HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-11-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 29390 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2939
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO
OF GARFIELD STREET BETWEEN PINE AVENUE AND WALNUT STREET. APPLICANT: GARFIELD CONDOS
DEVELOP A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON THE WEST SIDE
CASE NO.: SDP 89-13/CP 89-5
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of
1989, hold a duly noticed pub1 ic hearing as prescribed by 1 aw to con:
request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consic
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the ir
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received? thi
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declarat
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Comr
fol 1 ows :
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
15 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, th
16 Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative D
according to Exhi bit "ND", dated September 13, 1989 and "P
17 September 1, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, ba
following findings:
28
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
I
Findinqs:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidenc project may have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded and is presently develo single-family residence.
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic genera.' proposed project.
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located z significantly impacted by this project.
....
....
I
I
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
0 e
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of th
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15
November, 1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES : Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Marcus 8
NOES: Commissioner Erwin.
ABSENT : Chairman Hall & Commissioner McFadden.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSI
MICHAEL J. HOEMILL&& - PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 2939 -2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 3265 Garfield Street/west side of Garfield St between Pine Avenue and Walnut Street.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A one lot 4-uni't condominium project on a .27 acre s The project appears as two duplexes connected by an enclosed storage area.
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 (declara that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hF issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file ir Pl anni ng Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file ir P1 anning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl sbad, Cal ifornia 92009. Corm from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Plan Department within thirty (30) days of date of issuance. \.
DATED: September 13, 1989
CASE NO: SOP 89-13/CP 89-5/MS-806 P1 anni ng Director
APPLICANT: A1 Durant
PUBLISH DATE: September 13, 1989
DN: af
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438" ~ ~~~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA"-OFFICE OF THE GO-* GEORGE DEUKMEJlAl -
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
October 11, 1989
Don Neu
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Pal.mas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Subject: Garfield Condos (SDP 89-13/cp 89-51~s-806)
SCH# 89091311
Dear Mr. Neu:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document
selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none
the state agencies have coments. This letter acknowledges that you hi
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Ac'
Please call Garrett Ashley at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questil
regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghor in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so tl
we may respond promptly.
Sincerely,
complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for dri
".wr/LI, L
David C. Nunenkamp
Chief
Office of Permit Assistance
e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. SDP 89-13/CP 89-f
DATE : September 1, 1985
I. BACKGROUND '
1. APPLICANT: ' A1 Durant
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 340 Atteburv Road
San Marcos. CA 920i
(619) 744-8681
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: May 26, 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
YES MAYBE - NO
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?
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-2-
0 a
- 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. 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-
w 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 Ugset - 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?
- YES MAY BE NO -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-4-
e 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. Enersv - 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
w e - YES- MAY BE - NO
18. Aesthetics - Will the p.roposa1 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. 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 DroDosed 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.
Proi ect DescriDtion:
The project proposes development of a one lot 4-unit condominium project on a .27 acre site presently occupied by a single family residence. The
project appears as two duplexes connected by an enclosed storage area.
Two driveways provide vehicular access to the onsite two car garages
proposed as required by the Zoning Ordinance. To the north and south
of the site are single family residences. To the east is a duplex. To
the west of the site are condominiums. The area in general consists of a variety of multiple family units and older single family residences. The General Plan designation for the area is RH (High Density 15-19 du/ac) and the zoning is R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential). The property is also within the Beach Area Overlay Zone.
a) The project is too small to phase.
b) Alternate site designs were explored. Alternate site designs do
proposed for each unit. A total of two onsite guest parking spaces are
not provide more environmental benefits.
c) The proposed scale of developments complies with all city requirements. The project is proposed at the lowest end of the General Plan density range for the property.
-6-
0 e
21 Continued
d) Alternate uses for the site would be inconsistent with the Gener
Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and Zoning Ordinance.
e) Would continue the existing single family residence on the si with no significant environmental advantage.
f) Alternate sites for the proposed project could be eyplbred git
the number of beach lots in the area, however, the propos
complies with existing requirements, is at the low end of t
density range, and is adjacent to multiple family development
g) The no project alternative would retain the existing single fami residence which is inconsistent with the General Plan and Zoni designations for the site.
-7-
- w YES MAY BE - NO
22. Mandatory findinss of s.isnificance -
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.)
c. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (llCurnulatively 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
X
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? X
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. Earth - No earth resources will be disturbed. The site is
presently developed with an existing single family residence.
The project requires the import of 1,100 cubic yards to make the
lot drain to the street.
Rev. 1
-8-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMEN - EVALUATION (Continued) 0
2. Air - The project will not create objectionable odors or pro&
emissionsthat will significantly deteriorate ambient air qualit The projects low height of 22 feet, 9 inches and the single stc element that connects the two duplexes will not disturb air floa
3. Water - The project site will be graded so that surface water wi
drain to Garfield Street. Approximately 27 percent of the si will be landscaped so as not to significantly affect absorpti rates.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Plant Life - There are no rare or endangered species of plant lj on the site. Vegetation on site has been introduced from otl areas as it is not natural native vegetation.
Animal Life - Due to the disturbed nature of the site as well its location in an urbanized area, no animal life will disturbed.
Noise - The project adds three additional units to the site. small potential increase in noise may be evident. However, a E foot fence, landscaping, and adequate building setbacks wj reduce noise impacts from the site.
Liqht and Glare - The project will not significantly produce r
light or glare as only standard outdoor residential lighting wj be utilized.
Land Use - The project is consistent with the General Plan, Zonj
Ordinance and the requirements of the Beach Area Overlay Zor The density proposed is at the lowest end of the General PI
density range applicable to the property.
Natural Resources - The site is presently developed with a sin!
family residence. No natural resources exist on site.
Risk of Upset - The proposed land use does not require the use hazardous substances as it is not an industrial/manufactur: use.
Population - The proposal is in conformance with the General P:
and the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
Housinq - The proposal will provide additional housing units conformance with the General Plan and the density applicable the site.
TransPortation/Circulation - The project will generate a total
32 average daily vehicle trips. This is an increase of 22 tr: over that generated by the existing use. The additional tr. can be accommodated by the existing circulation system as tl were anticipated by the Local Facilities Management Plan for Z(
1. Onsite guest parking will be provided.
-9-
w e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
14. Public Services - The ' project is located in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Services will be provided through the
implementation of that zone plan.
15. Enersv - The project will not use substantial amounts of fuel or energy and is located in close proximity to the downtown area SO that typical vehicle trips to obtain goods and services can be
kept to a minimum thereby conserving fuel.
16. Utilities - Utilities exist within the right-of-way adjacent to the site and will be able to provide service to the project.
17. Human Health - The project will not create any health hazards.
18. Aesthetics - The project has been designed to incorporate the aesthetic concerns of the Beach Area Overlay Study and will not
obstruct any scenic vita or view open to the public.
19. Recreation - The project has a minor increase in recreational
needs. The project provides private recreation areas in side and
rear yards for the condominium units.
20. Archeolosical/Historical/Paleontoloqical - The project site is presently developed and there is no evidence of significant resources of this nature being located on this site. The existing structure is not an historic resource.
-10-
e m
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 siqnifici
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.
9,A/ g9 Date Signature
\ .. Q/&q &d+a&
date Planning' Dirdor
V.MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-11-
w
MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued) w
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
DN: af
-12-