HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 2988I/ 0 e
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. 2988
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO
DEVELOP A 28 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT.
APPLICANT: BAWALK
CASE NO.: CT 89-22/PUD 89-10
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of April, l!
18th day of April, 1990, hold duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to (
request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tc
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted 1
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considere
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Cc
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to 1
dated November 15, 1989, and "PII", dated November 9, 1989, attached here
a part hereof, based on the following findings:
FindinRs:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the projec
significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental a
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposec
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be
impacted by this project.
""
....
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of t
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of April, I
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Holmes, McFal 1 Marcus & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Schlehuber.
ABSTAIN: None.
8
9
10
I'
12
ATTEST:
SHARON SCHRA", Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
13 2 ~I /h$ ,jAl j ,/".,/'a" .)
14
15
MICHAEL J: HOLZF~ILLE~-;
0 .iI ~ i;i 4, . ' ,? 4 - , ;.,')I, ;; . !
./\, q <-I I;</ ;
I k."&+y3; ;J-L $' j . L?/ .
PLANNING DIRECTOR
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24 11 25
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 2988 -2-
28
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 T m Street, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 -- @/445-0613
WTIcE OF CCWLETIQI At0 EWIROYEWTAL WQWE~T F= jY*._ See NOTE Be
1. Project Title Bavwalk (CT 89-22/PW 89-10)
2. Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad 3. Contact Person: Christer Westman
3a. Street Address: 2075 Las Palmas Or. 3b. City: Carlsbad
3c. County: San Dieno 3d. Zip: 92009 3e. Phone: (619) 438-116'
PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: San Dieqo 4a. City/Comn#lity: Carlsbad
Lb.(optional) Assessorls Parcel No. 206-120-01.02.09.10.11 4c. Railways: ATgSF Schools: Jefferso
5a. Cross streets: Harrison St., & Chimapin Ave. 5b. Total acres: 2.5
6. Within 2 miles of: a. State Huy No. 5 b. Airports c. Uateruays Aqua Hedionda Lag
7. DOCUMENT TYPE 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE
- CEQA 01 - General Plan Update 01 X Residential: Units 28 Acrt
01 - NOP
02 - Early Cons
03 X Neg Dec
04 - Draft EIR
05 - Supplement/
(if so, prior SCH #
Subsequent EIR
1
- NEPA
06 - Notice of Intent
07 - Envir. Assessment/
02 - New Element
03 - General Plan AmeKtnent
04 - Master Plan
05 - Annexation
06 - Specific Plan
07 - Redevelopnent
08 - Rezone
09 X Land Division
(Subdivision, Parcel Map. Tract Hap, etc.)
10 - Use Permit
02 - Office: Sq. Ft.
Acres Enpl oyees
03 - Shopping/Ccmnercial: Sq. Ft.
Acres ERployees
04 - Industrial: !Sq. Ft.
Acres ERployees
05 - Sewer: MGD
06 - Water: MGD
07 - Transportation: Type
08 - Mineral Extraction: Mineral
FONSI
08 - Draft EIS 11 - Cancel Ag Preserve 09 - Pouer Generation: Uattage
- OTHER 12 X Other Planned Unit Type:
09 - Information Only Development 10 - Other!
10 - Final Docunent 9 TOTAL ACRES:
11 - Other:
11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCWENT
01 - Aesthetic/Visual 08 - Gcologic/Seismic 15 - Sewer Capacity 22 - Uater
02 - Agricultural Land 09 - Jobs/Hwsing Balance 16 - Soil Erosion 23 - Met la1
03 - Air auality 10 - Minerals 17 - Solid Uaste 24 - Wild1
04 - Archaeological/Historical/ 11 - Noise 18 - Toxic/Hazardous 25 - Grout1
Paleontological 12 - Public Services 19 - Traffic/Circulation 26 - Incorn(
05 - Coastal 13 - Schools 20 - Vegetation 27 - Cun~l,
06 - Fire Hazard 14 - Septic Systems 21 - Uater Quality 28 - Other
-07 - Flocding/Drainage
12 FUNDING (approx.) Federal J State t Total J
13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOnES/RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-MJLTIPLE/RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM H
14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 28 TOUNHOnES UITH ATTACHED GARAGES ADJACENT TO EXISTING MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING, AHEI
AND SPA.
15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE: 1- (1"k Date: // ' / 2
NOTE: Clearinghouse nil1 assign identification nunbers for all nen projects. If a SCH Nunber alreacty exi W
project (e.g. fran a (Notice of Preparation or previous draft docwnt) please fill it in.
m 0
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESSLOCATION: Southeast corner of Harrison Street and Chinc
Avenue.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 28 townhome development on 2.5 acres of land 1(
in the residential multi-family zone. 206-120-01, 02, 09, 10,ll.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above des
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environr
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad.
result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not :
significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justif
for this action is on file in 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 fro
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department
thirty (30) days of date of issuance.
DATED: November 15, 1989
CASE NO: CT 89-22jPUD 89-10 Planning Director
APPLICANT: Gregory Hayden
PUBLISH DATE: November 15, 1989
CW:af
2075 Las Palmas Drive Carisbad. California 92009-4859 - (619) 43E
w 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM = PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 89-22/PUD 85
DATE : NOVEMBER 9, 19E
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: GREGORY HEYDON
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 17802 SKYPARK CIRCLE,
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 9;
(714) 752-7520
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED:
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?
de 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?
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-
0
YES MAYBE
w w
- 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 plants)? X
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-
MAY BE - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
w 0
YES MAY BE
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 Uwet - 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. 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?
-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. 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 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 - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
w 0
- 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. Archeolosical/Historical/Paleontolosical - 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 proposed Project such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site desi! c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
-6-
w - - YES MAY BE NO
22. Mandatorv findinas of sianificance -
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
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
relatively brief, definitive period of
c. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (IgCumulatively con- siderablell 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 - The site is essentially flat and significant amounts of earth movement are not required or proposed.
2. Air - There will not be any air emissions, creation of objectionable odors or alteration of air movement.
3. Water - The project is not adjacent to any man-made or nature bodies of water nor will it have significant effects on public
water supply.
-7-
w e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
4.
5,
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Plant Life - There are existing mature trees onsite. A la: portion of those trees are part of an existing avocado groi Because the grove is not for commercial purposes and is loca* within a residential zone, it could not be considered agricultural crop.
Animal Life - There is currently residential development on site with related domestic animal habitation. There is indication of any endangered or rare species.
Noise - The project will not generate noise, however, will
impacted by the freeway corridor.
Liaht and Glare - Onsite lighting will be low level and direc, interior to the project.
Land Use - The proposal is consistent with current land .
designations.
Natural Resources - The project is not dependent on the use of I
natural resources.
Risk of UDset - The project does not involve any toxins
explosive materials.
PoDulation - The project will not have significant effects population increase.
Housing - The project will provide housing.
Transportation/Circulation - As a residential project, additio' trip generation will be limited to residents of the project some visitor traffic. Estimated ADT for the entire project
224. Parking will be provided onsite.
Public Services - The project will not have a direct effect on ' need of new services. The need for services will be determil through the implementation of the Zone 1 Local Facilit. Management Plan.
Enersv - The residential nature of the project does not requ the use of substantial amounts of fuel.
Utilities - Existing facilities are adequate to support . proposed project .
Human Health - Residential development is typically not harm
to human health.
rb
Aesthetics - The proposed architecture is compatible w
surrounding properties and the site does not have any signific view value.
-8-
W - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
19. Recreation - The project will not reduce any recreational facility
and will provide facilities onsite for the use of residents within
the pro j ect
20. Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - The site has no known
significant archeological, historical or paleontological value.
-9-
W 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 the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION Will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signific effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effec this case because the mitigation measures described on an attact
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 thl environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
\I *\-+q IJLL-
Date v " SignatuGe
i I/\ 3/@ . -1 -b&&L.wd '6 1 i &
i 'Date Planning DGector
v. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
1. Existing mature trees shall be saved or relocated where possible or replaced on a one to one basis with mature box s trees. 36" box minimum.
2. Subject to noise mitigation.
-10-
W - 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.
i /- /a .- _- \ JLA 7 ,/" 4. I' bob', 13, l7& 7 "Y j /- $
Date Signature
CW:af
-11-