HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 2804il a 0
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
~
i
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2804
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP A WATER DISTRICT OPERATION CENTER. APPLICANT: COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CASE NO.: SDP 88-12/SUP 88-2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of March, 1989, hold
a duly noticed publ ic hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request,
and
WHEREAS, at said publ i c hearing, upon hearing and considering a1 1
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
fol1 ows :
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. I
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 January 25, 1989, and "PII", dated December 2, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Fi ndi nqs :
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant unmitigated impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously developed.
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project.
4. The landowner is required to submit and implement a reporting and monitoring program to assure all environmental mitigation agreed to in "PII" is achieved. This is made a condition of approval of SDP 88-12/SUP 88-2, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2803.
.... I .... I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10;
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
e e
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of March,
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES : Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schramm, Schlehuber,
Holmes, Erwin, McFadden & Marcus.
NOES : None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 2804 -2-
e 0
2075 US PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD. CA 92009459 TELEPHONE
(619) 438-1161
Mitg af (aartsbab
PUNNING DEPARTMENT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 5950 El Camino Real; East of El Camino Rea1 between
Pal omar Airport Road and faraday Drive.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On approximately 6 acres 18,000 square feet of administrative and maintenance buildings are proposed for the Costa Real Municipal Water District.
The City of Carl sbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Qual i ty 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. Mitigation measures where made a condition of the Negative Declaration. Justification for this action is on file in the P1 anning 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: January 25, 1989 Pl anni ng Director CASE NO: SDP 88-12/SUP 88-2
APPLICANT: COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
PUBLISH DATE: January 25, 1989
a 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. SDP 88-12/SUP 88-20
DATE : December 2, 1988
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5950 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD. CA 92008 - (619) 438-2722
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED:
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 have significant proposal results in:
a. Unstable earth conditions
or in changes in geologic substructures? . .. X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering
of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
X
X
d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? 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
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 - NO
X
X
X
X
a .- X
" X
X
X
X
X
X
a 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
a. Increase in the rate'of use of any
have significant results in:
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. PoDulation - 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-
- YES MAY BE - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
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. Energy - 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?
'-70 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
e a
- 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. Archeolouical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - 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 tmonosed proiect 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 project is a Phased Development of the Site.
B. Alternate site designs do nnt appear more environmentally
sensitive.
C. The project is a Low Impact Single Story Development.
D. The project is consistent with the Land Use planned for
the site by the General Plan and Zoning.
E. Delay of the project would exasperate the Water District's
presently crowded conditions.
F. Alternative sites would most likely be more expensive and not
produce a significant environmental benefit.
G. 868 (G.) above.
-6-
* e 0
" YES MAYBE NO -
22. Mandatow findinas of sianificance -
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
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Id. The project proposes grading in an area of medium paleological sensitivity.
13c. The project proposes a driveway entrance on El Camino Real, a prime arterial, at a location approximately 1000 feet north of an intersection with Palomar Airport Road an other Prime Arterial. A mitigation condition is included,
13d. The project is within the Airport Influence Area of Palomar Airport.
22. With the application of the proposed Paleontological MitigationMeasure,
the project will not degrade the quality or curtail the diversity of the environment.
-7-
e 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.
/"8- BY
Date
' b/07
Date Plannin2 DiMctor
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
1.Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first,
a soils report sBall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad. Ii
the soils report indicates the presence of potential fossil bearing material
then a standard two phased program, on file in the Planning Department,
shall be undertaken to avoid possible significant impacts on paleontological resources under the direction of the Planning Department.
2. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall post a cash deposit based on City
approved estimated cost of the applicants share for full width median in El
Camino Real .
-8-
. 0. 0
JI. 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.
%. 40. ,s,ws A/ +Q’ I ;,, lJ L&b)t&”
Y Date
-9-