Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-11-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 27901 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 a 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2790 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE ZONE. APPLICANT: HAWTHORNE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT RENTAL YARD IN THE P-M CASE NO.: CUP 88-16 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of November, 1988, hold a duly noticed pub1 ic hearing as prescribed by 1 aw 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 fol 1 ows : 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 Exhibit "ND", dated October 12, 1988, and I'PII", dated October 5, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinqs: 1. A field survey and Part I1 of 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 graded pursuant to the approved Final Map and grading plan of CT 87-3. The proposed grading for this project will not significantly alter the site. 3. Camino Vida Roble is adequate in size to handle the traffic expected to be generated by the proposed use. 4. The site has been previously graded and there are no sensitive resources on the site. //// II e 0 I1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning '11 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of 2 3 November, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson McFadden, Commissioners: Schramm, Schlehuber, 4 NOES : None. 5 Holmes, Erwin and Hal 1 . 6 ABSENT: Commissioner Marcus. 7 ABSTAIN: None. 8 9 10 ATTEST: rt CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION l1 iICHAEL J. HOizfiILLER-/ A I '.ri"f J&* '-a\ I ? F'' . (' -1 -, '; 12 :, ;\,:;r $"J.,' Q t:, i L/\ %! X ', 13 I/ PLANNING DIRECTOR 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 2790 -2- 28 ~;<~~~:~~ "?;3" - a 0 W 2075 LAS PALMAS DR1V.E CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 TELEPHONE (619) 438-1 161 QitQ af QInrlsbnb PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Southwest corner of the intersection of Camin0 Vida Roble and Las Palmas Drive. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conditional Use Permit and Planned Industrial Permit for the construction of a 5,423 square foot office/maintenance building along with a heavy equipment storage yard. 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 P1 anni ng Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, ial ifornia 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: October 12, 1988 / LU MICHAEL J. HOLIkILLEw CASE NO: CUP 88-16/PIP 88-7 P1 anni ng Director APPLICANT: Hawthorne PUBLISH DATE: October 12, 1988 MH: af 0 0 EXHIBIT "PII" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CUP-88-16/PIP88-7 DATE : October 5, 1988 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: J. T. HAWTHORNE 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P.O. BOX 708 SAN DIEGO. CA 92112 277-2260 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: AUGUST 26, 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? - YES MAY BE - NO X X X X 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 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- 0- YES MAY BE X - NO X X X X X X X X X X 0 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. Light 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 UDset - 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. Housing - 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 MAY BE X X NO X X X X X X X X X -4- 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? .5. Enercrv - 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? 6. 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? 7- I-Wnan 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 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/Paleontolo~ical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? X 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the txolsosed lsroiect 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 site is too small, 3.52 acres to accommodate phased b. The existing topography and the location of a San Diego Gas development. and Electric easement severely limit the design possibilities of this site. c. As stated above this site is extremely constrained by topography and existing powerline easement which makes it difficult to accommodate a greater amount of development on this site. The proposed 5,437 square foot building only covers 3.5% of the site. d. The site could probably be developed with a small office or warehouse. e. The site could be developed at a later date, but it is one of the last undeveloped lots in this part of Carlsbad's Industrial area. f. The proposed use could be located on another industrial lot within the industrial part of Carlsbad, but the impacts to the environment would probably be the same. g. The site would remain in its existing, graded state, covered with weeds. Since the site is designated and zoned for industrial/office development it will eventually be developed with some type of industrial or office use. -6- 0 e - YES MAY BE NO 22. Mandatorv findings 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.) 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 direc,tly or indirectly? X 11. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This project would entail the construction of a 5,423 square foot industrial/office building on a previously graded 3.52 acre lot. Approximately 86% of the lot will be paved to provide storage area for heavy construction equipment. The project is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Camino Vida Roble and Las Palmas Drive. The site has been previously graded and is presently covered with weeds. Staff has made a number of field trips to this parcel. There are no existing sensitive environmental resources on this property. The proposed project will require approximately 14,000 cubic yards of grading which will have no significant impact on the existing topography or soils. -7- e 0- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) .. Potential Environmental Impacts from the proposed project include: 1, water 2. Risk Upset 3. Circulation 4. Aesthetics The development of this project will result in the majority of this sitc being covered with an impervious surface will change the absorption rate an( could increase the potential runoff rate. However, the proposed drainagt system for this project will be able to accommodate the increased runof1 with no adverse impacts. Underground gasoline tanks will be located on site to service the vehicles that will be located on site. As mentioned, these tanks will be underground and comply with all applicable requirements of the Carlsbad Fire Department to eliminate the possibility of an upset. Heavy equipment will be entering and leaving the site. The applicant ha5 informed the city that approximately 30 trips a day will be generated by thc proposed use. This number includes employees as well as rented equipment. The entrance to this site has been located in the most visible area on thc outside of a curve to reduce as much as possible the possibility of traffic conflicts. Mounding and heavy landscaping will be utilized to screen the equipment being stored and maintained on this site. Overall, the environmental analysis and field checks conducted by staff indicated that because there are no sensitive resources on the site and because the site has been previously graded and is within an industrial area, no significant environmental impacts are anticipated, -0- 0 e, '. 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 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. /0/7/sb PbA.f&f & Date Signature ,0/3/&3 Dite Planni& Dikdctor MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) -9-