Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-01-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 2942, /I 0 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2942 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR OFFICE/ WAREHOUSE/MANUFACTURING CENTER CONSISTING OF 6 BUILDINGS TOTALLING 73,715 SQUARE FEET. CASE NAME: PACIFIC POINT A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-TENANT CASE NO.: SDP 89-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of 1989 and the 3rd day of January, 1990, hold a duly noticed public ~ prescribed by law to consider said request, 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, th Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declarat NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Corn f 01 1 ows : A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, th Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative D according to Exhibit "ND", dated September 15, 1989 and IIP September 6, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, ba following findings: Fi ndi nqs : 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidencl project may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously disturbed and is presently deve paved parking 1 ot. 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generat proposed project with the improvements which are required to Avenida Encinas. 4. There are no sensitive resources 1 ocated onsi te or 1 ocated s significantly impacted by this project. .... ***e 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 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of thl Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day o 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Sc Erwin, McFadden & Marcus. NOES: Commissioner Holmes. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSI MICHAEL J. HOLmILLEk' PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 2942 -2- City @ Exhibit "ND" of Carlsba NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South of 5600 Avenida Encinas/west side of Ave Encinas north of Palomar Airport Road. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pacific Point - A multi-tenant office/wareha manufacturing center consisting of 6 buildings totalling 73,715 square fee 5.98 acres. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above descr project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califa Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declara that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is he PI anni ng Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file ir P1 anning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl sbad, Cal i forni a 92009. Comn from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Plar Department within thirty (30) days of date of issuance. issued for the subject project, Justification for this action is on file ir DATED: September 15, 1989 CASE NO: SDP 89-2 4u&&kad MICHAEL J. HOLZMI LLER' P1 anni ng Director APPLICANT: Ware & Malcomb Architects PUBLISH DATE: September 15, 1989 DN: af 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438- >. STATE OF CALIFORNIA-OFFICE OF THE GOYERI~ 0 GEORGE D OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 9581 4 - ,<,.". 5s ' Don Neu City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 .i . .. October 13, 1989 Subject: Pacific Pointe - SDP 89-2, SCH# 89091321 Dear Mr. Neu: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental doc selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed an the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements f environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Qual Please call Garrett Ashley at (916) 445-0613 if you have any regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Cle: in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number we nay respond promptly. Sincerely, "tL.d&d & - David C. Nunenkamp Chi e f Office of Permit Assistance m 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. SDP 89-2 DATE : September 6, 19E I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: Ware b Malcomb Architects 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 9868 Scranton Rd., SI San Dieqo, CA 92121 (6191 546-1121 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: May 23, 1989 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? 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 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 fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (birds, land animals including reptiles, 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 8 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 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? 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. 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 -4- 1 ', 0 a YES 14, Publisr 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 1 0 a YES MAY BE 2 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/Paleontolouical - 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 twonosed maiect such as: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site design c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the s e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proposes development of a rnl tenant office/warehouse/manufacturing center on 5.98 acres. The 1 building area proposed is 73,715 square feet contained in 6 sepz buildings. A total of 247 parking spaces will be provided which exc the minimum required by the zoning ordinance. The site is cover4 a paved parking lot built for the office/industrial building tc north. That building has since been converted to a different us4 requiring parking located on the project site. The site is flat a slope of approximately .6% to the west. To the north is the Ca: Floral Trade Center building which the project will share a dri- with as a second access point. To the south is a 3-StOry 0' building. To the east is Avenida Encinas, a secondary arterial, , 2-story office building on the opposite side of the street. To the is the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way and line. a) Phasing of the project would not be a significantly environmen superior alternative as the site is presently developed as a pa lot and construction of portions of the project at a future would create conflicts with any portion of the project occ initially. No significant natural resources exist onsite. -6- I ,, 0 0 21 Continued b) Alternate site designs have been considered including the origin2 proposal which contained one building less but approximately tl same square footage. The present design appears to be preferabl as loading doors are screened from property to the west of tk site and a greater percentage of landscaping has been providec The project complies with all City requirements. c) The present scale of development proposed is less than tk original proposal as a single 32,150 square foot building hz been made into two buildings which visually reduces the scale c the project by providing an additional north-south corridc through the site. d) Alternate uses for the site would consist of other plannc industrial developments either as a large single structure or has a building coverage of 28% while the zone would allow up * 50% coverage. variation to the multiple structure project proposed. The projec e) Development at some future time rather than now would continue t! paved parking lot which appears to be used as storage for ni cars by dealerships in car country. The proposed multi-tena: project is a preferable use for the site given the existi: General Plan and Zoning designations of Planned Industrial. f) Alternate sites for the proposed multi-tenant office/warehous manufacturing center can be found within the City, however, th site which is located adjacent to the rail line and within t airport influence ares is presently developed and is designat for Planned Industrial Development. g) The no project alternative would retain the existing parking 1 which is inconsistent with the General Plan and Zoni designations for the site, -7- .. \ e 0 YES MAY BE - N 22. Mandatory findinus 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 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? 111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. Earth - The site is presently developed as a paved parking lot a] is relatively level with a slope of approximately .6% to the wesl Development of the site will decrease the amount of impervioi surface as 18.4% of the site will be landscaped. Rev. 12/88 -8- m 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) 2. Air - The project is required to comply with the performanc standards of the P-M (Planned Industrial) Zone. All uses a1 required to be operated so as not to emit matter causir unpleasant odors as well as meet the air quality standards of tk San Diego County Air Quality Control Board. The building heigl of 19 feet for the project and separation between buildings wil not significantly disturb air flow. 3. Water - The project will positively change absorption rates 1 reducing the amount of impervious surface on the site a] providing a storm drain system for the project. 4. Plant Life - The only existing plant life on site is perimett landscaping which will be maintained where warranted, such as fc the mature trees that exist in those areas. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9, 10. 11. 12. Animal Life - Due to the disturbed nature of the site as well i its location adjacent to major transportation corridors ai surrounding development, little animal life exists onsite. Noise - The project is outside the 60 CNEL noise contour fl Palomar Airport. Buildings will be setback a considerab distance from property lines and the proposed land use is ni extremely noise sensitive. Liaht t Glare - A lighting plan has been prepared. The projel will not significantly produce new light and glare as lighti, proposed is not excessive and will be directed away from adjace properties. Land Use - The project is in conformance with the General Plan a Zoning Ordinance designations of Planned Industrial for the sit Natural Resources - The site is presently developed as a parki lot. No natural resources exist onsite. Risk of Upset - The project has the potential of having tenan that may utilize hazardous substances. All operations a required to be conducted in an enclosed building and hazard0 substances must be stored in accordance with the requirements the Uniform Fire Code. Population - The proposal will provide additional employme opportunities primarily of a local nature and will, therefor not significantly effect the human population of the area. Housinq - The proposal will not significantly effect existi housing as it will not create a substantial number of new job: -9- c 0 e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Trans~ortation/Circulation - The proposal will generatl approximately 613 average daily trips. The project is require' to comply with the special conditions of Local Facilitie Management Zone 3 which requires the project to pay Traffic Impac Thoroughfare Benefit District. Also, additional right-of-wa dedication and improvements will be required along the project' frontage. Public Services - The project is located in Local Facilitie Management Zone 3. Services will be provided through th implementation of that zone plan. Eneruv - The project will not use substantial amounts of fuel c energy given the relatively small size of the individual tenan spaces available. In addition, the' project is located in clos proximity to Interstate 5 which reduces the length of surfac street vehicle trips required by persons utilizing the facility Utilities - At the present time utilities are available to tt site and are located within the Avenida Encinas right-of-way c along the western portion of the site. Human Health - The proposal will not create any health hazard z the project is outside the 60 CNEL noise contour for Palomi Airport and all operations will be conducted in entirely enclosc buildings. Aesthetics - The projectls architectural and landscape site desic results in a sensitive aesthetic treatment of the site which i compatible with surrounding projects. Proposed loading doors a] screened from the public right-of-way. Recreation - The project will not reduce the quality or quanti1 of existing recreational opportunities as it is an industri; project not requiring additional park area. Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontolouical - There is no evidenc of significance on this site as it has been previously graded ai developed with a paved parking lot. Fees, Public Facilities Fees and participate in the Bridge an -10- . 0 e 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 o the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significan effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect this case because the mitigation measures described on an attachec 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. 9-6- 89 && Date Signature crl tIlV? ‘Date V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) -11- L. .. .. 0 MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued) e VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVEI MITIGATING MEA: AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature DN: af -12-