Loading...
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- ?