HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 2930II - 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2930
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLS CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE 1 MAP TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO SIX LOTS. APPLICANT: MALDONADO CASE NO.: CT 89-14
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of Octa
hold a duly noticed pub1 ic hearing as prescribed by law to con
request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consic
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the i
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, tt
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declarai
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Corn
f 01 1 ows :
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, tt Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative C according to Exhibit ''ND", dated July 28, 1989, and I'PII", datc 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the findings:
Findinss:
1. The initial study (Exhibit PII) shows that there is no 5
evidence that the project may have a significant impac environment.
2. The streets are adequate in size to hand1 e traffic genera. proposed project.
3. There are not sensitive resources located onsite or located : significantly impacted by this project.
....
....
....
....
w 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of thc
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1E
October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit:
1
2
3
4
5
AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm: McFadden, Holmes & Marcus.
NOES : None.
6
ABSTAIN: None. 7
ABSENT: None.
8
9
10
11
ATTEST:
CARLSBAD PLA~NING COMMISSION
12
13
14
15
16
1Y
18
19 i
20
21
22
23 11 24
25
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 2930 - 2-
28
L,\IIIUI I Il(u : w m July 28, 1989
Ci.ty of Carlsba
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 1590 Basswood Avenue, Carl sbad, CA 92008. APN: 205-060-10
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision of 1.5 acre lot into 6 lots for single f residences .
The City of Carl sbad 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 thc 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
P1 ann i ng Department .
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file i P1 anning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl sbad, Cal ifornia 92009. Corn
Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Pla
DATED: July 28, 1989
CASE NO: CT 89-14 MICHAEL J. HOLZMIWER P1 anni ng Director
APPLICANT: MALDONADO
PUBLISH DATE: July 28, 1989
ENM: 1 h
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-
w w Ju'y Lu8 Itfay
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 89-14
DATE : JULY 20, 1989
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: DAVID MALDONADO
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: (619) 434-3357
1590 BASSWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: APRIL 20. 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'phys,ical 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. & - 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
or excavations? interception of an aquifer by cuts
h. Reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public
water supplies?
-2-
- YES MAYBE - NO
X
v A
V A
I, n
.7 A
.r x
X
X
X
X
X
v w
- 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-
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 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. Housing - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
13. Transr)ortation/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 yoods?
e. Alterations to air traffic? waterborne, rail or
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
- YES MAYBE
-4-
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X -
X
X
w w YES MAY BE
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. Enerav - 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 thnks?
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-
- -
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? X
Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X
Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - Will the proposal have significant
results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or
historical site, structure, object or building? X
Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed proiect 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 is not of a large enough scale to justify phasing.
The proposed site design is adequate and meets all applicable regulations.
The proposed scale of development is compatible with adjacent land uses and is consistent with all applicable regulations.
No alternate uses for the site, other than residential, are allowed.
Development at this time is appropriate.
N/A.
The no project alternative would leave the site with the current
greenhouse/agriculture uses. The owner wishes to develop his
property with residential uses.
-6-
w 0
YES - MAYBE
22. Mandatory findinss 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.
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?
III. DISCUSSION OF. ENVI~ONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. EARTH: The proposed project will not alter any geo: substructures or unique geologic features. No increase in wil water erosion of soils on or offsite will occur. Estimated gr: will involve 1900 cubic yards with the maximum height of cut or slopes at 3 feet.
2. AIR: The proposed subdivision will not alter the movement quality of the air. No odors will result from the proposed pro:
-7-
- -
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
3. WATER: The project will not alter the movement or quality of any water resources, or cause a reduction in the amount of water available for public water supplies.
4. PLANT LIFE/ANIMAL LIFE: Since the project is proposed in an existing residential area there are no types of significant plant or animal life which will be adversely impacted.
5. NOISE: The project will not significantly increase existing noise levels.
6. LIGHT AND GLARE: N/A.
7. LAND USE: The proposed land use of 6 residential homes is consistent with the General Plan and compatible with existing and
permitted land uses.
8. NATURAL RESOURCES: N/A.
9. RISK OF UPSET: N/A.
10. POPULATION: The increase in the local population from the proposed project is consistent with the density allowed by the General Plan and will not significantly alter the location or growth rate of the area's population.
11. HOUSING: N/A.
12. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: The proposed six lot subdivision will incrementally add to the transportation requirements of the area. The project will be parked and designed to meet subdivision standards and will not significantly increase the demand for transportation or circulation elements.
13. PUBLIC SERVICESAJTILITIES: The proposed project, by being consistent with the General Plan and the Growth Management Program will incrementally add to the public services and utilities requirements. This increase, however, is within the acceptable standards for this type of development.
14. ENERGY: N/A,
15. HUMAN HEALTH: N/A.
16. AESTHETICS: N/A.
17. RECREATION: N/A.
18. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL: The subject site contains no documented archeological or historical resources.
-8-
v 0
In conclusion, the project meets all applicable development s'
and regulations for this area, The proposed project is ms
with the General Plan and Growth Management Program and will
significant environmental impacts. Staff will issue a Declaration.
-9-
w 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.
&/y Zf', '909 E& h/. P7"-
'Date Signature
zF/z5/6c(
Date
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-10-