Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-12-02; Planning Commission; ; CT 91-07|CP 91-04 - LA VERCIA CONDOSAPPLIC .. ~ION COMPLETE DATE: March 20, 1992. (Extension to December 20, 1992) GuJ- SfAFF REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 2, 1992 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CT 91-07 /CP 91-04 -LA VERCIA CONDOS -Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and a Condominium Permit to create 5 condominium units on a single 0.4 acre site located on the south side of Tamarack Avenue between Garfield Street and the AT&SF Railroad in the RD-M Zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission AOOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. · 3468 APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and AOOPT Planning Commission Resolution No.'s 3469 and 3470 APPROVING CT 91-07 and CP 91-04, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Map and Condominium Permit to construct 5 condominium units on a single lot located on the south side of Tamarack Avenue between Garfield Street and the AT&SF Railroad. Surrounding development consists of single family and multi-family residential uses. The subject lot contains 0.4 acres and was previously developed with a single family home. The proposed units will be two-story, split level single family attached units and will contain 1371 to 1455 square feet per unit. The project architecture will be contemporary Spanish style consisting of stucco exteriors and concrete tile roofs with a varying roofline. Fencing for the project includes stucco fencing, stucco with iron grillwork on the upper portion, and iron safety fencing. The project includes private and common recreation areas, two-car garages for each unit, and guest parking. Three of the units will have attached garages. The other two will have detached garages. The guest parking areas will be trellised. CT 91 -07 /CP 91-04 -LA VERCIA CONDOS DECEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE2 m. ANALYSIS The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, and development standards: 1. RH (Residential -High Density) General Plan Designation 2. Subdivision Regulations (Title 20 of the Municipal Code) and the Subdivision Map Act 3. RD-M (Residential Density -Multiple) Zoning Regulations (Chapter 21.24 of the Municipal Code) 4. Beach Area Overlay Zone Regulations (Chapter 21.82 of the Municipal Code) 5. Planned Unit Development Regulations (Chapter 21.45 of the Municipal Code) 6. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Zone 1) 7. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Mello II Local Coastal Program Regulations DISCUSSION General Plan The General Plan land use designation on the project site is RH (residential uses -high density), which allows a density of 15 -23 dwelling units per acre, and the growth control point is 19 units per acre. The project is proposed at 12.5 units per acre. The five unit project is approximately two units less than that allowed for this site based on the Growth Control Point of the RH designation. However, the General Plan notes that the density range established for the high density residential category is not meant to establish a minimum or maximum. The density allocation for any project starts at the low end and, if a higher density is desired, the project must prove itself worthy of the higher designation. Individual review is required for every project. The long narrow shape of the subject lot makes it difficult to develop the seven units allowed by the RH designation while satisfying other requirements. The proposed residential use is permitted under the RH designation. Subdivision Regulations The subject lot meets all the requirements of the applicable Subdivision Regulations. The minimum lot size required in the RD-M Zone for properties designated for medium through high density is 10,000 square feet. The size of the subject lot is 17,875 square feet. Lot frontage of the site ( 65 feet) exceeds the required 60 feet. CT 91-07 /CP 91-04 -LA VERCIA CONDOS DECEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE3 Zoning Regulations The subject site is located within the RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple) Zone. The proposed residential use is allowed in the RD-M Zone. The proposed project satisfies all of the requirements of the zone as discussed in the Development Standards table included in the Planned Unit Development section of this report. Beach Area Overlay Zone The Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ) regulations are intended to supplement the underlying residential zoning by providing additional regulations for development in beach areas. These regulations primarily address maximum building height and parking requirements. In the case of the subject property, all of the development standards addressed by the BAOZ regulations and the RD-M Zone are the same except for the maximum allowable building height. The RD-M Zone allows a maximum building height of 35 feet. The BAOZ allows a maximum of 30 feet and 2 stories if a 3/12 roof pitch is provided and 24 feet and 2 stories if a roof pitch of less than 3/12 is provided. The proposed project incorporates a roof pitch greater than 3/12. Therefore, a maximum height of 30 feet and 2 stories is allowed. As shown in the Development Standards table below, the maximum structure height proposed is 29 feet. A maximum of two stories are proposed. Planned Unit Development Condominium projects are required to comply with the development standards contained in the Planned Unit Development Regulations (Chapter 21.45 of the Municipal Code). The proposed project meets or exceeds those requirements as contained in the Development Standards table below. CT 91-07 /CP 91-04 -LA v iRCIA CONDOS DECEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE4 DEVELOPMENf Sf ANDARDS :::::.:::::-·:>::::::.::::::::::::.:::-.- • RD~M ZQ#e •• •·. Min. Lot Size 10,000 s.f. Min. Lot Width 60 ft. Min. Front Yard Setback 20 ft. Min. Side Yard Setback 5 ft. Min. Rear Yard Setback 10 ft. Max. Lot Coverage 60% Max. Structure Height* 30 ft./2 stories* Parking (Resident) NIA (Guest) NIA Recreation Area NIA Street or Driveway Width N/A Storage Space NIA * Maximum height per Beach Area Overlay Zone Mello II Coastal Program >)···· J ~~i •• J > NIA NIA 20 ft. NIA NIA NIA NIA 2 spaces/unit 1 space/2 units 1000 s.f. total (200 s.f./unit) (Pvt and Cmn) 30 ft. 480 cu. ft. •· eitoposED < . ...................... 17,875 s.f. 65 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. 10 ft. 33% 29 ft./2 stories 2-car garage/unit 3 spaces 4089 s.f. total Pvt: 2739 s.f. Cmn: 1350 s.f 30 ft. 480 cu. ft. The project is located within the Mello II segment of the Coastal Program and complies with all Mello II policies: In particular Policies 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6, all of which require minimization of erosion and sedimentation from the site have been addressed. The applicant is required to provide landscaping on the slope area of the site to reduce erosion. Local Facilities Management Plan The subject property is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The impacts on public facilities created by the proposed project and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized below: CT 91-07 ICP 91-04 -LA VERCIA CONDOS DECEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 5 CI1Y ADMINISTRATION LIBRARY ·WASTE WATER TREATMENT PARKS DRAINAGE CIRCULATION FIRE OPEN SPACE SCHOOLS SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 17 .38 sq. ft. Yes 9.27 sq. ft. Yes NIA Yes .04 acres Yes NIA Yes 40ADT Yes Station #1 Yes NIA Yes NIA Yes 5 EDU Yes 1,010 GPD Yes The project is designed at 2 units below the Growth Control Point of the Growth Management Program. Summary The proposal satisfies all of the requirements for approval of the Tentative Tract Map. It also meets or exceeds all of the requirements for the granting of a Condominium Permit. Staff is, therefore, recommending approval of the project. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on September 17, 1992. The project site is subject to noise impacts from trains travelling on the nearby AT&SF Railroad line. The applicant's Noise Study indicates that at only one point on the site (the face of Unit 1) would the noise level exceed the allowable 60 dBa CNEL. At that point the noise level could reach 62 dBa CNEL. Therefore, the balcony of Unit 1 has been designed with a plexiglass wall on the North side. No other mitigation is necessary. CT 91-07 /CP 91-04 -LA VERCIA CONDOS DECEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 6 ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3468 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3469 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3470 4. Location Map 5. Disclosure Form 6. Background Data Sheet 7. Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form 8. Exhibits "A"-"D", dated December 2, 1992. EB:vd November 2, 1992 City of Carlsbad .. 0 f=;,; ei i ei• i •24 •ih ii, ,t§,; I DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE. (Please Print) The following information must be disclosed: 1 . Applicant List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. A,R,C, GEoup 5751 Palmer Way, Ste H Carlsbad. CA 92008 431-6868 2. Owner 3. 4. List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Tamarack Partners 780 Chaparral Lane Escondido, CA 92025 147-0921 If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. FRM00013 8/90 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161 Disclosure Statement (Over) Page 2 s. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ NoXXX If yes, please indicate person(s) ____________________ _ Person is defined u: 'Any individual, firm, copertnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate. trust, ~r. syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as• unit.' (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) Michael F Pooley Print or type name of applicant Paul H or Bonnie K Blanto or Kathryn T Bur ~ Robert M or Carol W McClure FRM00013 8/90 t • EXHIBIT A A.R.C. GROUP is owned by: Michael Dooley and Michael Fencl 5751 Palmer Way Suite H Carlsbad, CA 92008 TAMARACK PARTNERS is owned by: Paul Hor Bonnie K Blanton 780 Chaparral Lane Escondido, CA 92025 Mark T or Lauren B Myers 1550 Burgundy Lane Leucadia, CA 92024 Douglas W or Kathryn T Burgess 517 18th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Robert M or Carol W McClure 3409 Via Sol Arriba Escondido, CA 92025 Della E. Blanton 780 Chaparral Lane Escondido, CA 92025 Brian Lassleben 780 Chaparral Lane Escondido, CA 92025 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET - CASE NO: CT 91-07/CP 91-04 CASE NAME: LA VERCIA CONDOMINIUMS APPLICANT: MICHAEL DOOLEY /ARC GROUP REQUEST AND LOCATION: A 5 Unit infill Condominium Development on the south side of Tamarack between Garfield and AT&SF Railroad. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8 Block 5 of Palisades 2, City of Carlsbad, according to Map 1803 Filed August 25, 1924 .APN: 206-020-05 (Assessor's Parcel Number) Acres ..QA_ Proposed No. of Lots/Units 1 Lot/5 Units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation __ RH ______ _ Density Allowed 15-23 DU/AC Density Proposed 12.5 DU/AC Existing Zone RD-M Proposed Zone -=RD-=-•=M..__ __ _ Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning Requirements) Zoning Land Use Site RD-M VACANT North R-1-7,500 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL South RD-M MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL East RD-M MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL West RD-M MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES School District CARLSBAD Water District CARLSBAD Sewer District CARLSBAD Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) __ 5._E=D=-U-----'S ______________ _ Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated __ AP _____ RI ___ L_____.1 ..... 1 .... , ..... 12-2-1 _____________ _ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ..x_ Negative Declaration, issued _S-E-P __ TE_M=B-E-R ..... 1-7_,_1-2~2 .... 2 __________ _ _ Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated ____________ _ Other, ___________________________ EB_=th CTrY OP CARLSBAD GROWIH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL PACIIITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTI1Y AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: LA VERCIA CONDOMINIUMS -CT 91-07 I CP 91-04 LOCAL FACILI1Y MANAGEMENT ZONE: _1_ GENERAL PLAN: RH DEVELOPER'S NAME: MICHAEL DOOLEY/ ARC GROUP ADDRESS: 5751 PALMER WAY. SUITE H -CARLSBAD-CA 92008 ZONING: PHONE NO: (619) 431-6868 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: 206-020-05 QUANTI1Y OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 0.4ACRES ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. City J\rhn1n1~trative Facilities: Demand m ::;quare Footage = Library: Demand in Square Footage = Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) Park: Demand in Acreage = Drainage: Demand in CFS = Identify Drainage Basin = (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADTs = (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Open Space: Schools: Served by Fire Station No. = Acreage Provided - (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demand in EDUs - Identify Sub Basin - (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) 17.38 9.27 0.04 NIA NIA 40 1 NIA NIA 5 NIA K. Water: Demand in GPD -1010 GPD RD-M L. The project is 2 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. EB:lb City of Carlsbad ■A&hihih·l•l4•SIUl,t4UI NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 305 Tamarack Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: South side of Tamarack Avenue between Garfield and AT&SF Railroad. 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) 43$-1161, extension 4471. DATED: SEPTEMBER 17, 1992 CASE NO: CT 91-7 /CP 91-4 CASE NAME: LA VERCIA CONDOMINIUMS PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 1992 EB:vd 1t~&~,-~, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM -PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 91-7/CP 91-4 DATE: JUNE 23, 1992 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: La Verda Condominiums 2. APPLICANT: Michael Dooley/ARC Group 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Michael Dooley/ARC Group 5751 Palomar Way. Suite H Carlsbad. CA 92008 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: -"M=a=y.._3=.'-'l;:..::9...L9-=1 ____________ _ 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 5 unit infill condominium development. ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the 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 its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings ''YES-sig" and ''YES-insig" respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? _x_ 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? _x_ 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? _x_ 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? _x__ 5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? _x_ 6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? _x_ 7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? _x_ 8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? _x_ 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? _x_ 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _x_ 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? _x_ -2- BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? _x_ 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _x_ 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? _x_ 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? _x_ 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _x_ HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? _K_ 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? _K_ -3- 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? YES YES (sig) (insig) -4- NO _x_ _x_ _x_ _x_ _x_ _x_ _x_ _x_ _x_ _x_ _x_ _x__ MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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. 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.) 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.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES YES (sig) (insig) -5- NO ___x_ ___x_ ___x_ DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed project is a 5-unit condominium development on a 0.4 acre previously developed lot. The project site is subject to the Mello II Local Coastal Plan. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. The proposed project will not result in unstable earth conditions or increase exposure to geologic hazards. The project site is a flat, previously developed site. Total grading proposed for the project is 250 cubic yards of cut and of fill. 2. The proposed project will not appreciably change the topography of the site. The maximum structure height proposed is approximately 28 feet, consistent with surrounding development. Grading will raise the elevation of the site by a maximum of approximately 2-3 feet above the existing elevation. The site 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 to a public street. The project includes the dedication of right-of-way for required street widening and 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 other 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 average of only 40 vehicle trips per day. 6. The project will not result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature. The proposed building setbacks will provide for air movement between structures, and the maximum 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 or immediately adjacent to the site. 8. The project will not affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water, or public water 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. The 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 fuel or energy. 11. The site is a small, previously-developed site containing no evidence of significant archaeological, paleontological, or historical significance. The site is in an area shown to have a Potential High Fossil Content, however, the site has been previously graded and developed and the currently proposed project involves very little new grading (only 250 cubic yards of cut and fill). -6- BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12. The project sill not adversely affect plant species or diversity. The site is a previously developed lot surrounded by urban development. The site does not contain any rare or endangered species or habitat. 13. Existing species of vegetation on the property are not environmentally significant, therefore, the 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 contain prime, unique, or otherwise important farmland. 15. Development of the site will not affect species or habitat diversity. The site is previously developed and is surrounded by existing urban development. 16. The project will not introduce new species of animals into the area. Any domestic animals introduced to the site will not result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals because of the general 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 designated RH (Residential -High Density) on the General Plan and is zoned RD-M (Residential Density - Multiple). The proposed density is consistent with those designations and with surrounding development. 18. Public utilities exist to serve the proposed project. The necessary public services have been anticipated 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 levels. However, the site is within 500 feet of a rail line and is therefore, subject to noise impacts from trains. The small portion of the project which would experience exterior noise levels above 60 dBa CNEL (the balcony/entry area of Unit 1) will be constructed so as to reduce the noise level to a maximum of 60 dBa CNEL. 21. The proposed residential project will not produce sufficient light or glare to adversely impact adjacent 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 risk of 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 General Plan for the site (15 -23 du/ac) and two units below the growth control point (19 du/ac) allowance. 24. The project will provide 5 additional housing units to meet existing demand. -7- 25. The project will generate only 40 average vehicle trips per day, which will not significantly impact the circulation system. 26. The demand for parking facilities created by the project will be satisfied on site. Garages will be 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 accommodate 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 or immediately adjacent to the site, and the site is not within the airport influence area for McClellan- Palomar Airport. The site is within 500 feet of a rail line, however the project will not alter rail traffic. 29. Adequate sight distance will be provided at all vehicle access points to the site to facilitate safe vehicular movement and to protect bicyclists and pedestrians. 30. Development of the site as proposed will not interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. 31. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista nor create an aesthetically offensive public view. 32. The project will provide both common and private onsite recreation areas. -8- ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES 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, t) 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. t) 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- 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will 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 AL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date f6. -~< signture -~£~I~~ Planning Direct~ ~ ' LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORI~G PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -10- APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES EB:km 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 -11- 1-CI) 1--------i 1------1 c3 t-------- REDWOOD AVE TAMARACK AVE LA VERCIA CONDOS j r~ I City of Cartsbad CT 91-7/ CP 91-4