HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-07-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 2744I
/I I/ a
2
3'
4
5i I
6 I!
7 /I /I
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2744
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE MAP, AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, ABOUT ONE-QUARTER MILE EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE . APPLICANT: CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTER CASE NO.: ZC 87-1/CT 87-2/HDP 88-2
8 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of
9 June and 6th day of July, 1988, hold duly noticed public
lo hearings as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
11 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
l2
Declaration D l6
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative l5
considering any written comments received, the Planning l4
I study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and l3
considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial
I-7 i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
18
! A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. l9
Commission as follows:
based on the following findings and conditions:
dated May 4, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, 22
Negative Declaration according to Exhibit I1ND1l and tlPII1l,
the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the Conditional 21
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, 2o
i
i
23 // Findinqs:
24 I 1. Although the proposed project could have a significant
25
26
27
effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because mitigation
measures have been added to the project to a point where
clearly no significant effect would occur; and
28
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
~
I
~
,
27
28
0 0
2. There is no substantial evidence that the project as
conditioned may have a significant effect on the
environment.
Conditions:
1. The following mitigation measures shall occur as the
project is implemented:
A. The recommendations of the soils report (dated August 8,
1986, with subsequent addendums dated April 21, 1987, and
June 11, 1987, by Woodward-Clyde Consultants) will be
incorporated into the final grading plan for the project.
B. The recommendations of the biology report (dated March 2,
1988, by Westec Services, Inc.) will be followed, and
include:
(1) Sediment basins will be placed in the development
areas at the lower end of drainage ways prior to
grading the site.
(2) The approximately 50-foot wide strip between the
development area and the wetland will be revegetated, preferably with coastal sage scrub species, immediately after grading, which could
allow some Blacktailed Gnatcatchers to persist. In
addition, the following Condition No. 21 was added
by Planning Commission action to Resolution No. 2746
to further protect the gnatcatcher:
The black-tailed gnatcatcher shall not be
disturbed during its nesting season, in
accordance with the Federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. Grading shall not occur during
those months of nesting/breeding activities,
which are from mid-March to August 1, unless
written certification to do so is obtained
from the California Department of Fish and
Game.
(3) Graded slopes in the development area will be
revegetated promptly to avoid erosion into the
wetland.
(4) Construction equipment will not be parked or
operated in the wetland.
(5) Excess fill or stock-piling will not be placed in
the wetlands area.
I I PC RESO NO. 2744 -2-
I
I I ~
~
i
j. 0 0 xi 2
31
(6) Construction limits and wetland habitat will be flagged by a qualified biologist prior to grading and construction activity will be monitored by the same to ensure that the wetlands are not inadvertently degraded.
4 I; C. The -14 acres of wetlands to be disturbed by the proposed project will be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
A mitigation program will be developed to the
Department of Fish and Game with a minimum of 1: 1
mitigation. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
mitigation plan from the two responsible agencies. (Note: This condition has been modified by Planning Commission action on Resolution No. 2746 for CT 87-2 in which the following Condition No. 20C was added: I'The tentative map shall be redesigned so that there are no encroachments into the wetlands.I@)
5 I,
I\ 6 !! /i satisfaction of the California Coastal Commission and the
I' applicant will obtain a certified permit for the 'd /I
8
9
10
11 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
l2
15
14
the 6th day of July, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: l3
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
AYES : Chairman McFadden, Commissioners: Marcus,
Schlehuber, Holmes & Schramm.
16 11 NOES: None.
I 17
18
19 !
20 I:
ABSENT: Hall
ABSTAIN: Erwin
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 21 11 ATTEST:
22
23 MW?!&!W 24 11 PLANNING DIRECTOR
25
26
27
28 PC RES0 NO. 2744 -3-
i- o 0
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 TELEPHONE
(61 9) 438-1 161
Mitu af aarlsbail
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South side of Palomar Airport Road, one quarter of a mile east of Paseo del Norte.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone change and subdivision map for industrial lots in compliance with the General Plan. Eights lots and associated street network would be created. Approximately 18 acres would remain in open space, and another 18 acres to remain in limited control zoning.
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 Conditional Negative Declaration (declaration that the project, as conditioned, 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: May 4, 1988 MICHAEL J. H~LZMI~R
CASE NO: CT 87-2/ZC 87-1 Planning Director
APPLICANT: Carltas Company
PUBLISH DATE: May 4, 1988
i 0 e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 87-2/ZC 87-1
DATE : 4-11-88
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT : Carltas Development Company
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4401 Manchester Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
(944-4090)
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: Auaust 6, 1987
11. 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?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features?
X
X
X
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
i- o
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 MAYBE NO -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I 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. Liaht 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 - 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 UrJset - 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?
- YES MAYBE ' NO -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-4-
c a a.
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. Enersv - 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
x e 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 proposed 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) The proposed project is not that large so phasing would not be particularly applicable. b) An alternate site design could avoid any impacts to the
wetlands by using a different grading scheme, i.e., pulling the slopes back, so no encroachment occurs. The project would have to be redesigned, grading quantities may be affected, perhaps eliminating the need to import an additional 6,000 cubic yards. This would be an
environmentally preferred alternative. c) An alternate scale of development that would be more environmentally sensitive would involve no grading into the wetlands, resulting in a smaller pad for one of the eight
lots. d) Whatever use builds on the site, it would be required to observe the open space designation and wetland impacts. e) The project is located in an area that is developing with other industrial and commercial uses, so development at this time is not premature.
f ) N/A g) A "no project" alternative would cause no disturbance to the site or to the wetlands. However, the General Plan designations for the site would remain in place (Planned Industrial and Open Space) and at a future point, another subdivision map would likely be proposed.
-6-
.> w
0 0
- YES MAY BE NO
22. Mandatory findinss of siqnificance -
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.) X
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
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project proposes to subdivide a 56-acre property into 8
industrial lots (20 ac) and open space (18 ac) . Eighteen
additional acres have been left in a holding zone of limited
control for the time being. A future project will precipitate
a zone change and required environmental evaluation for that area. The numbered items below refer to the initial study checklist.
-7-
- 0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
1) Earth - The project proposes grading amounts of 187,000 cubic yards of cut and 193,000 cubic yards of fill within the 20 acre area proposed for lots and streets. The maximum slope created will be 25 feet in height, which is within the parameters allowed by the Hillside Ordinance and is not a significant change in topography. A soil feasibility study and geologic reconnaissance have been done
(reports on file in the Planning Department) which show that while there are compressible and expansive soils on site, there are common techniques to alleviate potential impacts caused by these soils. Both types of soils can be excavated and replaced with other
.. compacted fill soils which are available on site.
There are both a landslide and a fault located in areas not proposed for development. When or if development or grading were to occur
near these areas, additional studies would be required to determine the special treatment necessary.
Because a grading permit is needed, the project will have to comply with the recommendations of the soils study. As such, no significant impacts are anticipated with regard to unstable earth conditions, disruption of the soils, or modification of unique geologic features. Soil erosion will be controlled by proper landscaping and drainage controls. The riparian area channel will not be modified as it is proposed to remain in open space. If a stock-piling permit is required, separate environmental review will be done at that time.
2) && - The proposed zone change will implement the General Plan ttindustrialtt land use designation. Thus, the number of vehicle trips from this proposed subdivision has been included in regional traffic counts for estimating future air quality conditions in the San Diego basin. This proposal will not significantly impact that
information.
3) Water - The open space area is wetland and a water course which currently drains the subject property, and will be minimally disturbed by the proposed subdivision. Drainage will continue to flow into the open space, but will be controlled by rip rap and confined to certain outlets.
4) Plant Life - A biological resources report was prepared for the
property and is on file in the Planning Department. The following
infomation is a summary of impacts from that report:
The three vegetative associations that will be affected
by development are disturbed vegetation, successional
coastal sage scrub, and disturbed coastal sage scrub. Open, disturbed vegetation is not a sensitive habitat and the loss of 11.0 acres here is not a significant adverse
impact. Although the successional sage scrub, if left undisturbed, might eventually regenerate into higher- quality habitat, the value and sensitivity of the habitat
-8-
" 0 e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
in its current condition are low, and the loss of 7.7 acres is not a significant adverse impact.
The 1.3 acres of coastal sage scrub, although disturbed, are of biological value primarily for the two sensitive plant and one sensitive bird species they contain, and SO
loss of this area is an adverse impact. However, because the two plants (Selaainella cincerascens and Dichondra occidentalis) are of relatively low sensitivity and
.. consist of small, isolated populations, its loss would not be considered significant. In addition, the California Black-tailed Gnatcatchers (3 pairs), are small in number, isolated from other populations in Carlsbad, and will be impacted by the widening of Palomar Airport Road. Their loss is not considered significant.
After the biology report was completed, a revised grading plan showed an encroachment into the wetland of .14 acres. This impact will require mitigation to the satisfaction of the Coastal Commission so that wetland impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance. The wetland area impacted is pampas grass, which while it is a non-native disturbed habitat, lies in an area that is still wetlands due to the underlying soil/hydrological conditions. Because the wetland habitat has been degraded by the proliferation of pampas grass, the area represents an opportunity for wetland enhancement.
In addition to the mitigation for the wetlands, there are measures to reduce or avoid indirect adverse impacts from grading in such close proximity to wetlands, that will be placed on the project as conditions of approval. These measures are included as environmental mitigation as well.
5) Animal Life - Although the project will impact 3 pairs of Black- tailed Gnatcatchers, for reasons discussed in the section above, the impact is not considered significant.
6) Noise - The proposal will not impact noise levels; it is an appropriate use next to a prime arterial roadway.
7) Lisht or Glare - The proposal will provide streetlights and parking lot lights which will not cause significant light or glare impacts.
8) Land Use - The proposed zone change will implement the General Plan land use designation of Planned Industrial; the Open Space designation also will compliment the General Plan. The retention of L-C is appropriate until detailed studies are done to determine the developable area and the open space on the L-C parcel.
9) Natural Resources - Not applicable.
10) Risk of Upset - Not applicable.
-9-
e e
3ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
11) PoDulation - Although the proposed subdivision will create
employment opportunities, the size of the project will not
significantly affect growth patterns.
12) Housinq - See No. 11 above.
13 1 TransDortation/Circulation - The proposed industrial subdivision will generate approximately 8,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT) , 6,000 to Palomar Airport Road, which will not create significant impacts. All parking will be provided on- site for the industrial uses. Impacts to the existing transportation system are minimal--a traffic signal will be required on Palomar Airport Road to assure safe ingress/egress from the project. There will be no alteration to present circulation patterns. Finally, sidewalks and a bikelane will be installed along Palomar Airport Road.
14) Public Services - Incremental increases will be required of
police and fire services, as well as road maintenance, none of which constitute a significant impact.
15) Enerqv - Future construction will not by itself create a significant demand on energy sources.
16) Utilities - Standard utilities will be installed within the subdivision as required. The project has been designed to avoid impacts with existing regional water and sewer lines which go through the property by relocating the lines or by grading around the lines such that the lines are not within new slope areas.
17) Human Health - Not applicable.
18) Aesthetics - The proposal will not create offensive views--the project will be a typical business park. Drivers on Palomar Airport Road will continue to have some natural open space views to the south.
19) Recreation - Not applicable.
20) Archaeolosv - A cultural resource survey, including fieldwork and record searches (on file in the Planning department), found no cultural resources within the subject property; thus, no impacts will be incurred by the project.
-10-
0 0
IV. DETERMINATION (To Be completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
q 427 -g '5 YbwL )/ <-- L 24. C,tL~"
Date Senature
J. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
The following mitigation measures will ensure that stable soil conditions are present for construction, that no impacts occur to the wetlands during grading operations, and that the encroachment into the wetlands is mitigated.
1) The recommendations of the soils report will be incorporated into the final grading plan for the project.
2) The recommendations of the biology report will be followed, and
include:
a) Sediment basins will be placed in the development areas at the
lower end of drainage ways prior to grading.
b) The approximately 50-foot wide strip between the development area and the wetland will be revegetated, preferably with coastal sage scrub species, prior to grading, which could allow some Black- tailed Gnatcatchers to persist.
c) Graded slopes in the development area will be revegetated promptly to avoid erosion into the wetland.
d) Construction equipment will not be parked or operated in the
wetland.
e) Excess fill or stock-piling will not be placed in the wetlands
area.
-11-
r 0 0
4ITIGATING MEASURES (Continued)
f) Construction limits and wetland habitat will be flagged by a qualified biologist prior to grading and construction activity will be monitored by the same to ensure that the wetlands is not inadvertently degraded.
3) The .14 acres of wetlands to be disturbed by the proposed project will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. A mitigation program will be developed to the satisfaction of the California Coastal Commission and the Department of Fish and Game with a minimum of 1:l mitigation. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,
. the applicant will obtain a certified permit for the mitigation
. plan from the two responsible agencies.
71. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THES
4 - 2G ry ~ ,+z 5 I L'i*zI, I
Date I Signature / ,/
"x
OIL: af
-12-