environmental document to
selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and
none of the state agencies have cments. This letter acknowledges that you have ccmplied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the Czlifornia Environmental Quality
Act.
Please call Garrett Ashley at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions
regarding the environmental review process. Yhen contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit'state Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly.
Sincerely,
Gz&" &-
bvid C. Nunenkamp
Chief
Office of Permit Assistance
i. -I 0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CUP 89-6/V 89-3 DATE : JUNE 27, 1989
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT : Robert L. & Celeste Hale
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 320 Walnut Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(619) 434-5995
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: Mav 9, 1989
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?
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
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. Licrht 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 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. Pomlation - 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 - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
-4-
h a 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?
de 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 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? 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. Analyze viable alternatives to the Droposed 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,
The project proposes the addition of 5 guest rooms, a new manager/owner's bedroom, and a family room to an existing bed and breakfast inn containing 3 guest rooms. The total site area is .253 acres (11,000 s.f.). A .115 acre (5,000 s.f.) parcel located adjacent to the existing inn to the east has been acquired to accommodate the expansion. That parcel is presently developed with a duplex and a two car garage. Existing development in the area includes a 4-plex to the north, a large apartment project to the south, a condominium project to the east, and a duplex to the west. The General Plan designation for the area is RH (High Density Residential) and the Zoning is R-3 (Multiple Family Residential).
a) Phasing of a project of this small scale would not have
significant environmental advantages. The proposal is phase two for the overall project.
b) Alternate site designs are severely limited due to the existing structures which are being retained and modified to accommodate the additional rooms.
c) An alternate scale of development would not be environmentally
superior as the site is presently developed and will be compatible with the scale of development in the area.
-6-
0 0
Question 21 (Continued).
d) Alternate uses for this site would include retaining the existi duplex which is the highest density of residential use allow for the site under the General Plan and zoniny desiynations whi
is not environmentally superior.
e) Development at some future time rather than now would retain t existing duplex and not enable the expansion of the City's on bed and breakfast use.
f) Alternate sites for expansion of the existing bed and breakfa use are limited to the proposed site and the adjacent property the west. The proposed site appears to be more feasible since existing building can be incorporated into the design.
g) The no project alternative would retain the existing duplex a prevent the existing bed and breakfast use from expanding.
-7-
e 0
YES - MAY BE - NO
22. Mandatory findinqs of sisnificance -
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.) x -
c. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (tlCumulatively 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.) X
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
111. DISCUSGION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. Earth - The site is currently developed. Proposed grading is limited to finish work required to maintain surface drainage pattern and drainage away from structures. Maximum volume cut and fill combined estimated not to exceed 50 cubic yards.
2. - Air - The project will not emit particulates or create objectionable odors. The project's low building height will not
significantly disturb air movement. Rev. 12
-8-
? 0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
3. Water - The project will not alter the present drainage patter1 or significantly increase surface water runoff.
4. Plant Life - No rare or endangered species of plant life exist o
the project site.
5. Animal Life - No unique, rare or endangered species of animals US the site as habitat.
6. Noise - The proposed bed and breakfast use expansion will nc significantly increase existing noise levels or be subject t
excessive noise levels.
7. Lisht & Glare - Proposed lighting has been located away from t]
perimeter of the site so as to not impact adjacent properties.
8, Land Use - The project requires an amendment to the existi]
Conditional Use Permit to be in conformance with the designatio- of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The project will conditioned to provide the required number of parking.spaces.
9. Natural Resources - N/A
10. Risk of Upset - N/A
11. Population - The type of project will provide tempore accommodations primarily for tourists thereby not addj additional population to the area on a permanent basis due fluctuating occupancy rates.
12. Housinq - The project will remove two rental housing units in
area with numerous existing rental units.
13. Transportation/Circulation - The project will not generatc significant number of additional vehicle trips as evidenced the traffic study for the existing bed and breakfast use and
area adjacent to the project will be able to accept the additlo
trips due to the grid design of the street network which w allow the trips to disperse rapidly.
14. Public Services - The project is located in Local Facilit Management Zone 1. Services will be provided through implementation of that Zone Plan.
15. Enerqv - N/A
16. Utilities - Utilities are presently available and the sitc
being served.
17. Human Health - N/A
-9-
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
18. Aesthetics - The architecture for the proposed addition will be
compatible with the existing bed and breakfast use and will tie
the two phases together.
19. Recreation - The project will not reduce the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities.
20. Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontolosical - There is no evidence
that any of these significant resources exist on the project site.
-10-
ar ‘r 0 0
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 t 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 effect 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.
June 27, 1989 L%
Date Signature
’3-1 ?/$pi 4-a
1 ’ Date Plannid Dikector
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
N/A
-11-
0 0 MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued) -
VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
-12 -