The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1989-03-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 2827I 0 0 ll PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2827 1 2 3 4 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE TO 0 OFFICE. APPLICANT: LAUREL TREE INVESTMENT CASE NO. : ZC 88-6 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of March, 6 and 7 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider sai a WHEREAS, at said pub1 i c hearing, upon hearing and consid testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the i 1o 12 Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declarat 11 submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, th NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1 anning Comr; 13 14 15 16 17 9 fol 1 ows : A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, thc Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative I3 according to Exhibits "SCH" dated December 5, 1988, "ND" data 4, 1988 and "PII" dated October 24, 1988, attached hereto a part hereof, based on the followirrg findings: 18 19 20 21 Findinqs: 1. The initial study shows that there is--no substantial evidencc project may have a significant unmitigated impact on the en' Through condition of approval of Manor Subdivision No. 785 College Boulevard has been relinquished thus eliminating any traffic problem. 22 23 24 25 2. The site has been previously disturbed by agricultural and operations. 3. College Avenue and the surrounding street system will be adequa to handle any traffic that would be generated by the site. 4. There are not sensitive resources located onsite or located sc significantly impacted by this project. 26 27 28 I1 0 0 1 2 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day 1 3 Il 1989, by the following vote, to wit: 4 II AYES : Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schramm, Schlehuber, Erwin, McFadden & Marcus. 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I NOES : None. ABSENT : None. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST : CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION MICHAEL J. HODMILLEV PLANNING DIRECTOR 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 I/ PC RES0 NO. 2827 -2- 28 0 0 Exhibil I STAWOf CALLFORNIAaFF!CE OF THE GOVERNOR GECRCE DE1 OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STRED SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 Lance Schulte City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 .. i' ., I 0 ec Subject: Laurel Tree Investment, Carlsbad (zcc# zc-88-61 *. SCH# 88110223 war: filr. Schulte: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named envirom,ental documer selected state agencies for review. %e state agency review perid i: closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This le acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse rf requirerrents for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the Califc Enviromntal Wality Act. Please ccntact Keith &e at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regal the environmental review process. 'hen contacting the Clearingk regardin? this mtter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse nl so that we my respond promptly. s ince'rely , , -d- &" .. David C. menkarrrp Chief Off ice of Pennit Mistawe * 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 r"I1 0 Ex hi bi t e aitg af aarlsbnb PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 1000' SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD ADJACE! EAST OF THE PROPOSED alignment OF COLLEGE BLVD. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A ZONE CHANGE FROM L-C-Q-LIMITED CONTROL WITH A I OVERLAY to 0-Q-OFFICE WITH A QUALIFIED OVERLAY FOR A ROUGHLY RECTANGUL, SIZED PROPERTY. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above ( project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the C4 Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (de( that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on fi P1 anning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on fi' Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATE0 : NOVEMBER 4, 1988 CASE NO: ZC 88-6 4 /mdZ&y b$ MICHAEL J. HOE ILL P1 anning Director APPLICANT: LAUREL TREE INVESTMENT PUSLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 1988 0 0 Hait to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street. Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 95816 -- 916/465-0613 I NOTICE OF cOWPLETIOY AND ENVIROWMENTAL DOCUMENT FORM I sc+ I scn L 1. Project Titic LAUREL TREE INVESTMENT zc 88-6. 2. Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSEAO 3. Contact Person: LANCE SCHULTE 3a. Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS ORIVE 3b. City: CARLSBAD 3c. County: SAW OIEGO 3d. Zip: 92009 3e. Phone: 619-438-1161 PROJECT LOCATtON 6. County: SAW DIEGO 4a. City/Comnunity: CITY OF CARLSBAO 4b.(optional) ASSeSSOr'S Parcel No. 4c. Section: Tup. Range Sa. Cross Streets: 5b. Nearest Community: 6. Uithin 2 miles of: a. State Hwy NO. 1-5 b. Airports PACOMAR c. uaterways p~c 7. DOCUMENT TYPE 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE For Rural, CEaA 01 - General Plan Update 01 - Residential: Units - 01 - MOP 02 - New Element 02 -Office: Sq. Ft. 02 - Early Cons 03 - General Plan Amendment Acres Employer 03 X Neg Dec 04 - Master Plan 03 - Shopping/Commercial: Sq, 05 - Supplement/ 06 - Specific Plan 04 - Industrial: Sq. Ft. - (if so, prior SCH 1 07 - Redevelopment Acres Employees 04 - Draft EIR 05 - Annexation Acres Employees . Subsequent EIR ) 08 X Rezone TO OFFICE 05 - Sewer: MGO - HEPA 09 X Land Division 06 - 'dater: MGD (Subdivision, Parcel Hap. 06 - Notice of Intent Tract Hap, etc.) 07 I Transportation: Type - 07 - Envir. Assessment/ 10 - Use Permit 08 - Mineral Extraction: Mini FONSI 08 - Draft €IS 11 - Cancel Ag Preserve 09 - Power Generation: Uattal am 12 - Other Type: 09 - Information Only 10 - Other: 10 - Final Oocument 9 TOTAL ACRES: 9.00 11 - Other: 11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSEO IN DOCUMENT 01 - Aesthetic/Visual 08 - Geologic/Seismic 15 I Sewer Capacity 22 - 02 - Agricultural Land 09 - Jobs/Housing Balance 16 - Soil Erosion 23 - 03 - Air Quality 10 - Minerals 17 - Solid Waste 24 - 04 - Archaeo~ogical/Historical/ 11 - Noise 18 - Toxic/Harardous 25 - Paleontological f2 - Public Services 19 - lraffic/Circulation 26 - 05 - Coastal 13 - Schools 20 - Vegetation 27 - 06 - Fire Hazard 14 - Septic Systems 21 - Water Quality 28 - 07 - Flooding/Orainage 12 FUNDING (apprax.) Federai S State 5 Total L 13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: PRESENTLr VACANT. THE GENERAL PLAN & LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM CA PRESENT ZONING IS LIMITED CONTROL YIfH A P QUALIFIED OVERLAY. 14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A ZOYE CHANCE FRO(( LIMITED CONTROL TO OFFICE YlTH A Q QUALIFIED OVERLL 9 ACRE SITE. 1 15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE Date: /I0 0 e I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASsEs8MEX"F FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. ZC-88-6 I. BACKGROUND DATE : October 24. 198 1, APPLICANT: LAUREL TREE INVESTMENT 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 17941 MITCHELL - IRVINE. CA 92714 - (714) 863-1767 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: 11. 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? - YES MAY BE 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? 2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in! a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? odors? b. The creation of objectionable 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 J - X - X X - X - X X X - X - X X e a YES - MAY BE 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? 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 7. Liaht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have increase existing noise levels? nificantly produce new light or glare? significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -3- - - - 0 0 9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources? 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. 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. 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? -4- - YES MAY BE NO - - 3 " X - - X X - X - X X X X X - x e 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. Enemy - 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 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? - 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? - 20. Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? - 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the Droposed Droiect such as: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the sit e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. A. The project cannot be phased as it is a change in zoning. B. No Site Design is proposed. C. No scale of development is proposed. D. Alternative uses would be inconsistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. E. No development is proposed at this time. F. Few alternative sites would be as consistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan and Comprehensive Land Use Plan far Palomar Airpart. G. No project would continue the present L-C limitation control zoning. -6- I* e e YES - MAY BE 22. Mandatorv findincrs of sisnificance - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? 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 effecty of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) de Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 13F* The proposed Zone Change, minor subdivision and adjustment j could potentially create future traffic hazards unless acceS the site is adequately planned for. The proposed mitigas meaSure should reduce this potential impact to an insignifi, level. 22b. The proposed zone change from L-c Limited Control with a Qualil Overlay to o-office/Professional with a Q-overlaY achieve short-term goal to zone the property consistent with the Gena plan and Local coastal Program. The Project's achievement long term goals cannot be fully assessed without a site plan the property. -7- 0 0 .d , 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 i: 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 ENVIROHMENTA /I-/- $8 Date (I I ZlBB ’ Date Plannixg Disctor V.MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) 1. AS determined by the City Engineer, access to the site shall be limited consistent with the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan, ordinances and adopted public works standards. -8- .r IV *. * a e MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued) VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING M AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. A /aP Date’ ’ -9-