The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-07-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 3276i li 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3276 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW A SIX-UNIT CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. CASE NAME: LUCIERNAGA TOWNHOMES CASE NO: CT 90-28/CP 90-7/HDP 90-41 7 8 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of July, 1991, 9 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering al: 10 11 testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the informatior submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Plannin$ 12 II 11 Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. 13 14 15 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 16 as follows: I? B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannin; 18 Commission hereby APPROVES of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibi "ND", dated May 2, 1991, and "PII", dated November 13, 1990, attached heretl NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissior 19 and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 2o 21 Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project ma 22 have a significant impact on the environment. 23 24 2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the propose 27 26 3. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significant 25 project. impacted by this project. 28 II 0 * 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannin Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of July, 1991, b the following vote, to wit: 2 3 4 5 6 7 €3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 AYES: Chairperson Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Savaq Erwin, Noble and Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Schramm. ABSTAIN: None. ROBERT HOLMES, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 3276 -2- 28 NEGATnrE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Luciemaga Townhomes. North side of Luciemaga Street, west of Urubu Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Three two-unit townhomes (6 units) on a pre-graded intill lot. 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 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 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. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackbum in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4471. DATED: MAY 2, 1991 %#io- CASE NO: CT 90-28/CP 90-7/HDP 90-41 Planning Director APPLICANT: JOSEPH WONG DESIGN ASSOCIATES PUBLISH DATE: MAY 2,1991 MICHAEL J. HOLZMKIER m:km 2075 Las Palrnas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161 0 e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 90-28/CP 90-7/HDP 9041 DATE: November 13, 1990 IKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Luciernaga Townhomes 2. APPLICANT: Joseph Wonx - Desim Associates 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2359 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 233-6777 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: July 31, 1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Three two-unit townhomes (total of six units) on a pregraded lot. VIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ITE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an ironmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. : Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist mtifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and vides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental )act Report or Negative Declaration. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate this determination. An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed respectively. .iscussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under KUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing Ligation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. insimificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig' e PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? 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? Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? -2- 0 YES YES big) (insig) - - - - NO X X X x X X X X x X X %OLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT W .L THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local - importance? Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? HUMAN ENVIRONMENT .L THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: Alter the present or planned land use of an area? Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? YES YES NO big) (insig) X X . " .. X X X YES YES NO (six) (insig) x - - X - - -3- 0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 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- e YES YES (six) NO (insig) X X X X 'X X X X X X X X X X m w MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE LL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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. 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.) 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.) . Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES YES NO big) (insig) X X X X -5- e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 0 Proiect Description The proposed project is a six-unit condominium project on a 0.77 acre infill lot. The lot is surrounded 1 duplex condominium uses on the south across Luciernaga Street and north, multi-family on the east, and 2 undeveloped lot on the west. The site contains steep slopes on all sides, sloping downward from the non and east to the south and west. The proposed six units are allowed by Growth Management at the growl control point. The project as planned meets or exceeds all required City standards. Physical Environment 1. The project includes cut and fill grading quantities totaling 1,040 cubic yards of cut and 240 cubic yarc of fill, resulting in a net export of 800 cubic yards. No unstable earth conditions will be created. TI project will be subject to all standard City Engineering conditions. 2. The project will not appreciably change the topography of the site. It is a pregraded site. 3. All necessary drainage and erosion control will be provided to handle runoff from the site. 4: There will be no impacts on beaches, channels, rivers, streams, bays, inlets or lakes. The site contai: . ” .- no beaches or water bodies. 5. The project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on ambient air quality. It will generate on 48 new trips per day, Luciernaga Street has adequate capacity to handle these additional trips. 6. The project will not result in substantial changes in movement, odor, moisture, or temperature. T: project includes residential structures with a maximum height of approximately 26 feet and a minimu 15-foot separation between structures. 7. The project will not change the course or flow of waters. There are no water bodies on or in clo proximity to the site. Drainage from any flooding will be handled by existing and/or proposed faciliti in Local Facilities Zone 6 plan. 8. There will be no impacts on the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public waf supply. Water will be supplied by the Vallecitos Water District. 9, The project will not substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources, No natu~ resources exist on the site. 10. The project will not use substantial amounts of fuel or energy. It consists of three two-unit resident structures. 11. The project site does not contain any archaeological, paleontological or historical resources. -6- W SCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont’d dopjcal Environment . The project will not affect the diversity of species, habitat or number of any species of plants. The site is a pregraded lot containing mostly weeds and some grasses. . The project will not introduce new species of plants into the area nor be a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species, The site currently contains mostly weeds and some grasses. . The project will not affect any agricultural crop or farrnland of state or local importance. The site is not designated or used as farmland. . The project will not affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of animal species. There is no wildlife or habirat on the site. . The project will not introduce new animal species nor result in a barrier to migration or movement of animals. lman Environment . The project complies with the present and planned land uses for the area. It is designated RMH (Residential-Medium to High Density) on the General Plan Map and is zoned RDM (Residential-Multi- Family). #. The project will not substantially affect public utilities or public services. Public utilities to serve the site already exist. Public services will be provided through the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan. 1. The project will be served by the existing sewer system. I. The project, when completed, will not increase noise levels. Short-term insignificant noise may result from construction activities. . The project will not produce new light or glare. The proposed use is residential use on an infill lot. !. The project is residential. Residential uses do not generally involve any significant risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances. I. The proposed net density of the six unit project is 11.32 dwelling units per acre, within the allowable range (8-15 du/ac) for the RMH designation and just under the growth control point (1 1.5 du/ac). I. The project will provide additional housing units to meet existing demand. i. The 48 additional trips per day generated by the project will not have a significant impact on the street system. -7- 0 e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION cont’d 26. The demand for parking facilities created by this project will be satisfied on site. The project wi provide a two-car garage for each unit and three guest spaces. 27. The project will not significantly impact existing transportation systems nor alter circulation patterr or movement of people and/or goods. 28. The project will not alter waterborne, rail or air traffic. The site is not near any water bodies, rail line:: or airport activities. 29. The project will not increase traffic hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. It is located on public street developed to City standards. 30. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. The sit is accessible for emergency vehicles. 31. The project will not obstruct any scenic vista nor create an aesthetically offensive view. 32. The project will provide private and common recreation areas. A common recreational area c approximately 1,375 square feet will contain a spa. Each unit will have a private patio. -8- e W XYSIS 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) No phasing is planned. The project involves only six units on one lot. b) The proposed site design is the result of discussion with staff and meets with staff approval. The proposed design provides numerous design benefits. c) The project as proposed is consistent with the scale of development in the area. The development is at the growth control point and exceeds amenities as required by regulations. No benefit would result from a lesser scale project. d) The project is consistent with the planned land uses for the site. The surrounding uses are all similar residential uses. e) All City services are already available for this infill lot. There is no advantage in delaying the development of the site. f) The proposed project does not preclude development of similar uses on other sites. g) The proposed project is consistent with the planned land use of the site. There is no advantage to leaving the site undeveloped. It is an infill lot surrounded by other residential uses. -9- T. " 0 0 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 on the environment, and a NEGATN DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wi 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 ENVIRONMENTA IMPACT REPORT is required. i I A 9.- /7"4/ 2:k7:A % /&,/Ai d" I- Date Signature a'.?!* I 4) $Qr&4a -) 3 ate Planning Director ' . ... 0 ZB:rvo:km LST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) .TTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -10- a m 'LICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT 1 HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature -11-