Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 2919-. i e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2919 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBl CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMI PLAN AND A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO DEVELOP A FOUR UNIT CONDOMIN PROJECT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF HEMLOCK AVENUE BETWEEN GARFII STREET AND THE AT&SF RAILWAY. APPLICANT: HEMLOCK I CASE NO.: SDP 89-5/CP 89-7 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of Octobl hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to cons request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considc testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the ir 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 P1 anning Comm fol 1 ows : A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, thl Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Dl according to Exhibit "ND", dated July 26, 1989 and "PII", July attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following Findinqs: 1. The initial study and comments received during the public revi show that there is no substantial evidence that the project I significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously graded. 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic genera. proposed project. 4. There are not sensitive resources located onsite or located 5 significantly impacted by this project. .... .... 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning '11 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of 2 3 October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Erwin, 4 NOES: None. 5 McFadden, Holmes and Marcus. 6 ABSENT: None. I I 7 /I ABSTAIN: None. 8 9 10 3-1 ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 12 13 14 15 16 17 i ~ PLANNING DIRECTOR ~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 2919 -2- i 28 II .. .* L e City e of Carlsba( NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The project site is 1ocated.along the north sic Hem1 ock Street between Garfield Street and the AT 8. SF Railway. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Minor Subdivision, Site Development Plan a' Condominium Permit to allow a four unit condominium project on a .31 acre I The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above descl 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 h issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file i Pl anning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file i P1 anning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl sbad, California 92009. Con from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Plt Department within thirty (30) days of date of issuance. DATED: July 26, 1989 CASE NO: MS-808/SDP 89-5/CP 89-7 P1 anning Director APPLICANT: HEMLOCK I PUBLISH DATE: July 26, 1989 2075 Las Palmas Drive * Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 * (619) 4: w 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. SDP 89-5/CP 89-7 DATE : July 21. 1989 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: RODNEY MILES 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 29571 Seahorse Cove Lasuna Nisuel, CA 92 (714) 831-3693 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: May 31, 1989 11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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? - YES MAY BE c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering of modification of y~y 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? w 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- v YES MAY BE - NO - - - - - - - - - - - w 0 - YES MAYBE 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- w w 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. PoDulation - 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? YES MAYBE - NO - - - - - - - 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? 7 1 -4- w - 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. Eneruy - 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- MAYBE w w 18. 19. 20. 21. A) B) C) D) E) F) G) - YES MAY BE NO - 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? Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? - - Archeolo~ical/Historical/Paleontolocfical - Will the pmposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? Analyze viable alternatives to the ProPosed Droiect 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. Since the project includes only 4 DUIs, phasing of it would not result in less significant impacts. Alternate site designs are possible, however, this proposed project layout is regarded as the preferred relative to compliance with all development standards and design guidelines of the Beach Area Overlay Zone. The project has been redesigned to reduce its mass and scale. N/A, since the site is designated for multifamily residential development. Since all publ&c facilities and services currently exist, development at 'some future time would not result in any environmental benefit. N/A, since the site is designated for the proposed use. The "no project@@ alternative would not be environmentally preferable since the subject property is currently developed with 2 older aged single family units. - -6- w m YES MAYBE 22. Mandatorv findinss of significance - 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.) 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 This project is a four unit condominium project located alc north side of Hemlock Street. The project site is currently and developed with 2 older single family dwelling units. E environmental analysis, staff conducted two field trips property. In that; (1) the site is currently developed, (21 exists no sensitive environmental resource upon or in close prc to this previously graded site and (3) that the proposed pro: permitted by the existing zoning , no environmental impac anticipated. There were no public comments received in respc the Notice for a Negative Declaration. Rev. -7- w w DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) 1. 2. 3. 4/5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. EARTH: The project site is currently level and developed. Grad required for this project will be only 900 cubic yards. In view the pregraded lot condition, and limited grading proposed, no ea related impacts are anticipated. AIR: This project is a small (4 du) infill development. Since th currently exists 2 du's (to be demolished) on the property, the effect of 2 additional units will result in incremental insignific air impacts. WATER: Development of this project will create additional impervi surfaces on site which will reduce absorption rates and incrementa increase surface runoff and runoff velocities. However, exist drainage facilities are adequate to handle this additional runoff PLANT/ANIMAL LIFE: There exists no significant plant or animal 1 upon this currently developed property. NOISE: Construction of the project may result in short te insignificant noise impacts upon surrounding residences. Otherwi the project is compatible with surrounding uses and will not cre significant noise impacts. No significant noise producing land or facility will impact the project. LIGHT AND GLARE: This project and its associated light and glare w be consistent with surrounding residential land uses along Hem1 Street. This effect of residential development in this neighborh is not considered significant. LAND USE: Development of this project will be compatible w surrounding development and consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Mello I1 Local Coastal Program. accordance, no land use impacts are anticipated. NATURAL RESOURCES: Implementation of this project will incrementa contribute to the depletion of fossil fuels and other natu resources during construction and operation. This incremen increase is not considered significant. RISK OF UPSET: This project is surrounded by residential uses. T project presents PO risk of upset to these surrounding uses. 11. POPULATION: Implementation of this project, which is consistent w location, distribution, density or growth rate of the area. 12. HOUSING: This project will provide net additional housing uni the General Plan and the anticipated development of the Zone 1 Lo Facilities Management Plan, will not effect the overall populat These dwellings will respond to an identified housing demand wit: the beach area. -a- w DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) e 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. TRANSPORTATION: This project will add 16-20 additional tr Hemlock Avenue, Carlsbad Blvd., and other surrounding streets minor increase in traffic is not considered significant. PUBLIC SERVICES : As discussed in the Zone 1 Local Fac Management Plan, all public facilities and services are avail' meet demands anticipated within this Zone. ENERGY: The project will require an incremental increase in of energy to both construct and to occupy the dwellings. Thi increase is not considered significant. UTILITIES: See 14 above. HUMAN HEALTH: This project will result in no human health haz impacts. AESTHETICS: This project will result in no impacts to scenic or open space views. The project has been designed to inco structural relief textured paving, and rich landscaping alc Hemlock Street frontage, thereby providing a more visually ap: project . RECREATION: This project will create an incremental incrc demand for recreational facilities. There exists ai recreational amenities within Zone 1 of the City. ARCHAEOLOGY: The site has been previously disturbed development activities. No significant archeological or his. resources are anticipated to exist. 1 -9- w - 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 on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in 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 required. 7- 2" & Sca Date Signature 7/21 I@? I Date Planniz Dirbdtor V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) -10- .< . +. 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, Date Signature -11-