HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-06-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 2880I/ 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 I
13
14
~
I 15
16
17
18
19
20 'I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2880
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLS
CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTA MAP/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP A 5 LOT/4 DWELLING
PROJECT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF LOCUST STREET, ONE LOT WES'
ADAMS STREET.
APPLICANT: KLETT
CASE NO.: CT 88-8/PUD 88-9
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of June,
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider sail
and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consid
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the ir
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, thc
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declarat
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Comm
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative De according to Exhibit 'IND" dated April 26, 1989, and "PII", da 21, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
findings:
Findinas:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence project may have a significant impact on the environment.
21 2. The site has been previously graded and is currently under agr' uses (avocado orchard).
22
23
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so 24
proposed project . 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generate
significantly impacted by this project.
25 I1 //// 26
27 /I//
28
I/ 0 0
1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of tt
2
1989, by the following vote, to wit: 3
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st d
4
5
AYES : Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber,
McFadden, Schramm, Holmes & Erwin. NOES : None.
6 ABSENT: None,
7 ABSTAIN : None.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 2880
28
ATTEST:
?
6. P> . '.
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
- -z-
0 Exhibit "ND
CORRECTED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The project site is located along the north sid Locust Street, one lot west of Adams Street.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to a a five lot, four unit multi-family project over a .49 acre site. .
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above descr project pursuant to' the Guide1 ines for Implementation of the Califo Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the 1
that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is he issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in P1 anning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. CommE from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planr Department within thirty (30) days of date of issuance.
DATED: April 26, 1989 .'q;l&"/&4u
of Carlsbad, As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declara
MICHAEL J. HOLMILLERU CASE NO: CT 88-8/PUD 88-9 Planning Director
APPLICANT: KLETT
PUBLISH DATE: April 26, 1989
COD : af
2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 (619) 438 3 1
~-
'0 w LA,*.-.. . ..
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT'ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 88-8/PUD 88-9
DATE : MARCH 21, 1989
I. BACKGROUND
1, APPLICANT: GORDON AND EDNA KLETT
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P.O. BOX 4086,
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (619) 729-6625
~~ ~ ~~~
3.
11.
DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: NOVEMBER 16, 1988
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written
under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
YES MAY BE - NO
1. Earth - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?
X
X
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X
d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique
geologic or physical features? X
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? - X
f. Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel or a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X
e 0
2. j4& - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Air emissions or. deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements,
in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not
limited to, temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?
‘1ES MAYBE
-2-
,. 0
YES
4. Plant Life - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop? X
5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles,
fish and shellfish, benthic organisms,
insects or micro,fauna) ?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of
animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels?
7. Liqht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare?
8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of
the present or planned land use of an area?
-3-
MAYBE - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0 0
9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
10. Risk of UDset - Does the proposal
involve a significant risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (inciuding, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
11. Population - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?
12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
13. TransDortation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular
movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
-4-
YES MAY BE
-
0 0
YES
14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif-
icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Enerqv - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new
systems, or alterations to the following
utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health -'Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health
hazard (excluding mental health)?
-5-
MAY BE NO
- X
x
3
X -
2
x
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
J
x
0 e
18.
19.
20.
21.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
9)
- YES MAY BE
Aesthetics - Will the proposal have
significant results in the obstruction
of any scenic vista or view open to the
public, or will the proposal result in
creation of an aesthetically offensive
public view?
Recreatioq - Will the proposal have
significant results in the impact upon
the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontolosical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or
historical site, structure, object or
building?
Analyze viable alternatives to the DroDosed lsroject such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site desigl
c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the ! e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter-
nate sites for the proposed, and 9) no project alternative.
This project will include only 4 dwelling units, all of which wi
be developed as a single phase.
This project has been redesigned to mitigate all potenti
environmental impacts while being compatible with the surroundi
uses.
This project is proposed at 8.16 du/acre, whereas the zoning wou: allow up to 11.5 du/acre.
Any change of land use upon the site (commercial, nonresidentia:
would necessitate a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
Since all public facilities and services are available to SU~~OK the proposed project, development at some future time would nc be a preferred alternative.
N/A
The tlNo Project1@; alternative would maintain the subject propert in its existing agricultural use. However, the property woul some day be developed in view of its desi.gnation for residentia development (RMH).
-6-
a 0
YES MAY BE NO -
22. Mandatorv findinss of siqnificance -
a. 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.
b. 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
C
d
111.
. Does the project,have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
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.)
dividually limited but cumulatively
X
. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? X
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This project is a four unit (multi-family) subdivision located along t north side of Locust Street, one lot west of Adams Street. The project si
is .49 acres in size, previously graded flat, and currently unc
agricultural use (avocado orchard). For this environmental analysis, ste conducted one field trip to the subject property. There exists no sensiti environmental resources upon or in close proximity to this previously grad site. In addition, the proposed residential project is (1) allowed by t
zoning and General Plan and (2) is compatible with surrounding residenti
uses. Rev.
-7-
.. < ,. e e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION (Continued)
OVerilll, because (1) the property has been previously gl
agricultural uses, (2) there exists no sensitive environmental re:
ar near the property, and (3) the proposed residential project compatible with surrounding residential/agricultural uses, no sj environmental impacts are anticipated. There were no public
received during the public review period for this Negative Decla
1. Earth - The project site is level as a consequence of prer, grading for agricultural purposes. Grading required for
project would be only 145 cubic yards (cut). In view of pregraded site condition and limited grading required, no E related impacts are anticipated.
2. && - This project is a small (4 du) infill development. project will create an incremental increase in air qua
impacts. This incremental increase is not consid
significant.
3. Water - Development of this project will create impen surfaces onsite which would reduce absorption rates
incrementally increase surface runoff and runoff velocit However, to accommodate this incremental runoff, draj
facilities (driveway swale) will be incorporated into the prc
to divert the runoff to new curb and gutter along Locust Str
thereby mitigating this concern.
4/5. Plant/Animal Life - The project site is presently L
agricultural use (avocado orchard). The Mello I1 agricult policies do not pertain to this property. Since this sit already under such use, and is an infill site, its loss is considered environmentally significant.
6. Noise - Construction of the project may result in short t insignificant noise impacts upon surrounding resider
Otherwise, the project is compatible with surrour
residential/agricultural land uses and will not CI significant noise impacts. No significant noise producing
uses or facilities will impact the project.
7. Liqht and Glare - This project will be a continuation of
surrounding residential land uses along Adams, Chinquapin Harrison Streets. Light and glare impacts will be consis with the present light and glare impacts of surrounding uses. This is not considered significant.
8. Land Use - Development of this project will be consistent wit1 General Plan and the Mello I1 Local Coastal Plan. The devel01
of attached single family product types will result in a transition land use between the standard single family uses z
Adams Street to the east and the multi-family attached use E
Harrison Street to the west.
-a-
,a w
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
9. Natural Resources - Implementation of this project will incrementally contribute to the depletion of fossil fuels and
other natural resources during construction and operation. This incremental increase is not considered significant.
10. Risk of UDset - This project is surrounded by residential or
agricultural land uses. This project presents no risk of upset
to these surrounding uses.
11. Population - Implementation of this project may encourage growth upon surrounding undeveloped properties. However, since the Zone
1 Local Facilities Management Plan specifies that all public facilities are available within this area to allow for
development, no population or growth related impacts are
anticipated.
. 12. Housing - This project will provide 4 additional housing units.
These dwellings will respond to an identified housing demand
within the area.
13. This project will initiate the improvements (pavement, curb,
ADT to Locust Street and other surrounding streets. This minor
increase in traffic is not considered significant.
gutter and sidewalk) to Locust Street. The project will add 40
14. Public Services - As discussed in the adopted Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan all public facilities are available to meet demands anticipated within this zone.
15. Enerqv - The project will require an incremental increase in the
use of energy to both construct and to occupy the dwellings.
This small increase is not considered significant.
16. Utilities - See 14 above.
17. Human Health - This project will result in no human health hazards
or impacts.
18. Aesthetics - This project will result in no impacts to scenic
incorporate structural relief and rich landscaping along the Locust Street frontage, thereby providing a more visually
appealing pro j ect .
vistas or open space views. The project has been designed to
19. Recreation - This project will create a small incremental increase in demand for recreational facilities. There exists adequate recreational amenities within Zone 1 of the City. In addition, the project lots have sufficient size to allow significant private recreational space for the occupants of the dwellings.
-9-
e 0
SION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
20. Archaeoloqica~/Historical/Pa~eontoio~ical - The Site has b
previously disturbed due to agriailtural activities. significantarchaeologicalorhistorical resources are anticipa
to exist.
IV. 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 the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signific; effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effec this case. because the mitigation measures described on an'attach
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 thc
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
March 21, 1989 & &LA
Date Signature
I .. - _. -
31 ZI )eel AAI 1-1 /)/I I \ /I 1
I
.I 1'1 1 LLb.i-p -4 ~LJX
Date Plannine Direat&
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
..
-10-
KITIGATING MEASURES (Continued) e e
VIo APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
TH1S Is To CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CoNCUR WITH 'I'HE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
-11-