HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-12-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 3468r e e
1
2
3
4
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3468
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATlVE
DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT.
CASE NAME: LA VERCIA CONDOS
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO DEVELOP A 5-UNIT
CASE NO: CT 91-7/CP 91-4
6 I/ WE-, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of December, 199
7 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and a
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimol 9
10 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by sta
11
factors relating to the Negative Declaration. 12
and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered 2
13 11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissic
I* 11 as follows:
15
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 16
17 €3) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planni~
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "NE
18 dated September 17, 1992, and "PII", dated June 23, 1992, attached hereto ar
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
19
2o (1 Findinns:
21
22
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project m:
have a significant impact on the environment.
23 ll 2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed proje(
24
25
26
3. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significant
impacted by this project.
....
27 11 .'"
20 *'"
L I/
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
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planni
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of December, 195
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schrarn
Noble, Welshons, Savary & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
I
ATTEST:
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DIRECTOR
~
PC RES0 NO. 3468 -2-
NEGAW DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 305 Tamarack Avenue
South side of Tamarack Avenue between Garfield and
AT&SF Railroad.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 5 unit infill condominium development.
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 (619) 438-1161, extension 4471.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 17, 1992 /[iLJm -. &ALk -, '
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
CASE NO: CT 91-7/CP 91-4 Planning Director
CASE NAME: LA VERCIA CONDOMINIUMS
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 1992
EB:vd
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161
0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
CASE NO. CT 91-7/CP 9
DATE: JUNE 23. 1992
1. CASE NAME: La Vercia Condominiums
2. APPLICANT: Michael Dooley/ARC Group
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Michael Doolev/ARC Group
5751 Palomar Wav, Suite H
..
Carlsbad. CA 92008
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 3, 1991
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 5 unit infill condominium development.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. r
checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the propc
project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare
Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the projec
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be chec
to indicate this determination.
Environmental Impact Assessment io determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environm
* An EtR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of
project may cause a sinnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualifv for a Negs
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be dee
insinnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings YES-sig" and ''YES-iI
respectively.
A discussion of potential imp.acts and the proposed Atigadon measures appears at the end of the form U:
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discus
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
1
a 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?
0'
YES
big)
-
-
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?
-
-
-
m -2 -
b
YES NO
(insig)
X
X -
X
- -x-
X
X -
X -
X -
X
X
-
-
x - -
0 a - - BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
YES
big)
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 ENVTRONMENT
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?
YES
big)
-
-
A -3 -
k
YES
(insig)
-
-
YES
(insig>
-
-
NO
X
X
x -
X
X
NO
X
X -
e
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?
b
0
YES
big>
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-4-
YES
(insig)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X -
X
X
X
X -
MAND a TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFI RN CE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sigl (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 California history or prehistory. X - -
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
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.) X - -
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? X - -
-5-
I
* 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project is a 5=unit condominium development on a 0.4 acre previously developed lot, T'
project site is subject to the Mello I1 Local Coastal Plan.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
1. The proposed project will not result in unstable earth conditions or increase exposure to geoloj
hazards, The project site is a flat, previously developed site. Total grading proposed for the projc
is 250 cubic yards of cut and of fill.
2. The proposed project will not appreciably change the topography of the site. The maximum structt
height proposed is approximately 28 feet, consistent with surrounding development. Grading will ra.
the elevation of the site by a maximum of approximately 2-3 feet above the existing elevation. The s
has no unique physical features.
3. Development of the site will not result in erosion of soils on or off the site. The site will drain tc
public street. The project includes the dedication of right-of-way for required street widening a
installation of curb and gutter. Landscaping of slope areas will also be required.
4. The project will not change the deposition of beach sands nor modify any channel or ocean bed or otl
water body. There are no beach sands, channels, or water bodies on or adjacent to the site.
5. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality. It will generate an aver:
of only 40 vehicle trips per day.
6. The project will not result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature. T
proposed building setbacks will provide for air movement between structures, and the maxim
building height will be approximately 28 feet.
7. The project site will not affect the course or flow of water. There are no water bodies on
immediately adjacent to the site.
8. The project will not affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water, or public wi
supply. The proposed 5 units will obtain water from the Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
9. The project will not substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources. '
project site contains no natural resources of environmental significance.
10. The scale of the project (5 units) makes it unlikely that it will use substantial amounts of he:
energy.
11. The site is a small, previously-developed site containing no evidence of significant archaeologj
paleontological, or historical significance. The site is in an area shown to have a Potential High Fc
Content, however, the site has been previously graded and developed and the currently proposed prc
involves very little new grading (only 250 cubic yards of cut and fill).
-6-
j
0 0
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
12. The project sill not adversely affect plant species or diversity. The site is a pre~ously developed
surrounded by urban development, The site does not contain any rare or endangered species or habi
13. Existing species of vegetation on the property are not environmentally significant, therefore,
introduction of new plant species will not cause an adverse impact.
14. No agricultural crop is presently grown on this previously developed site, and the site does not cont
prime, unique, or otherwise important farmland.
15. Development of the site will not affect species or habitat diversity. The site is previously developed i
is surrounded by existing urban development.
16. The project will not introduce new species of animals into the area. Any domestic animals introdu
to. the site will not result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals because of the genc
level of urban development and level of human activity in the area.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
17. The project will not alter the present or planned land use of the area. The site is currently design:
EU-I (Residential - High Density) on the General Plan and is zoned RD-M (Residential Densi
Multiple). The proposed density is consistent with those designations and with surrounc
development.
18. Public utilities exist to serve the proposed project. The necessary public services have been anticip:
through the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
19. The existing sewer system is adequate to serve the proposed development.
20. The proposed project is residential and would not be expected to substantially increase noise le1
However, the site is within 500 feet of a rail line and is therefore, subject to noise impacts from trz
The small portion of the project which would experience exterior noise levels above 60 dBa CNEL
balcony/entry area of Unit 1) will be constructed so as to reduce the noise level to a maximum o
dBa CNEL.
21. The proposed residential project will not produce sufficient light or glare to adversely impact adjai
uses. Lighting utilized on the site will be directed so as to not impact adjacent properties.
22. This is a residential project, and therefore, would not be expected to involve a significant ris:
explosion or release of hazardous substances.
23. The proposed density of the project (12.5 du/ac) is one unit below the range allowed by the Ger
Plan for the site (1 5 - 23 du/ac) and two units below the growth control point (19 du/ac) allowa
24. The project will provide 5 additional housing units to meet existing demand.
-7-
b
a 0 25. The project will generate only 40 average vehicle trips per day, which will not significantly impact tl
circulation system.
26. The demand for parking facilities created by the project will be satisfied on site. Garages will 1
provided for each unit's 'occupants, and guest parking will also be provided.
27. The project is required to dedicate 20 feet of right-of-way along Tamarack Avenue to accommoda
planned improvements. The dedication is shown on the proposed tentative map.
28. The project will not alter waterborne, rail, or air traffic. There are no water bodies or rail lines on 1
immediately adjacent to the site, and the site is not within the airport influence area for McClella
Palomar Airport. The site is within 500 feet of a rail line, however the project will not alter rail traffi
29. Adequate sight distance will be provided at all vehicle access points to the site to facilitate s:
vehicular movement and to protect bicyclists and pedestrians.
30. Development of the site as proposed will not interfere with emergency response plans or emerger
evacuation plans.
31. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista nor create an aesthetically offensive public vie
32. The project will provide both common and private onsite recreation areas.
-8-
,
0 0
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE.ALTERNATlVES 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 project, and
g) no project alternative.
a) The small scale of the project (5 units) and site size (0.4 ac) makes phasing
impractical.
b) The applicant and staff have considered several alternate site designs. The proposed
design satisfies all City requirements and standards.
c) The proposed scale of development satisfies all City requirements and is consistent
with surrounding development. A smaller scale of development would not result in
additional environmental benefits.
d) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and zoning of the site.
e) Development at some future time rather than now would not result in greater
environmental benefits. This is an infill site surrounded by compatible development
and which can be served by existing public utilities.
f) Development of the site as proposed does not preclude similar development on other
sites.
g) The no project alternative would not be consistent with the planned land use of the
site and would not result in additional environmental benefits.
-9-
k
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 NEGATP
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because t
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction wi
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is requirr
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there v 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 ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required,
.!/ . :.; - :;- 2 L :, k/L ,~.__ ._
I - Date Signature
i (bj& z
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-10-
!
s. ,. 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
EB: km
-11-
?