Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-01-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 2954e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2954 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TC CREATE NINE LOTS AND DEVELOP EIGHT ZERO LOT LINE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF UNICORNIC STREET BETWEEN CACATUA STREET AND CORINTIA STREET. APPLICANT: UNICORN10 PATIO HOMES CASE NO.: CT 89-17/PUD 89-8 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day 1990, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to cc request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and cons testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, 1 Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declar; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Cc fol 1 ows : 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 September 22, 1989, and 'I September 12, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, t following 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 graded pursuant to an earlier er analysis. 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic gener; proposed project. 4. There are no sensitive resources 1 ocated onsi te or 1 ocated significantly impacted by this project. 1 /I 0 e /I PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of thc '11 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day 0' 211 1990, by the following vote, to wit: 3 4 5 6 AYES: Chairman Hall , Commissioners: Schramm, Erwinl NOES : None. ABSENT : None. McFadden, Holmes & Marcus. 7 /I ABSTAIN: Commissioner Schlehuber. 8 9 lo 11 ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSII 12 I-3 14 PLANNING DIRECTOR 15 16 17 18 19 2o I 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 2954 1 I -2- 28 I /' NEGATNE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESSILOCATION: 2762 & 2808 Unicornio Streetlnorth side of Unicornio between Cacatua Street and Corintia Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Unicornio Patio Homes - A 9 lot tentative map and an 8 unit P1 Unit Development on a 1.05 acre site. The proposed units are detached single residences each on a separate lot. The project also has a common open space lot. The Cily of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described I pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality A the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said rec Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact ( environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the PI, Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the put invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) I date of issuance. DATED: September 22, 1989 CASE NO: CT 89-1 7IPUD 89-8 Planning Director APPLICANT: Kent Forgeon PUBLISH DATE: September 22, 1989 DN:kd 2075 Las Palmas Drive * Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 * (619) 43& e a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 - (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO.: CT 89-17/PUD 89- DATE : September 12, I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: Kent Forseon 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 185 Chinmapin, Carlsbad CA 92008 (619) 434-1346 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: June 13, 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 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 1 0 e YES 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 glants) ? 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- MAY BE j 0 @ YES 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 UDset - 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. Pormlation - 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? 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? MAYBE -4- @ e UES MAY BE 1 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. Enerw - 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- a a YES MAY BE 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? 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the DroDosed project such as: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site desig1 c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the I e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. The project consists of a 9 lot Tentative Map and an 8 unit P1; Development on a 1.05 acre site located on the northwest Unicornio Street and Cacatua Street. The proposed units arc square feet each with an attached two car garage. Each unit I a separate lot and be two stories, Lot sizes range from 4,430 SI to 4,735 square feet. Lot 9 is a common open space lot ( driveways and landscaped open space areas. To the north of thj condominiums and single family residences. To the south and condominiums. To the west are single family residences. Tk lower in elevation then property to the north and consisl previously graded pads. a) Phased development of the project would not be an envirc superior alternative as the project site has been previou: and surrounding properties are presently developed. single family residences ranging in size from 2,450 square fee' b) Alternate site designs have been considered such as utilizin units, Such a proposal is not a superior design as thc detached 8 units provide a good transition between sin! development to the west and multiple family development to In addition the project is at the low end of the density -6- m a c) The proposed scale of development is within city standarc number of units proposed is at the low end of the density proposed building heights are less than 25 feet. d) Alternate uses for the site could consist of two-family or family dwellings as both are permitted by the RD-M (Re Density - Multiple) zone. The proposed use is preferr provides a good transition from the single family developmc west to the multiple family development to the east. e) Development at some future time rather than now would con vacant nature of the site. This would be inconsistent General Plan and Zoning designations for the site which perm; high density residential development. f) Alternate sites for the proposed project could be explored number of vacant lots in the area, however, the proposal corn1 existing requirements, is at the low end of the density I the site was previously graded. g) The no project alternative would retain the existing vaca lot which is inconsistent with the General Plan ar designations. - - -i - rn 0 YES MAY BE 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 endure well into the future.) time while long-term impacts will c. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (llCumulatively con- siderablel' 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 1. Earth - No environmentally significant earth resources or im] be caused by development of the proposed project. The sit6 regrading due to the 6 foot elevation difference between the tw pads. 2. .Air - The project will not create objectionable odors or produce that will significantly deteriorate ambient air quality as residential project. The projects low height of less than 2! the separation between buildings will not disturb air flows. -8- 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) 3. Water - The project site will be graded so that surface water w to Unicornio Street. Approximately 53 percent of the site landscaped so as not to significantly affect absorption rates. 4. Plant Life - There are no rare or endangered species of plant li site. The site has been previously graded with existing v consisting of weeds and grasses as well as some ice plant on slopes. 5. Animal Life - Due to the disturbed nature of the site as we: location in an area surrounded by development, no signif ica~ population is likely to be disturbed. 6. Noise - The project will result in 8 units being construct€ project site as opposed to a maximum of 12 units which could PO be developed on this property. A small potential increase in be evident. However, the site is lower in elevation than prop the north and 6 foot high stucco textured privacy walls constructed around proposed private yards. The site is separ property to the south by Unicornio Street which has a 60 foot way. 7. Liaht & Glare - The project will not significantly produce new glare as only standard outdoor residential lighting will be ut addition to two driveway lights mounted 42 inches off the grounc of the two main driveways. 8. Land Use - The project is consistent with the General Plan a Ordinance. The density proposed is at the lowest end of the Ger density range applicable to the property. The project also F good transition between existing single family development to and multiple family development to the east. 9, Natural Resources - The site has been previously graded. N resources exist on site. 10. Risk of Uwet - The proposed project does not require the use of substances as it is not an industrial/manufacturing use. 11. Population - The proposal is in conformance with the General P1; Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6. 12. Housinq - The proposal will provide additional housing conformance with the General Plan and the density applicable to 13. TransDortation/Circulation - The project will generate a to average daily vehicle trips. The resulting vehicle trip accommodated by the existing circulation system as they were a1 by the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6. The projec required to pay the applicable Traffic Impact Fee and Thoroughfare District fee. Onsite guest parking will be prov: -9- , e e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) - 14. Public Services - The project is located in Local Facilities I! Zone 6. Services will be provided through the implementation of plan, 15. Enerav - The proposal will not use substantial amounts of fuel and is located approximately 2 miles from commercial development the daily needs of residents located on El Camino Real so thz trips to obtain goods and services can be kept to a minimal dj 16. Utilities - Utilities exist within the right-of-way adjacent tc and will be able to provide service to the project. Sewer project service availability letters have been obtained by the i 17. Human Health - The project will not create any health hazards a residential project proposed for an entirely residential area. is not impacted by unacceptable noise levels and is located we: the airport influence area of Palomar Airport. 18. Aesthetics - The project site will not obstruct any scenic vis. open to the public as it is lower in elevation than property to and is surrounded by existing development on all sides, Real proposed units will be enclosed by six foot high textured stucc walls. 19. Recreation - The project has a minor increase in recreational n project provides private recreation areas in side and rear yarl individual units. In addition a minimum of 200 square feet pt provided in front of the units on the common open space lot ( the required front yard setback as a flat grassy play area. 20. Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontoloaical-Theprojectsitewas] graded and there is no evidence of significant resources of tl being located on this site. ! -10- 0 e 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 0 the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significan effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect this case because the mitigation measures described on an attache( Declaration will be proposed. sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative -1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant *effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 9- /z- 89 - Signature Date A && ~~ ?ilspi Date ' V.MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) 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 DN: kd -11-