The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-10-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 3126W 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 ll PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3126 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT SIX CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND A SEAWALL ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF OCEAN STREET AND GRAND AVENUE. CASE NAME: ST. TROPEZ WEST CASE NO.: CT 90-7/PUD 90-11/HDP 90-15/V 90-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of October, a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te: arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted bJ considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered relating to the Conditional Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Cor follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning ( hereby APPROVES the Conditional Negative Declaration according to Exhibit July 10, 1990, and "PII", dated July 3, 1990, attached hereto and made a : based on the following findings and conditions: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that the proposed project could have a significant in environment; however, there will not be a significant impact in this case mitigation measures descriied in the initial study have been added to the pr 2. The site has been previously disturbed by existing development and impacte' activities. 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significan by this project provided that mitigating con&tions of approval are complied *. W w 1 2 3 4 5 6 Conditions: 1. This project if approved is subject to all conditions contained in Planning C Resolution Nos. 3127, 3128, 3129, and 3130 plus compliance with the mitigation condition: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first, a soils 1 be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad. If the soils report in presence of potential fossil bearing material then a standard two phased prog in the Planning Department, shdl be undertaken to avoid possible significant paleontological resources under the direction of the Planning DepartmenL 7 11 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning C 8 9 10 11 12 13 of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of October, 1990, by the follc to wit: AYES: Commissioners: Schlehuber, Erwin and Marcus. NOES: Chairperson Schramm and Commissioner McFadden. ABSENT: Commissioners Hall and Holmes. I.4 iI ABSTAIN: None. 15 16 17 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 3126 -2- 28 .. 1 w rw STATE OF CALIFORNIA4FFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ' GEORGE DEUK OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 August 17, 1990 Don Neu City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Subject : St. Tropez West SCH# 9001 071 5 Dear Mr. Neu The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental docu selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and n the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that 'J complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Qualit Please call Terri Lovelady at (916) 445-0613 if you have any q1 regarding the environmental review process. kihen contacting the Clear: in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number we may respond promptly. Sincerely, 9.4-L David C. Nunenkamp Deputy Director, Permit Assistance ... ... .- .* - - - - CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 2901 Ocean Street - Southwest corner of the intersection of Ocean street and Grand Avenue. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A six unit condominium project and a seawall. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Conditional Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. ' A copy of the Conditional Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. , f' A ,. DATED: July 10, 1990 CASE NO: CT 90-7PUD 90-11MDP 90-15/V 90-2 Planning Director APPLICANT: ST. TROPE2 WEST (Charles Rowe) PUBLISH DATE: JULY 19, 1990 ' : 6. : _* ; , , "L- " ' 1' , ~ .Ih , 6, e.. MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER DN:lh 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161 W W ENVIRONMENTAL WAC" ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PWWNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 90-7/PUD gO-ll/HDP 90 DATE: JULY 3, 1990 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: ST. TROPEZ WEST 2. APPLICANT: CHARLES ROW 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: PO BOX 142 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (619) 434-3125 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: MARCH 1,1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AND A SEAWAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the e The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. 7 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an En Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that tl any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" wi to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any a project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can insinnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings YES-sig" and respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of thc DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given tc mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. w PHYsx~-ENvIRoNMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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 come or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood 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- - vi? - - - - - - - - - - YES NO (insel X - - X - - X - X - - X - X - X - X - X X - - x w w BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 12. Affect the diversity of speaes, 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 .mount 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? HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 17. '. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? -3- as - - - - - x$s - - E$ I - - - E& - - - HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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? 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? -4- v ES - - - - - - - - - E$ - - - - - - - - - NO X X X X x X X X X X X X X X w MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: as E8 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- 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.) - - - 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - c -3- w - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. The project site is presently subject to erosion caused by wave action. The proposed design will stabilize the site by constructing a seawall along the western property line. A report titled "Report of Geotechnical Investigation," dated April 17, 1989 prepared by Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc. lists recommendations for development of the site. Addendum No. 1 to the "Report of Geotechnical Investigation," dated April 16, 1990 states that the proposed plans are in conformance with the recommendations of the report. The geotechnical investigation found the majority of the site to be covered with poorly consolidated marine terrace deposits. No obvious geologic hazards were observed in any of the subsurface explorations. The main concern on this site will be the proper treatment of loose compressible soil as outlined in the report. The project design steps the building down the slope utilizing structural retaining walls and importing 3,267 cubic yards of fill dirt to create a series of level floor areas. A total of 130 cubic yards of cut are also proposed. The proposed grading and walls will stabilize the site. 2. The topography of the site will not be significantly changed. The greatest height of fill to be placed on areas of the project site will raise the elevation approximately 10 feet. Thi: increase in elevation occurs in the western portion of the site. The resulting new grade levels will be comparable to the existing development to the south and is necessary to provide the structure protection from wave action resulting from coastal storms. The proposed structure utilizes a number of different levels so that the change in topography can be minimized a: much as possible. The site possesses no unique physical features, presently contains ar existing building, and is bordered by existing development with the exception of the Pacific Ocean to the west. 3. The project design includes a seawall that will abut up against an existing seawall to thl south in addition to extending across the frontage of the 40 foot wide public beach acces to the north. Extending the wall to the north and south as shown on the project plans wil prevent the erosion of soils on and off site which could be caused by wave diffraction. Thl use of retaining walls as proposed on site will further reduce the potential for soil erosion 4. The proposed seawall location will increase protection afforded to both the Public Beac access and the adjacent property to the north as compared to a string-line alignment whic is documented in the report titled "Effect of String-line Seawall Alignment, 2901 Ocea Street, Carlsbad, California," dated August 18, 1989 prepared by Group Delta Consultant Inc. This will cause a reduction in the deposition of beach sands which is not considere significant as the site and adjacent property will be protected from fuiher wave erosion. 5. The project will not have a significant effect on ambient air quality as it will generate on 48 Average Daily Vehicle Trips thereby not producing a substantial amount of vehic emissions. 6. The proposed building setbacks will provide for air movement to adjacent properties. -6- w - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION - PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT (Continuedl: 7. The project will change the course of marine waters as the proposed seawall will lirr landward extend to which waves will reach. This is necessary to protect the pro development during coastal storms and is not considered to be a negative impact as ad properties will also be protected. 8. The quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water.supply will 1 significantly impacted by this project as the only on site waters that will be directed t the ocean will be from on-site drainage. In addition, the project will obtain water and service from the City of Carlsbad. 9. The projec?: site which presently contains an existing structure and is adjacent to devr properties contains no natural resources of environmental significance. 10. Because of the project’s relatively small scale it is not expected to use substantial am of fuel or energy. 11. The project site which has been disturbed by urban activities contains no evider significant archeological or historical resources. The site, however, is located in ar containing soils determined to have a High Potential Fossil Content. Therefore, the standard mitigation measure concerning the soils report checking for the presence of bearing material and the related program has been required. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12. Vegetation on site consists primarily of introduced species including ice plant as tt presently contains a structure. 13. Existing species of vegetation on the property are not environmentally significant, ther the introduction of new species of plants will not cause an adverse impact. 14. No agricultural crop is grown on the project site which does not contain prime, unic other farmland of state or local importance. 15. As a result of existing development on and adjacent to the project site it is not valua habitat for any animal species. 16. Domestic animals added to the area as a result of this project will not result in a bar the migration or movement of animals because of the existing level of human activity immediate area including the beach. -7- - v DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION - HUMAN ENVIRONMENT: HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 17. The proposed project complies with the present and planned land use of the area as the site is designated RH (High Density Residential) on the General Plan Land Use Map and is zoned R-3 (Multiple Family Residential). The project's density as well as intensity of development is compatible with adjacent land uses. 18. Public utilities exist in the adjacent public street to serve the development and public services will be provided through the implementation of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. 19. Sewer lines exist in Ocean Street to service the project. 20. The proposed residential use which is bordered by existing development and a public beach will not significantly increase noise levels over the present ambient level. 21. The project will not produce new glare that will adversely impact adjacent uses based on the location of proposed fixtures shown on the plans. AU light fixtures will direct light down away from the perimeter of the site. 22. Because this is a residential project it will not involve a sidcant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances as such materials will not be stored on-site in large quantities. 23. The proposed density of 19 du/acre is within the range specified by the General Plan Land Use Designation for the site of 15-23 du/acre and does not exceed the growth control poinl of 19 du/acre. 24. The project will provide additional housing units to meet existing demand. 25. A total of 48 Average Daily Vehicle Trips will be generated by the project which will no1 significantly impact the circulation system. 26. The demand for parking facilities created by this project will be satisfied on site. Twc covered spaces will be provided for each unit. 27. The project is required to dedicate 5 feet along its Ocean Street frontage to accommodatf future improvements. The necessary dedication is shown on the project plans. This wiI enable the area circulation system to be upgraded as determined to be necessary by thc Engineering Department. 28. The project does not extend into the ocean to alter waterborne traffic and is not located nea a rail line. In addition the site is outside the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport. -8- v - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION - HUMAN ENVIRONMENT (Continued): 29. Adequate sight distance will be provided for all vehicle access points on site to facilital vehicular movement so as to not create a hazard to bicyclists or pedestrians. 30. Development of the project site which is designated for the proposed use will not cre interference with emergency response plans. 31. The project will not obstruct a scenic vista as views to the ocean along the,sideyard se wiU be provided and the project is adjacent to a 40 foot wide coastal beach acce: provides additional viewing opportunities of the scenic resource. The project design includes a great deal of architectural detail and various materials, landscaping and dea paving will create an aesthetically pleasing development. 32. Areas for private recreational amenities are proposed as well as passive and active co areas. -9- - v ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 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) alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. A) The relatively small scale of the project in regard to the number of urxits proposed, in addition to the single building design requiring that the site be graded at one time makes phasing of development impractical. B) The applicant has considered alternate site designs. The proposed site design most closely meets City standards and sufficient justification exists to grant the requested height and sideyard setback variances. C) The proposed project scale of development has been reduced in comparison to previous designs as the building height and grades have been reduced, the building coverage reduced from 48% to 43%, rear building elevations step back from one level to the next, and a larger initial sideyard setback is provided. D) . The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the site. E) Development at some future time rather than now has no environmental advantages since this is an infill site that presently contains a structure and is served by public utilities. F) The number of alternate sites for the project which are adjacent to the public beach are limited and have no environmental advantages since the project is consistent with existing land use plans and contains no sigmficant environmental resources. G) The no project alternative is not in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Designations for the property. -1 0- I(, , w w DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: - I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmen not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an a 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 EMrIR' IMPACT REPORT is required. &&isJ= dcm% Signature ; > 1' b!,L(- ; i : -( . \,\ '( __- ' #!:- 1 I, . .Liu(;: I. i Date Planning Director i LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE] Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first, a soils report shall be and submitted to the City of Carlsbad. If the soils report indicates the presence of poten bearing material then a standard two phased program, on file in the Planning Department undertaken to avoid possible significant impacts on paleontological resources under the di1 the Planning Department. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -11- w w APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THE rs TO CERTIM THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MJTIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 74-90 Date &dYy Signature /- DN:lh -12- ", ,. , w W T 0 > \. 2 0 8 z \ r( d 0 n 2 \ b 0 F U cn .. 6 m z 3 z w CL =! $ z $ 5 s 2 a €- 6 .. z 6 W 2 2 .. a z 2 2 5 z Q z 8 d 0 5 w w .. E a 2 > 5 a c v- u .E! 2 SzzI c; wb q c& ig ;? 'a a *g % m oe3 ;X& z.$ $i 0-0 2 .5 s 0 ;gz Ema au g ,E, 2 gC & 'E *g 2m d .? y s?-z !$ EE 2 $ -2 0s: .9 e- eo- - v1.n Y *- v) W as W u.u v)* GUM .t: 3 -$ (j 3 -g '.is mu u v) -0 5 q g 2= a;! 0 .- z 22 p 5 *$ 5 a 56 3 4-$ mvz EGW ZJE Y mu m WQ ve gq 32 3 j ;%; .g 2 3 s *i% :ad$ s 2-5g e? &: 5.s 8 qJ SEZ W *? 3 0, &Zt2 d- Y We m mao 0 v E-0 ,,Pa 0s: m 203s J 8 m W E e 0 .- -4 Y 3- >- WE v1 5 c. a E 0 s 2 v) -2 "a gg b4 0 -2 i *3 (0 z a E $ s 3 C 0 'C .- z - E -9 w -4 0 2yE El 25sgG$2a ca $%%, o c B $ m5@*$Ern %2 &g3 E "z 8 3 i32 w +2 0 5 ." 4 v) Gas a- am "% B v)q 2 w$z=.22 5 -3m:oecm ka~ .e k 0 w *- OB 6 a*g2 5 p. o U~U E E6 S ;Wmcmgzs g oaabaa * ow2 .5 gz.5.2 & *54Y * aJ% &+." aJ G v) So5 Q1gL 03 0 0 e03-5 nsg,, WB ck 4 *!5;3g Z%Zk E 22.E gg Z"10,J 3c gq: 5 p.ga4m .5,rnWU 53-z !ia sev) op v 2.5 v) .5 3 g 1 % c w a Y Q) 73 rl a s 2 z*(0 U *Ti2 5a-j E& C .E! z 3 .z :g g g %a v & WZ3 23 *2 .E s% ;j &sgs (a3 5 boo, E E -2 .y 2 6 Y os as 2 z-3 $ 22!$€ b ag 5 2fc: W 0 2.5 2 s 2:s 0528 f.2 W .E EC !iGb 6305 e 2.c .? E*= v Q) W g&: 'E 0 *o 0 y k e-z i iucua *a E; t E u'C3.E -g n 5 -2 7 Gas E j 0; VWCpW' *- a a ~n-~d Em E WU 3; sbr Goa€ l!=MCt z E 3 11 $ 655 c I 2 " 11 2 d a.2 5; :a$ g$- €-z.cn>r R CW