HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-07-09; Planning Commission; Resolution 30441
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 0
I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3044 I
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO SUBDMDE A 1.58 ACRE
LOT AND CONSTRUCT THREE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND
A COMMON LOT PRIVATE DRIVEWAY LOCATED SOUTH OF LA
COSTA AVENUE AND WEST OF LA CORUNA PLACE.
APPLICANT: LA CORUNA
CASE NO.: SDP 89-11/PUD 89-12/HDP 89-32
8
9
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of June, 1991
day of June, 1990, and the 9th day of July, 1990, hold a duly noticed public
10 prescribed by law to consider said request, and
11 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tes'
12
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered 13
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by
l4 11 relating to the Negative Declaration.
15
16
17
18
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Cor
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
I
19 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning ( 1 hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dai
2o I 1990, and Exhibit "PII", dated March 26, 1990, attached hereto and made a
based on the following findings:
21
22
Findings:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project
23
26
2. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the project because t Z5
with hillside development guidelines. 24
significant impact on the environment because no development is propc
constrained portions of the site and the proposed architecture and grading
density and design address the site's constraints.
27 11 .*-
28
It
0 0
1
2
3
4
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the propos
because the three single family residences with a projected 30 ADT (Average D
will be taking access off of La Coruna Place, an existing street serving a sir
neighborhood
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be si
portions of the site for construction, but vegetation on the constrained areas v 5 impacted by this project. Native shrubs and vegetation will be cleared from d
6
7
8
9
10
11
5. The project was required to complete a noise study to address any potential no
from La Costa Avenue. The study determined that buildout noise levels at tht
dl be 58.3 dbA and the interior noise levels wiU have to be mitigated by :
ventilation so as not to exceed 45 dbA Mechanical ventilation in the form of
Units has already been provided for each dwelling. Exterior decks facing La Co
on the second floor will exceed 60 dbA at buildout and would require mitit
such, the project has been redesigned to incorporate the mitigation measures (
study for the second floor decks facing La Costa Avenue so the project 1
subjected to any significant noise impacts.
12 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning (
l3 of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 9th day of July, 1990, by the follc
1411 to wit:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners : Schlehuber,
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Marcus, McFadden, Hall & Holmes.
ABSTAIN : None *
ATTEST:
r&&p;:- .* .. . , I . .
~. ..~ - -
SHARON SCHRA", Chairpersl
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMI!
2 4 ,: 4 I.( i -. ;,', I ,. i . i : I I. ,, *'I . , ./- .,
,'I , $,, ,,; , . , ( . ,.-~-& I ,I
j, ..* X,<]j :: t '>X I/ '< -.i;.., ; ! ,,\ +-; "-,. . . I /, .". 25 MICHAEL J, H~~ZMILLER
26 I/ PLANNING DIRECTOR
27
28 PC RES0 NO. 3044 -2-
0 tXHltjl I "NU"
7
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South side of La Costa Avenue with access from La Co
Place. APN: 216-160-22
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 4 lot Planned Unit Development with three single family deta
residences and a private driveway.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described pr
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said revie
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on fi
the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plar
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the publi
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 21 days of
of issuance.
DATED: March 27, 1990
CASE NO: SDP 89-11/PUD 89-12/HDP 89-32 Planning Director
APPLICANT: La Coruna
PUBLISH DATE: April 5, 1990
ENM:kd
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 - (619) 438"
1 EXHIBIT 'lPll" 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. SDP 89-ll/PUD 89-12/HD
DATE : March 26, 1990
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: La Coruna
2. APPLICANT: Joseph Lukoski
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2706 Via Roberto
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(6191 729-4340
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: July 14, 1989
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 4 lot subdivision, Planned Unit DeveloDn
for sinale family residences and private drivc ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3 I Article 5 I section 15063 requires tha' conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project n significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact E! appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This c identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be in the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no SP
evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significz on the environment. On the checklist, slNOsl will be checked to indi determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is SI:
evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sianificant effc environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration hc
adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can insisnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the l'YES-sigll and lsYES-insigss respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measurc
at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. I
attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts wh
otherwise be determined significant.
W PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 0
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: EF (X23 NO
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards? X
2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? X
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? X
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? X
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? X
6. Result in substantial changes in air
movement , odor, moisture, or temperature? x
7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? X
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply? X
9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? X
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site, structure or object? X
-2-
0 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 7% (i&Zf
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants) ?
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance?
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects?
16. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 7% (inySlEgf
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services?
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare?
-3-
W m HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: El?
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
?E%, NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-4-
0 0 W"ITORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
7% @g)
33. 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.
34. 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.)
35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively 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.)
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
-5-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONME w EVALUATION W
Physical Environment
The project proposes the subdivision of a 1.58 hillside lot into 4 lots three single family residences. A grading permit will be required so no uns. earth conditions or soil erosion conditions will result from this develop] NO substantial changes to site topography are proposed. There will be no im]
to air quality, movement, odor or temperature. The project's location pre. any impacts to beaches, lagoon or water bodies. The project will comply wit Engineering Standards so there will be no impacts to site drainage or surfac
ground water supplies. No cultural/archaeological resources have been ident on site.
Biolosical Environment
The site has native hillside vegetation with no distinguishing features il
steepest areas which will remain unaffected. The development will not elim. the habitat of significant or endangered plant or animal species. The dive:
or numbers of species of plants will not be impacted. New species will n(
introduced. The site is surrounded by an established residential area adjt
to La Costa Avenue. Therefore, plant and animal habitats and migration wil
be impacted. There is no agricultural use of land in the area to be affec
Human Environment
The project's residential land use and density are consistent with the c: Gmeral Plan and will not alter the present or planned land uses in the 2 The project is also consistent with the Local Facilities Management Plan for
6 so all public facilities, services and infrastructure including utilitie! sewer systems are available to service this project. Existing noise level: light and glare conditions will not be increased.
There is a potential for noise impacts from La Costa Avenue. The average sei from La Costa Avenue is 96 feet, and since the project involves less th
residential units, the project is not subject to the City's Noise Po] However, the project was required to prepare a noise study. That 5
determined buildout noise levels at the first floor at 58.3 dbA and recommf
the deletion of any second story balconies or decks. The project has conditioned to redesign the site development plan to eliminate any second 5 balconies or decks. Therefore, there will be no significant noise impacts
There is no significant risk of explosion as the use of hazardous material not proposed. By complying with the General Plan there will be no signifj
impacts to local traffic, the area's density distribution or local transport; systems. The proposed single family development will be compatible with exis
development. The project will not prevent the implementation of an emerc plan, degrade a scenic public vista or view or affect existing recreatj facilities.
In conclusion, the project is consistent with the General Plan and complies Hillside Development and Planned Unit Development regulations. The project
not have the potential to substantially degrade the environment or impact ar
or plant life. There are no endangered species or historical resources or site. Since the project complies with all applicable regulations and stand there will be no short-term environmental advantage at the cost of a long
effect. The scale of the cumulative effects of the project are insignificant
there will be no adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirec
resulting from this project. Staff will prepare a Negative Declaration.
-6-
e 0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site desigl
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.
a) Phasing is not justified for this 4 lot minor subdivision single family homes.
b) Alternate site designs would develop the property at less
maximum allowable density. However, the proposed site des:
the property to be developed at its maximum density while c
to hillside development regulations and proposing develog
in the non-constrained area of the lot.
c) An alternate scale of development could involve one or dwelling units. However, the proposed scale is compat
existing development and permitted by applicable regulatic
d) Only residential uses are allowed on the site.
e) Development at this time is appropriate.
f 1 N/A
g) The no project alternative would leave the site vacant; the owner wishes to develop at this time.
-7-
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Depar ment) rn' t'
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.
3- 2%. 90 & /v- M-*;9
J Date Signature
3/ 2-4 140
Date
31 2-4 140
I Date
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
/
-a-
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH e TIGATING MEASURES *
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASl
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
ENM: kd
-9-