The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-02-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 3440ll 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 e PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3440 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE TO ALLOW FOR ZONING, GENERAL PLAN, AND LOCAL COASTAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGES PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF A CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED LAND USE STUDY FOR THE AREA GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE. CASE NAME: BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY CASE NO: GPA 92-09/LCPA 92-02/ZC 92-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of February, 1993, lo 11 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and 11 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, 12 13 14 15 16 factors relating to the Negative Declaration. 19 18 as follows: 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannin: to Exhibit "ND", dated August 27,1992, and "PII", dated August 10, 1992, attachel hereof, based on the following findings: 20 Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration accordin: 21 22 23 24 25 proposed land use designations will not have an impact on the environment. 2. Future projects will continue to undergo environmental review as required so n 26 significant adverse impacts to the environment will be created within the study are; FiIldillES: 1. The study area is an existing residential neighborhood and implementing th 27 28 .... I1 II 0 0 1 II PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning A II Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of February, 1993, by 2 3 /I the following vote, to wit: 4 5 6 AYES: Chairperson Noble; Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Welshons, Savary, Erwin & Hd. NOES: None. 7 8 9 ABSTAIN: None. 10 11 12 ABSENT: None. CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: 13 /i;i(& ap , ;, & 14 4v ” ’ -- MICHAEL J. MLZ~~~LER 15 // PLANNING DIRECTOR 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I1 27 I1 28 PC RES0 NO. 3440 -2- NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Southern portion of the Beach Area Overlay Zone as shown on Attachment "A" of the Environmental Impact Assessment form Part [I on file with the Planning Department. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed changes to General Plan and Zoning designations as recommended by a' land use study designed to address neighborhood compatibility issues. 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 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. and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said 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 Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4441. DATED: AUGUST 27, 1992 8 CASE NO: GPA 92-9/LCPA 92-2/ZC 92-1 Planning Director CASE NAME: BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 27, 1992 ENM:lh - 2075 Las Palmas Drive * Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 * (61 9) 438-1 161 1 e 0 ENVIRON~LL\~TAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOM, - PART a (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. GPA 92-9/LCPA 92-2/ZC 92-1 DATE: AUGUST 10. 1992 ACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY 2. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD. CA 92009 - 1619) 438-1161 X 4441 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: AUGUST 3. 1992 5. PROJECI' DESCRIPTION: ProDosed General Plan and Zoninn designation channes recommended bv 2 Council directed Iand use Studv. The study area is an existing residential neighborhood located in th southern portion of the Beach Area Overlav Zone and is shown on Attachment "A". The pumose of th smdv was to address various compatibilitv issues due to the current mix of sinale (R-1) and multi-fad (RD-M) zoning In addition, inconsisrencv between land use designations exists where sinnle fad zoned properties have Residential-High (RH) General Plan desimations which corresDond with mult: farnilv zoninn. The proposed recommendation is reflected in Attachment "B". The numbered lots comespond with thos shown on the studv area maD-Attachment "A". The recommendation utilizes the R-2 zonina desimatic to neutralize the extremes of the non-compatible zoninn (R-1 vs RD-M). The R-2 zone reauirl development standards (20 ft. front vard setbacks. etc.) which will help facilitate neinhborhoc comDatibilitv while not unreasonablv reducing the allowed densitv. The DroDosed land use desimatiol are designed so that a 7,500 sa. ft. lot can accommodate two units. Since the studv area is Dart of the Beach Area Overlav Zone, all Droiects are required to EO thou2 the discretionam review and approval process of a Site Development Permit, which hvoh environmental review. ImDlernenting the proposed Zoning and General Plan desimations will addrf design and densitv compatibilitv issues for the study area and wiil not have anv imDact on environmen conditions or aualitv. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requkes that the city conduct a!'l Environmental Imp' Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Imp Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist 8 identifies any physical, biolod and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project 1 cause a sidcant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration howeve adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insimificant. These findings are shc in the checklist under the headings "YES-sign and "YES-insig" respectively. A discussion of potential imp.acts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end. of the form u DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION, particular attention should be given to discussing mitigatioI impacts which would otherwise be detenined siwcant. 0 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .LL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES big) , Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologc 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? 1. 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? - - - - - - 7 - - - - - -2- YES finsig) - - - - - - - - - - NO X X x X 7 X - X - X - X - x -. X - X - 'a 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT [ILL THE PROPOSAL DtRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES big> (insig) 2. . Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? - - 3. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? .4. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other fadand 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? - - - - - - - 7 HUMANENMRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES big1 Wig1 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? X - - 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? - - - - -3- NO X X X X X - NO - X - 0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT VILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: .9. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? io. Increase existing noise levels? !I. Produce new light or glare? YES big) - - - YES NO (insig) x X X - - - 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? - - X X - - 24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 25. Generate substantial additional traffic? .. x X - - - - - 26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? X - - 27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns 'of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? .. - - X 28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? - - X 29, Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? - 7 X - 30. ' Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? - - - X 31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? - - - X 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? - - - X -4- 0 e MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE JILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO big) (insig) 3. 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 co.mmunity, 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.) - 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 - - - - - X - - -5- a 0 D[SCUSStON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Implementing the proposed land use designations and modifjmg development standards wiu not impact any aspects of the physical environment of the study area or adjacent areas. When actual development is proposed, a Site Development Plan (SDP) will be required which involves specific environmental review. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRON.MENT Implementing the proposed land use designations and modifying development standards will not impact any aspects of the biological environment of the study area or adjacent areas. When actual development is proposed, a Site Development Plan (SDP) will be required which involves specific environmental review. HUMAN ENVRONMENT 17. The planned land uses will be altered in that typically high intensity multi-family projects associated with RD-M zoning will be replaced by duplex and twinhome type development with only a slight density reduction over the study area. 18. tmplementing the proposed recommendations will not adversely impact any facilities or services associated with Local Facilities Management Zone 19. This proposal does not involve adding any residential units to the overall study area so as to impact any facilities/services. 19. No changes or modifications will be required to existing sewer systems or solid waste processes. 20. Noise levels will not be increased by implementing the proposed recommendations. 21. This proposal will not produce light or glare. 22. N/A 23. The maximum allowed densities for some properties within the study area will be altered. However, the hal allowable densities are designed to consider lot sizes and compatible product types. 24. There will be no impacts to existing housing or housing demands. 25. A reduction in overall traffic would result if the proposed designations were fully built out as proposed to if the current designations were fully built out. - -6- 26. 27, 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. a e There will be no impacts to parking facilities and each future project will provide for its own parking demand. Implementing the proposed designations will not have a negative impact on the existing infrastructure or circulation systems. In addition, future projects will provide improvements, etc., as required for project approval. There will be no impacts to rail, water or air traffic. There will be 'no impacts to motor vehicles,. bicycles or pedestrians. Implementing the proposed recommendations will not affect existing emergency response plans or capabilities. No views will be created or impacted by the proposed lmd use designations. Recreational opportunities will not be created or impacted. - -7- e 0 NNALYSIS OF 'VIABLE ALTERNATMS 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 proposed land use designations need to be implemented concurrently. b) No site design in involved. c) N/A d) Alternate land uses €or the study area other than residential would not be appropriate. e) The desire to address this issue and implement a solution has been shown by the City Council an Planning Commission. f) There is no alternate study area involved. g) A no project alternative will allow current land use designations to remain in place. Associated with this are zoning designation incompatibilities and zoning and General Plan designation inconsistencies. - -8- m 0 )ETERMINATION (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 NEGATM DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because th environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction wit: previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is require( Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been 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 shef 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. 0 * 2/* 92 €6 O-iQ,. Date Signature 3 6/11/97 ' '&& Date , Planning Director LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE1 - -9-