Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 3069I1 9 e 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3069 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATlVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 12 AlTACHED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS ON TWO LOTS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LUCIERNAGA STREET BETWEEN CEBU PLACE AND URBU STREET. APPLICANT: COSTA PALMAS CASE NO: CT 89-38/PUD 89-18 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of August, duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tc arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted t: 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 recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exh;b;t "ND 26, 1990, and "PII", dated April 16, 1990, attached hereto and made a part 1, on the following findings: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the projecl significant impact on the environment. The proposed development is allowei land use designations and is compatiile with adjacent development 2. The site consists of two vacant inrm lots and has been previously graded pu earlier environmental analysis. 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the propc Luciemaga Street will be able to adequately serve the project and the estimate4 daily trips to be generated. 26 I1 41 There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significan by this project. 27 28 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 e 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of August, 1990, by the following vc AYES: Vice-chairman Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, McFa Marcus & Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairperson Schramm. ABSTAIN: None. CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMkLERd PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 3069 -2- 3 ./ 0 April 26 EAHlBl I n= I I C-a,-!nL- NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESSLOCATION: Lots 396 and 397 of La Costa Meadows, Unif 2, of Map 6905. APN: 215-330-13/14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 12 Unit Multi-family PUD with one common lot. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above descl project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environm 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 h: significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justific; for this action is on file in 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 6 public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department w 21 days of date of issuance. I DATED: April 26, 1990 MICHAEL J. HVOLZMILLER CASE NO: CT 89-38/E’UD 89-18 Planning Director APPLICANT: Costa Palrnas PUBLISH DATE: April 26, 1990 ENM:rvo 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-7 ____- i.m -. .. April 16, .". ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 89-38/PUD 89-1 DATE : April 16, 1990 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: COSTA PALMAS 2. APPLICANT: Kimyon Heim 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2856 Luciernasa Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-6694 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 21, 1989 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 12 Unit Attached PUD; multi-fami residences on an infill lot. I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3 , Article 5, section 15063 requires City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a PI have a significant effect on the environment. The Environment; Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checkli checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors thal impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with informatj as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no SI evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a s: effect on the environment. On the checklist, rrNO1r will be checked tc this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is s1 evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sisnificant effl environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration hc adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can insiqnif icant. These findings are shown in the checklist under thc llYES-sigrr and rrYES-insigrr respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measurt at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. : attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts wh otherwise be determined significant. ;' ., .m ." a. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: Egs, YES (insig) 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? 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? 5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? 6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? 7. Substantially change the course or flow of y,ater (marine, fresh or filood waters)? 8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? -2- (- @ . ”, 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YS (sig) Ensig) ’ 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? i HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES (sig) (insig) 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- ! .- .e HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig) 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 30. Tnterfere with emergency response plans or vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 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? -4- YES (insig) 6- 'W .. 0 .~ MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE YES (sig) YE2nsig) 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? (llCumulatively con- s'iderable" 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? i -5- "" - ." e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. The project requires cut and fill grading totaling approximate 9,000 cubic yards. The site was previously rough graded. unstable earth conditions will be created as the grading plan wi be required to meet City Engineering Standards. 2. The topography of the site will not be significantly changed. 3. Properties around the perimeter of the site have been develop with multi-family projects. The project will not result in or affected by erosion of soils as all necessary drainage and erosi control facilities will be provided to handle runoff from t site. 4. Due to the project's location, there will be no impacts beaches, rivers, streams, bays or lakes. 5. The project will not have a significant effect on ambient a quality as it will generate only 96 average daily vehicle trir 6. The project has a minimum 15 foot separation between t structures providing for adequate air movement. 7. Due to the project's location, there will be no impacts to marj or fresh water flows. Drainage waters from flooding will handled by existing and/or proposed facilities. 8. Surface waters will not be impacted by the project. Water wi be supplied to the site by the Carlsbad Municipal Water Distric 9. No natural resources exist on this previously graded site whj a is bordered by existing development and public improvements. 10. The project's relatively small scale (12 du's) will not I substantial amounts of fuel or energy. 11. This previously graded site is not known to contain E archeological or cultural resources. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12. Since the site has been previously graded, vegetation on sj consists primarily of weeds and grasses. 13. Existing species of vegetation on the' property are I environmentally significant, therefore, the introduction of I species of plants through landscaping will not cause an advel impact. i -6- (" ~W -- ". 0 14. The project will not affect any agricultural crops or uniq farmlands. 15. The site is not valuable as a habitat for any animal species. 16. Domestic animals of new residents added to the area as a resu of this project will not result in a barrier to the migrati movement of animals. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 17. The project complies with the present and planned land use of t area as the site is designated RMH (Residential Medium Hi Density) on the General Plan Land Use Map and is zoned RE (Residential Density-Multiple Zone). The proposed use compatible with adjacent uses. 18. Public utilities exist in the adjacent public street (Luciernag to serve the site. Public Services will be provide through t 6. implementation of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zc 19. Sewer systems exist to accommodate the use. 20. Construction of the project will result in short-ter insignificant noise impactsto surrounding residences. Otherwis the project is compatible with surrounding uses and will r create significant noise impacts. 21. Lighting on site will be directed so as to not impact adjace i properties. i 22. No significant risk of explosion or the release of hazardc substances is involved with this residential project. 23. The proposed net density of 8 du/acre is within the rar specified by the General Plan designation of RMH for the site E below the Growth Management Control Point of 11.5 du/acre. 24. The project will provide additional housing units to meet existj demand. 25. A total of 96 average daily vehicle trips will be generated the project which will not significantly impact the loc circulation system. 26. The demand for parking facilities created by this project will satisfied on site. Two garage spaces will be provided for e; unit in addition to 7 guest parking spaces provided on site. 27. Being an infill lot, development of the site will not alter 1 present patterns of circulation or movement of people and, goods. - - -1 - r. ,,. ~ I 'e 28. The project is not located near Palomar Airport or railroad rigk of ways. 29. One vehicular access point is proposed for the project and j located so as to no* cause any conflicts with traffic c Luciernaga Street. 30. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans. 31. The project will not obstruct any scenic vista or create i aesthetically offensive public view. 32. Areas for private recreational amenities are proposed. In conclusion, the proposed project meets all pertinent develo] regulations and does not have the potential to substantially degrad environment, affect plant or animal habitats or impact cull resources. There are no short-term environmental benefits to be g; at the cost of long-term effects. The cumulative impacts of project are insignificant and substantial adverse impacts to hu~ either directly or indirectly, are not anticipated from this pro: Staff will prepare a Negative Declaration. # -8- !- w ’. m ._ ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site design c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the s e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) The relatively small scale of the project makes phasing ( development impractical and is not environmentally superio: b) The applicant has considered alternate site designs. proposed project creates no significant environmental impa4 while being compatible with surrounding residential uses c) An alternate scale of development would not be ( environmentally superior alternative as the site has bel previously disturbed and contains no natural resources. d) The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoni designations for the site. e) Development at some future time rather than now has environmental advantages since this is an infill lot whi has been previously graded and utilities are available serve the site. f) There are alternative sites for the project; however, th have no environmental advantages and the proposal consistent with existing land use plans. g) The no project alternative is not in conformance with t i General Plan and zoning designations for the property. I -9- (. @ L .._i m DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: XI find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. -1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect this case because the mitigation measures described on an attache sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. -1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Yr /GJ- 90 E4 Pb-"L Date i Signature 4-1 Iglso Date LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) t ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -10-