HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-12-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 2945.. ll 0 e
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2945
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEVELOP A 13.92 ACRE PLANNED
INDUSTRIAL ZONED PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE EASTERN TERMINUS OF SWIFT PLACE. APPLICANT: PALOMAR POINTE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE
CASE NO.: SDP 89-12/HDP 89-43
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of
1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to con:
request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consic
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the il
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, th
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declarat
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1 anning Coml
f 01 1 ows :
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, thr Commission hereby APPROVES the Conditional Negative Declaration to Exhibits 'IND", dated October 20, 1989, "PII", dated October and the Mitigation Monitoring Program outlined in Appendix "P' hereto and made a part hereof, based on the fol1 owing findings
Findinqs:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidencf
project may have a significant impact on the environment pro1 mi tigating conditions of approval are compl ied with -
2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generat
proposed project.
3.
I
The field surveys conducted by staff and the cultural and
assessments prepared for the project (Recon, 1988) determined are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so significantly impacted by this project. However, because the pr impact .67 of an acre of chaparral habitat 1 ocated on 25% ar slopes, which is subject to preservation under the Me1 1 o I1 LOC
Plan, and because the southern portion of the property is loca
the transitional landing/takeoff surface area for Palomar Air1
project is approved subject to compliance with the following c
.I 0 *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
€3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
a) This project is approved subject to the condition northeastern and southern property perimeters (total of 1.1 are landscaped with a mix of native vegetation. A landscape and irrigation plan for this native landscapin! submitted for review and approval by the Planning Directc Department of Fish and Game prior to the issuance of permit. This perimeter native landscaping shall be requ' planted prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Following the landscaping of the subject 1.04 acres, tt Carl sbad wi 11 conduct site inspections to assess 1 performance. Two additional site inspections by the Cii conducted at 6 and 18 months following 1 andscaping to ev, success. If the 1 andscaping attempts are not deemed sucl the City, then the project applicant shall be required to these areas until they are successfully established.
b) This project is approved subject to the condition that no or temporary structure, feature, object, vegetation materi a1 upon Lots 2, 3, and 4 shall be a1 1 owed to ( maximum height restrictions identified on Exhibits "A"- November 16, 1989.
4, While the overall onsite noise conditions associated with 1 proximity to Palomar Airport are acceptable (between 60 and 70 for the proposed office uses, future proposal s for developmen 3 of SDP 89-12 shall be required to utilize site planning anl construction techniques to reduce interior noise levels to a 50 CNEL (dBA) .
....
....
....
....
....
....
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
....
....
....
....
....
PC RES0 NO. 2945 -2-
@ a
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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regul ar meeting of thc
Commission of the City of Carl sbad, Cal ifornia, held on the 61
December, 1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Sct Erwin , McFadden, Holmes and Marcus.
NOES : None.
ABSENT : None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
MATTHEW HALL, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSI
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO, 2945 -3-
.% 0 e txnltm "NL
NEGATlM DECw?A770#
PROJECT ADDRESSILOCATION: The project site is located north of Palomar Airport
eastern terminus of Swift Place.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project entails a Parcel Map to subdivide the 73.92 acre
to 4 officelindustrial lots, a Hillside Development Permit to construct (grade) the 4 lots an( Development Plan to deve/op lot-7 (2.73 acres) with a 50,000 sq. f?. ofice building.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
pursuant to the Guidelines for lmplementation of the California Environmental Quality k
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the Cify of Carlsbad. As a result of said ret
Conditional Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant
on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this actio,
file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Conditional Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments frc
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department wit1
(IO) days of date of issuance.
DATED: October 20, 1989 "&&&&y
CASE NO: MS 824iSDP 89-IZIHDP 8945 Planning Director
APPLICANT: Palomar Point8
PUBLISH DATE: October 20, 7989
\
MICHAEL J. H0"IIfFR
CDD:kd
2075 1-e~ P,p!-,;rg 3r;va 0 Cp~'s5,pe. ~cm.i*~~cria 9299P-/.,TsP * (6'9) 6~38.
e 0 Exhibit "PII"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A88ES8MENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. MS 824/SDP 89-12/HDP 8!
DATE : October 11,1989
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: California Communities. Inc.
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 31 Technoloav Drive
Imine, CA 92718
(714) 727-3600
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: SePtember 2. 1989
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XES MAYBE
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
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?
of beach sands, or changes in
.. 0 9
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-
Jzs MAYBE
I. 0 e
us
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
species?
normal replenishment of existing
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 Glarg - 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-
MAYBE
X
e 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. Pomlation - 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. Transnortation/Circulatioq - 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 air traffic? waterborne I rail or
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
XES MAY BE
X
-4-
0 us MAYBE
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. 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?
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-
w 0
XES MAY BE
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
historical site, structure, object or
building?
archeological I paleontological or
21. Analyze viable alternatives to the DrODOSed Droiect such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site desig c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
a) The project will be mass graded but will be built out in pl
1 is proposed for development at this time. b) Relative to the limited size of the site (13.92 acres) constraints associated with the proximityto Palomar Airpol necessity of providing access consistent with City Engineex Standards, this is regarded as the preferred alternative si
c) As proposed and conditioned, the project complies with
development and design standards for office uses. In a scale is not a concern. d) N/A in view of the planned industrial zoning and designations. e) In view of the fact that the property is surrounded by Paloa
and developed or approvedplanned industrialuses, developm, future time would result in no environmental benefit.
f) N/A since the site is designated for such use.
g) The "NO Project" alternative would likely only postpone d of the site, but would not necessarily result in a environmental alternative.
-6-
I. a
XES MAYBF
22. Mandat OL~/ frndinas of sianificance - ..
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
environment is.one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.)
goals? (A short-term impact on the
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-
I. 0 0
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRuHMENTAL EVALUATION
This project entails 1) the subdivision of the 13.92 acre property industrial lots and, 2) the processing of a site development p
50,000 SF office building upon the 2.73 acre, Lot 1 of this propc subdivision. The subject property comprises the remaining unc relatively level, parcel of mesa top land located between Palomi to the south, Carlsbad Research Center to the north and the Airpor Center to the southwest. The field surveys conducted by staff
cultural and biological assessments prepared for the subject determined that no sensitive environmental resources exist upon th
1988) undeveloped, isolated property, which is surrounded by e: already approved urbanized land uses.
1. Earth - The subject property exists as a mesa top. The sout of the site is relatively level and the northern 1/3 include slopes ranging between 15 and 40 % gradient. The proposed proje to create industrial pads will level the northernmost slopes since the subject property is surrounded by similarly graded property and in view of the fact that the on-site slopes are no topographic impacts are anticipated. The four industrial
be slightly terraced following the general terrain. Drainage 2 control facilities will be incorporated into the project f
control purposes. No unstable earth conditions or uniquc features are located on the project site or general vicinity.
2. && - The project will contribute to the incremental increas
and regional emissions: however, the office development prepas site is planned for in the City's General Plan, as well as Local Facilities Management Plan. The potential emissions ge this development have been anticipated and would not adversely attainment of regional air quality standards. Construction em: considered short-term and insignificant.
3. Water - Development of the project would create impervious I site which would reduce absorption rates and increase surface runoff velocities. To accommodate this runoff, the prc incorporate drainage facilities and erosion control meas
discussed in the Zone 5 LFMP, the runoff from this site will the desiltation basin/retention pond within the Carlsbad Resea: From there it will go through unimproved open channels in Mac; Park and then out to the Pacific Ocean.
4. Plant Life - 12 acres of the subject 13.92 acre prope Wi. community of native and annual grasses and coastal sage scrub.
1.92 acres is disturbed. Of this 12 acres, 1.7 acres is chamis
(located upon a slope in the northwest corner of the site) an( is mixed chaparral (located upon slopes in the northwest anc corners of the site) . Implementation of the proposed project w
all of the 12 acres of natural habitat. However, due to tt isolated nature of the subject property and lack of. more ! (protected) environmental resources, ' no significant ia anticipated. The Mello I1 LCP which covers the property, spe, all slopes 25% and greater possessing coastal sage scrub 01
-a-
m e plant communities should be preserved. On the property, qualifies as coastal sage or chaparral communities, on 25% 0;
slopes, Development of the property in accordance with this policy would result in the preservation of a small, isolated
coastal sage scrub completely surrounded by urbanized land us( a small preserve in the context of surrounding development wc
limited biological value. If the project were modified to prese natural slopes, no significant reduction in biological impac result, nor would such a modification substantially further th, protection goals of the Mello I1 LCP. However, in order to c for the loss of this .67 acre of protected habitat, the project is proposing to landscape the northern and southeastern perimetc property with a mix of native vegetation. The California
Commission and department of fish & Game Staff have indicated pr support of this mitigation proposal.
5. The biological assessment prepared forthe subject property indic no sensitive, rare, or endangered species exist on this isolated 1
6. Noise - The traffic generated by the proposed project would incrc contribute to community noise levels within the project - However, since this proposed office project is located within a 1 sensitive industrial area of Carlsbad, no noise impacts are ant. The subject property is located within the 60-70/CNEL noise con' Palomar Airport. Noise impacts from Palomar Airport are insignificant in that office uses are compatible uses within tl CNEL noise contours for Palomar Airport.
7. Liaht and Glare - Because the project is located in an area either developed or approved for development of industrial project would incrementally and insignificantly contribute to 1 glare in the project vicinity.
8. Land Use - Development of the subject property with industrial of is in conformance with the City of Carlsbad's Planned Industria: Plan designation for the site. Land Use Compatibility is assure( surroundinq properties are already approved for similar uses.
9. Natural Resources - Implementation of the proposed projc incrementally contribute to the depletion of fossil fuel and othe: resources required for pro j ect construction. However, this regarded as a significant impact in view of the limited scal project .
10. Risk of UDset; - This project is located within the Planned 11 Zone. In that the Planned Industrial Zone requires complia specified performance standards, no safety impacts are anticipa is important to note that the southeastern portion of the 13 property is located within the transitional landing/takeoff SUI Palomar Airport. In accordance, future development within the have been conditioned to comply with maximum structural height restrictions as identified on the subject parcel map (MS-824).
-9-
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
e e
PoDulation - This proposed office project will incrementally inl work force population within Carlsbad's Industrial Zone durin( week, HoW@v@r, as discussed in the gene 5, LFMP, since a11 services and facilities must be available as the area continue: no population related impacts are anticipated.
Housinq - This project may create an incremental demand for 2 housing. This incremntal demand is not regarded as significar
Transoortation - The project would add a maximum of 2250 daily the existing street network, thereby incrementally increasing movement in the project vicinity. This project traffic 1 overburden any of the existing streets. In accordance, this 2
ADT is not considered to be significant. This trip gener included within the LFMP for Zone 5 relative to determining i adjacent roadways. There will be no direct impacts of this F adjacent transportation systems.
Public Services - The public facility fees required to be pai project will be used to adequately mitigate any impacts up1 services within the project vicinity.
Eneray - Implementation of the proposed project will incr contribute to the depletion of fossil fuels. However, this imp; regarded as significant in view of the limited scale of the pr
Utilities - The public facility fees required to be paid by thi will be used to adequately mitigate any impacts upon public within the project vicinity.
Human Health - Although the proposed project is located ad- Palomar Airport, no human health impacts are anticipated ' development of the proposed project. (See No. 10)
Aesthetics The entire project site (mesa top) is proposed to b.
However because the site is relatively level and exists as an island of undeveloped property surrounded by already developed or industrial projects, nu aesthetic impacts are anticipated. The ac of the project will be enhanced through the use of terraced extensive landscaping throughout.
N/A since the site is designated for industrial development.
Archaeoloaical/Historical - Cultural resource investigations I upon the subject property (Recon, 1988) identified no on-site
resources. In accordance, no cultural resource impacts are anti
-10-
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 (
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared,
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significal effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect this case because the mitigation measures described on an attache 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.
IC I ,.7/8'1 &3 M.25
Date Signature
-q A4fLt2&& 1, @ 1, &
Date Plannih3 Dipector
V.MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
1. This project is approved subject to the conditions that the nor1 southeastern property perimeters (total of 1.04 acres) , are 1: with a mix of native vegetation. A detailed landscape and irriga. for this native landscaping shall be submitted for review and
by the Planning Director and the Department of Fish and Game pril issuance of a grading permit. This perimeter native landscapi
be required to be planted prior to the issuance of a building F
Following the landscaping of the subject 1.04 acres, the City of will conduct site inspections to assess contractor performanc additional site inspections by the City will be conducted at months following landscaping to evaluate the success. If the lar
attempts are not deemed successful by the City, then the project a shall be required to revegetate these areas until they are succ established.
2. This project is approved subject to the condition that no perm temporary structure, feature, object, vegetation or other mater Lots 2, 3, and 4 shall be allowed to exceed the maximun restrictions identified on Exhibits nAn - nB8f (MS-824).
= 1.1-
m m
VI. APPLICANT CONCURFtEHCE WITH MITIGATING MEAS-
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEAi
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
/U//f/t 7 D6td fmm- M#h Signature
CDD: kd
-12-