The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-10-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 3299II 0 0 z 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 3.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3299 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARLSBAD TRACT MAP, AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO DEVELOP AN 8 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 902 LAGUNA DRIVE. CASE NAME: LAGUNA VILLAGE CASE NO: CT 91-O1/SDP 91-02/CP 91-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of October, 1991, ho a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony ar arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, ar considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered 2 factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission a follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannin: Commission APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", datec August 1, 1991, and "PII", dated July 22, 1991, attached hereto and made a par hereof, based on the following findings: Fin*: 1. The initial study shows that the proposed wiU not have a significant impact on tht environment. 2. The site has been previously disturbed by existing development and impacted by human activities. 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project. /I 0 0 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly impacted by this project. 1 (1 conditions: 2 1. This project is approved subject to all conditions contained in Planning 3 Commission Resolution Nos. 3300,3301, and 3302. 4 5 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 6 by the following vote, to wit: 7 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of October, 1991, 8 9 AYES: Vice-chairman Erwin, Commissioners: Schramm, Savary, Noble & Hall. 10 NOES: None. 11 ABSENT: Chairman Holmes. I.2 I1 ABSTAIN: Commissioner Schlehuber. 13 I! 14 15 16 17 ATTEST: b TOM ERWIN, Vice-chairman CAEILSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 2o I1 PLANNING DIRECTOR 21 22 23 25 24 26 i 27 PC RES0 NO. 3299 -2- 28 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 902 Laguna Drive, City of Carlsbad, California. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of an 8 dwelling unit residential Planned Development to include grading on a level infill lot and 8 separate single-family dwelling units. 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 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 21 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4455. review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a sigmficant DATED: AUGUST 1,1991 - MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER CASE NO: CT 91-1/SDP 91-2/CP 91-2 Planning Director APPLICANT: GALEY & KEMMERLY HOMES PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 1,1991 JGkm 2075 Las Palmas Drive * Carlsbad. California 920094859 * (619) 438-1 161 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART U (TO -BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 91-1/SDP 91-2/CP /91-2 DATE: JULY 22, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Lanuna Village 2. APPLICANT: Galev 8~ Kemmerlv Homes 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7720 El Camino Real, #2M Carlsbad CA 92009 (619) G 5 2 - 6032 4. DATE EM FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 14, 1991 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of an 8 dwellina unit residential Planned Developmen to include madinn on a level infill lot and 8 separate single-family dwellina units. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct : Environmental Impact Assessment to detennine if a project may have a significant effect on the environmer The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checkli 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project a1 provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environment Impacr Reporr or Negative Declaration, * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantid evidence that the project any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checkc to indicate this determination. * An EIR must. be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of tl project may cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negatj Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deem insimificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YFS-sig" and YES-ins: respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form unc DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussi mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 0. PHYSICAL 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 course 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- 0 YES YES big) (insig) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO X X x - x X’ X X X X X X - 0 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES big) 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: YES (si@ 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- YES (insig) - - - YES (insigl - - NO X X 'X X X NO x X 0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT wrLL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 19, Resulr 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 quaxitity of existing recreational opportunities? -4- 0 YES - - - - - - - - - - - - YES (sig) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO (insig) X X X - X X - X X - X X X - - X X X - X 0 e MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR rm~c-rLx YES YES NO (sid (insig) 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 Ca'ifornia 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.) X - - X - - 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? X - - X - - - -5- 0 e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This project is located on the-no,rth side of Laguna Drive east of Jefferson Street and entails the subdivisiol of a .93 acre parcel into eight single-family residential condominiums. The project is a planned unj development and consists of the demolition of two twenty-five year old single-family StmCtureS, 700 cubi yards of grading on a level infill lot, and the construction of eight two-story single-family homes clustc around a central driveway. Physical Environment' The lot is level and the proposed 700 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the driveway and the eig] separate residential structures is minimal, therefore there will be little appreciable change in the topograph. Drainage and erosion. control facilities will be incorporated into the project as a standard engineerir condition of approval for the Tentative Map, and no unstable earth conditions or unique geologic features a1 located onsite or in the general vicinity. Development of the project would create impervious surfaces onsil which reduce absorption rates and increases surface runoff and runoff velocities, however, the appropriai drainage facilities will be provided. Development of the project will incrementally contribute to the depletion of fossil fuel and to other natur resources, increase local and regional air emissions; however, this is not regarded as a significant impact i view of the small size of the project. Residential development at the proposed density for this site has bee anticipated and planned for in the City's General Plan, as well as in the Zone 1 Local facilities Managemel Plan, therefore the above mentioned impacts to physical resources have been addressed and analyzed in tl City's long range plans. The site is surrounded by residential development and is currently developed with two single-family dwellir units and. several accessory structures in the front of the lot and a large cultivated field in the rear of the lo The property was field checked and no cultural resources were identified. In addition, the City's Cultur Resource Inventory Map indicates that there are no cultural resources located onsite. Due to the disturb€ nature of the lot, significant cultural resources are not anticipated onsite. Biological Environment The site has been disturbed by residential and agricultural uses and is .surrounded by existing residenti development, therefore the site has limited biological resource value, and there is no threat of introducing ne species into a natural area or limiting the movement of native animal species. Human Environment Traffic impacts, increase to population, increased public facility demands and the planned land use of the arc have all been accounted for and planned in the City's General Plan and in the Zone 1 Local Facilitil Ordinance, and is developed at the appropriate residential density (Residential'Medium High, 8-15 dWacre The project will be required to pay public facility fees that will be used to adequately mitigate any impac upon utilities and public facilities. Managemenr Plan, The project conforms with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Zoni~ -6- 0 e The proposed project will incrementally increase noise levels in the area due to traffic and will contribute light and glare in the project vicinity, however these impacts are considered insignificant due to the sm nature of the project. The development will be compatible with surrounding land uses and the addition landscaping will help reduce glare. This project is required to meet all City standards, ordinances, 2 policies, therefore no safety impacts or human health concerns are anticipated. The project is located approximately 1,000 feet west of Interstate 5, therefore Planning Director Policy # required a noise study to assess noise impacts on the project created by traffic from the freeway. acoustical study was prepared which concluded that the project would not be impacted by excessive tra noise. The maximum exterior noise level at worst condition and five feet inside the property line at a hei of six feet above grade was projected at 58.9 dba CNEL for buildout in 2010. This exterior noise level me the exterior noise standard because it is below the City‘s requirement of 60 dba CNEL. Interior noise le\ for the structure in the southeast comer of the lot, which is ”worse condition”, were calculated at 36.7 c CNEL on the first floor and 32.2 dba CNEL on the second floor. Both calculations are well below maximum permitted interior noise standard of 45 dba CNEL. -7- e 0 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. The analysis of viable alternatives to the proposed project revolves around two specific concepts; the definiti, of the project and its significant impact and the definition of what is a viable alternative . The courts ha recognized that only reasonable alternatives need be discussed (Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. V. Boa of Supervisors, 134 Cal. App. 3d 1022 (1982). These project alternatives exist as relative measures unavoidable adverse impacts and mitigation measures. Public Resources Code section 21002 forbids t approval of projects with significant adverse impacts when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigatit measures can substantially lessen such impacts. A "significant effect'' is defined as one which has a substant adverse impact. If nothing is significant than there is no substantial adverse impact and no justification f requiring a discussion of alternatives. There is no alternative to no substantial adverse impact., -8- a 0 IETERMINATION (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 NEGATIVE - ' I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the DECLARATION will be prepared. environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction wick previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wil 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. ~CAL 77 1991 - I L 1 'If. - * Date SigrdIW - 7/ZZ/YI Date Planning Directw u LIST MITIGATING MEASURES [IF APPLICABLE1 ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE1 -9- 0 0 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. Date Signature JG:km -10-