HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-08-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 28691
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
e a
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2869
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLS CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 9 LOT TENT! MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LE\
STREET WEST OF LA COSTA AVENUE. APPLICANT: ROBERT CAMPBELL CASE NO.: CT 89-1/PUD 89-1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of July,
the 2nd day of August, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing as
by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consi
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the '
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, t
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declara
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Con
foll ows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, t Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative I according to Exhibit "ND", dated May 19, 1989, and "PII", dat 28, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on th findings:
Findinqs:
1. An initial study was completed for the project and studies we as necessary. The results indicated that no significant i
2. The site has been previously graded and the project propose amount of earth movement to accommodate building foundation:
3. The site plan has been designed to provide safe and adequ(
created by the project.
circulation for vehicles and pedestrians.
4. The 64 additional daily trips generated by the project are bc service levels projected for Levante.
m 0
5. There are no known sensitive resources 1 ocated on site or lot
1 to be significantly impacted by this project. Should the sc
2
4
6. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and 3
mitigation project will be implemented.
6
5
indicate the presence of any paleontological resources a
with surrounding projects in architectural style and land use
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the P1'
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
7 11 AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, McFadden
8
NOES : Commissioners: McFadden & Schramm. 9
Marcus.
lo // ABSENT: None.
11 /I ABSTAIN: Commissioner Erwin.
12
13
14 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
15 11 ATTEST: 16
17
18 11 PLANNING DIRECTOR
19
20
21
22
23
25 I
24 I
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 2869 -2-
28
.~ a 0
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE 1 CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 (E
attg af aarlsbaa
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Lot 229 La Costa Vale #1 - North of Levante St and west of La Costa Avenue.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed development of four (4) duplexes tota eight (8) units on .79 acres of land in the residential density - multiple ; Local Facilities Management Zone 6, APN: 223-170-20.
The City of Carl sbad has conducted an environmental review of the above desci project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califc Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the of Carl sbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (decl ar; that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hc issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file i P1 ann i ng Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file il P1 anning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl sbad, Cal ifornia 92009. Corn1
from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Pia, Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
\
DATED: May 19, 1989 41 4, :I
j (, 1, t.l,C&.'U:- -I ..,;:. I dk
>. 1 't 6 a:,,
MICHAEL J .%LEV CASE NO: CT 89-01/PUD 89-01 P1 anning Director
APPLICANT: Robert Campbell
PUBLISH DATE: May 19, 1989
CW:lh
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 89-1/PUD 89-1
DATE : Februarv 28, 198:
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: Robert Campbell
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1568 Hiqhland Drive
Solona Beach, CA 920'
(481-3235)
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED:
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written
under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
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?
YES MAY BE
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering of
modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?
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?
.. e
2. Air - - 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?
-2-
m
YES MAY BE
e 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?
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 microfauna)?
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. Lisht 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-
MAY BE
e 0
YES MAY BE
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 Uwet - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, 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, Transportation/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-
0 e
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. Enerqy - 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
e 0
YES - MAYBE
18. 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?
19. Recreation - Will the proposal have
significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontoloqical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant
archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or
building?
21. Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed - project such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site desig 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 g) no project alternative.
Project Description:
The project proposes development of 8 duplex units on a .79 acre The site has been previously graded out to a pad intended for mu: density residential development. To the west of the site is an ex:
single family neighborhood. Vacant graded multi-family pads su:
ZnUlti-family development. The project will develop this graded j
a manner consistent with the multi-family land use designatio1
this site.
the site to the north, south and east. To the southeast is an ex.
a) Phasing of such a small scale development would not prov significant environmental enhancement.
b) Alternative site designs are somewhat limited given the physi dimensions of the site and the need to adequately provide automobiles on the site.
c) Alternative scale of the development would be more intense to in fuller conformance with the existing land use designations the site. These more intense developments could be m
environmentally detrimental than the proposed project.
d) Alternative uses for this site would be inconsistent with General Plan and zoning designations for the site,
-6-
>. a
2 1 (Continued)
e) Development at some future time would continue the vacant natu of the area. This would be inconsistent with the land use a zoning designations for the site and would not provide addition housing opportunities.
f) Alternative sites for the proposed project can be found within t
general area and in other locations of the City. These sites n
not present environmental benefits.
g) The no project alternative would continue the vacant nature of t area inconsistent with the land use and zoning regulations i the site.
-7-
,. a 0
YES MAY BE
22. Mandatorv findinqs 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.)
c. 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 indiviaual 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.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. Earth - The site is currently graded to a flat pad. signific amounts of earth movement are not being proposed.
2. Air - The project will not emit particulates or odors. project's low profile will not disturb air flows.
Rev. 12/88
-8-
.. 0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10 -
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Water - The project does not interfere with any existing natur
or man-made water courses. The project will not genera significant amounts of surface run off.
Plant Life - There is no existing significant vegetation.
Animal Life - There is no existing animal life on site.
Noise - A noise study has been completed and the project will r
be subject to excessive noise levels.
Liclht & Glare - Low intensity lighting will be used within t
parameters of the project for safety purposes.
Land Use - The project is consistent with the current designatic
of the General Plan and Zoning.
Natural Resources - N/A
Risk of UDset - N/A
PoDulation - The nature of the project will not generate significant increase in population.
Housinq - The project will provide housing.
TransDortation/Circulation - Adequate facilities exist which (
accommodate the project's projected traffic needs.
Public Services - The project is located in Zone 6 of the LFI
Services will be provided through the implementation of that ZI plan.
Enerqy - N/A.
Utilities - The project is located in Zone 6 of the LF: Services will be provided through the implementation of that z plan.
Human Health - N/A.
Aesthetics - The site plan and proposed architecture
compatible with surrounding projects.
Recreation - The project will not reduce the quality or quant of recreational opportunities.
Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontoloqical - There is no evide of significance on this site.
-9-
.' e 0
IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
d 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.
i
,( .- ,i ,.' I' J , /' ? 'i ,I :
4" ,/ - / y""/,. .+"/ (-<?; ! p \ f" ,&& \< ~ 1 LI_ ~ ' i Y .. 1, ., I
I., Date i,' * Sig'na$&re'
5/ i\ /t. !': fi h,,b * &.&+f*J,\"-. -. f p.. t : (-~ ( I(, =
I Ddte P1anni"ng Djidxtor
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-10-