HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-06-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 2876I
zt .- 0 e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2876
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSB CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPM PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 4,035 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXIST
APPLICANT: WINTERS PARTNERSHIP COMMERICAL RETAIL BUILDING IN THE CT-Q ZONE.
CASE NO.: SDP 88-8
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of June,
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider sai
and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consil
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the i
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, tt
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declarati
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Coml
fol 1 ows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the pub1 ic hearing, tt Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative C
according to Exhibit "ND", dated May 12, 1989, and "PII", date(
1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the findings:
Findings:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidenc project may have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier env analysis.
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic general proposed project.
4. There are not sensitive resources located onsite or located s significantly impacted by this project.
8886
....
....
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 e
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of th
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st da
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES : Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm McFadden, Marcus & Holmes.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
9
10
11 ATTEST:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
12 II
13
14 PLANNING DIRECTOR
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 I 1 PC RES0 NO. 2876 .2-
28
* c, e 0
CORRECTED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Palomar Airport Road and Pa Del Norte.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for a 4,035 square foot addition and exter remodel to an existing 2,440 square foot commercial retail building on 1.01 ac of 1 and located at the southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Paseo Norte in the Ct-Q Zone APN: 211-050-05 & 11
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above descri project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califor Environmental Qual ity Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the ( of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaral that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is her issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in P1 anning Department.
A copy of the Negative Decl arati on with supportive documents i s on f i 1 e in Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl sbad, Cal i forni a 92009. Commt from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Plant Department within thirty (30) days of date of issuance.
DATED: May 12, 1989
CASE NO: SDP 88-8 MICHAEL 3. HOmILLw P1 anning Director
APPLICANT: B.A. WORTHING
PUBLISH DATE: May 12, 1989
cw
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 I
w w
1
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regul ar meeting of the P1 anni
Commission o on the 21st day of Jun
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN :
MATTHEW HALL, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PC RES0 NO. 2876 -2-
. a. 0 0 I:;:;; F';jeF'g*
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(m BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. SDP 88-8
DATE : ADril 12, 1989
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: B. A. WORTHING
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
P.O. BOX 1041
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (619) 729-3965
' 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: AUGUST 12, 1988
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
- YES MAY BE
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?
W
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-
YES MAY BE NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
. s. 8. 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. 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-
MAY BE.
W
” YES MAY BE NO
9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources? X
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource? X
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? X
11. Population - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu-
tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X
12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X
13. Transportation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? X
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? X
c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? X
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 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?
15. Enerqv - 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
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. Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontoloqical - 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 proposed 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 proposal is the second phase of a two phase project.
B. Alternative site designs are not viable due to existing site constraints.
C. A reduction in building space would decrease projected traffic generation however, the proposal would increase traffic by less than 10%.
D. The proposal is consistent with land use designations in
the general plan and zoning ordinances.
E. Delay of the project would not have a direct positive
effect on the environment however, it would maintain the
status quo.
F. Alternate sites will not be cost effective.
G. No project would deny the property owner uses for which the
property is zoned.
-6-
.,* 'I 0 0
" YES MAY BE
22. Mandatorv findinqs of siqnificance - -
a. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
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 the possible
environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively con- siderable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the 'effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
-7-
w w
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
1. EARTH - The site is an existing convenience market with gas islands and standing dry cl-eaners. There will not be any need to grade or change existing topography.
2. AIR - The project will not create or contribute to toxic emissions.
projects low profile will not disturb or alter air movement.
3. WATER - The proposal does not interfere with any natural or man made 1 courses. Existing off-site facilities are capable of accepting any su
flows from the site.
4. PLANT LIFE - The project will provide an increase in health and compa'
plant materials to the site.
5. ANIMAL LIFE - There is no existing animal life on the site.
6. NOISE - The proposal has no noise generating elements.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE - The proposal has no significant light producing elemc
8. LAND USE - The project is consistent with present zoning and General Designations.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES - The project is not dependent on the use of any na. resources.
10. RISK OF UPSET - The project is speculative and there is no evidence tha
proposal includes toxic or combustible substances.
11. POPULATION - N/A
12. HOUSING - N/A
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION - The project will require an additiona
parking spaces to the current demand. The proposed site design pro?
parking counts within those required by the City of Carlsbad Develo]
Standards.
Related to the parking requirements, staff has identified onsite circuli
as being impacted by the additional vehicular movement. The site has designed with a median which will restrict onsite traffic speed
acceptable levels.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES - Public service programs are currently being providt
the site. The proposed addition will not require additional or services.
15. ENERGY - Current energy supplies are sufficient to satisfy the needs 0 proposed project.
16. UTILITIES - The proposed project is in local facilities management 201
All of the public services and utilities that will be required b)
project will be provided through implementation of the Zone 5 plan.
-8-
.,.I.. e e
17- HUMAN HEALTH - N/A
18. AESTHETICS - N/A -
19. RECREATION - N/A
20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL - The site is currently
There is no evidence of related concerns.
IV. 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
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
. I find that although the proposed project could have a signific; effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effec this case because the mitigation measures described on an attack 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 th environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
q I//: ,, '"^ ;; ./ 'I--.- /,I ' 1: j.1 ; [ 1;" {, I-
/ D&e ' ' Signature
! ,\ A 'i ,' !I[ (( li \, 1 I ~ 1. i, ; t ( r" !." .I pi,, .;, ..I1 vi. i ' Date Planning birector
V.MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-9-