Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-04-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 2725Ii a e 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2725 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF FIRE STATION NO. 5 AT 2560 ORION WAY. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO.: CUP 88-6 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of April, 1988, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibits l'ND1l and I1PIII1, dated March 16, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinqs : 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously rough graded as a consequence l of the development of Phase I of the adjacent Carlsbad ~ Safety and Service Center. 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project. //// I //// 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 e 0 4. There are not sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly impacted by this pro j ect . 5. The project will not be growth inducing as it has been planned for development, as discussed within the Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of April, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners: McBane, Hall, Schramm, Marcus and Schlehuber . NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairperson McFadden & Commissioner Holmes. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: MATTHEW HALL, Vlce-Chalrman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION MICHAEL J. HO~ZMILLER - PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 2725 -2- . ,' ,a EXHIBIT "ND" (I, 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 LANNING DEPARTMENT (619) 438-1 161 Cltp of CarIs'bab NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 2560 Orion Way, Carlsbad, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of Fire Station No. 5 (12,000 square feet) at the Carlsbad Safety and Service Center 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 ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: March 23, 1988 MICHAEL J. ~LZMI~LER CASE NO: CUP 88-6 ~~ Planning Director APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH DATE: March 23, 1988 CDD: af .. 0 e EXHIBIT “PlI” ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CUP 88-6 DATE : 3-16-88 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT : City of Carlsbad 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: March 10, 1988 I. 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? 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? YES MAY BE - NO X X X X X X .. 0 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 patters, 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- e YES MAY BE - NO X X X X X X X X X X X .. 0 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- e - YES X MAY BE - NO 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 Upset - 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. Powlation - 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? - YES X MAY BE - NO X X X X X X X X X X -4- . i 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. Enerav - 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 X X X X X X X X X X X X X f. 0 0 - YES MAY BE No 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? X 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Archeolosical/Historical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? X 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the RroDosed Droiect 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) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) N/A b) The project has been designed to minimize environmental impacts. c) This project has been scaled to meet the required standards for fire service. d) This site has been selected for a fire station as part of the City of Carlsbad Safety Center which is already partially developed. e) Per the Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan, the Fire Station is required now in order to ensure adequate fire service to currently unserviced central and eastern portions of the City. f) See d) above. 9) N/A -6- . i 0 0 - YES MAY BE - NO 22. Mandatorv findinss of sisnificance - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? X 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 impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X I. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The City is proposing to construct a fire station of approximately 12,OO square feet on a 2.5 acre site which has been previously disturbed and rough graded as a consequence of the development of the Phase I of the adjacent Carlsbad Safety and Service Center. The majority of the site is relatively flat (around 10% gradient) and disturbed. The eastern portion of the site is somewhat steeper, but no development is proposed within this area. Fire Station No. 5 is being constructed to provide a minimum five minute response time for fire protection and emergency medical services for currently unserviced existing and proposed businesses within the Zone 5 Local Facility Management Plan area of the City, as well as other unserviced areas of the City within a 2.5 mile radius of the proposed fire station. Potential environmental impacts from development of the project include: (1) Noise from emergency vehicle sirens, and (2) Growth inducement. -7- ' c- 0 0 :SCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) With regard to noise, this impact is not regarded as significant in that it is not continuous but rather a single event impact. In addition, this noise intrusion is accepted by society in that it is associated with a public service emergency response. Since there are no residential uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the long-term effects of single events noise intrusions are not regarded as significant. Although the construction of this fire station will allow for continued growth within the immediate vicinity, this growth is not unplanned for and will not be allowed (per the City's Growth Management Program) unless all other public facility standards are complied with. In accordance, no adverse project impacts are anticipated. Overall, the environmental analysis and field checks conducted by staff indicated that because the site has been previously distrubed and rough graded and no sensitive environmental resources exist on the property, this negative declaration is appropriate. There were no public comments received in response to the notice for a Negative Declaration. -8- 0 0 '. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: XI find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. -1 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. -1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. March 16, Date 1988 w ,oa MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) N/A -9- v- 0 0 TIGATING MEASURES (Continued) 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 -10-