HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-03-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 2980w m .*
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. 2980
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT A 4,761 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITHIN THE FLORAL TRADE CENTER.
CASE NAME: FLORAL TRADE CENTER RESTAURANT
CASE NO.: CUP 89-16
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of Mar
hold a duly noticed pub1 ic hearing as prescribed by law to cons;
request , and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consid1
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the in
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaratil
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Comm
f 01 1 ows :
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Dec
according to Exhibit "ND", dated January 12, 1990, and "PI1
January 8, 1990, attached hereto and made a part hereof, base
fol 1 owing f i ndi ngs :
Findinqs:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence
project may have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The site is presently developed and no additional building squart
will be added.
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generate(
proposed project.
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so
significantly impacted by this project.
....
....
....
..
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
j
v W
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day (
1990, by the following vote, to wit:
~
AYES : Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehubel Hal 1 , McFadden, Holmes and Marcus.
NOES : None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
SHARON SCHRAMM, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSIOE
MICHAEL J. tbi!ZMILLi?R PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 2980 -2-
E
l i I I 5:
i
D
-1
- w
" "_ ___- ""-. -- -- " . . - CtL\R(;E - OE .-A'! X< La$ S,-?N A crF.(.F iF 'HE C.3'IERNOR
" _" - .. . . - " ." .-
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
" --- - - "" -
ldy: :F'.iIH S13EET
',ACPA*.ctNTO CA 9S814
')on Net!
G,J'itv of Carlsbad, Plng. Dept.
ZoT? 1,as Palma.; Drive
Cnrlsbad, CA 9'2UO9
Februar!
Subject : Floral Trade Center Restaurant, SCH# 90010052
Dear Mr. Neu:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental docum
selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and
the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that yo
complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for
envirOUenta1 dOCUentS, pursuant to the Califomla Envitonnental Qualit
Please call Garrett Ashley at (916) 445-0613 if you have any qu
regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the ClesriI
in this matter. please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number s(
we may respond promptly.
Exhibit "
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 5600 Avenida Encinas/West side of Avenida Enci between Palomar Airport Road and Cannon Road.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 4,761 square foot restaurant proposedwithin the Flc Trade Center.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above descri project pursuant to the Guide1 ines for Implementation of the Cal ifor Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the C
of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declarat
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 the P1 anning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in P1 anning Department , 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl sbad, Cal i forni a 92009. Commel from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Plann Department within thirty (30) days of date of issuance.
DATED: January 12, 1990
CASE NO: CUP 89-16 MICHAEL J. HblZMILeR
P1 anni ng Director
APPLICANT: Carltas Company
PUBLISH DATE: January 12, 1990
DN : kd
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carisbad, California 92009-4859 (619) 438-1 1
- - Exhibit "
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PIWF 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CUP 89-16
DATE : January 8, 1990
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Floral Trade Center Restaurant
2. APPLICANT: Carltas Company, Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4401 Manchester Ave.,
Encinitas, CA 92024
(619) 944-4090
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 7. 1989 (apDlication c
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A restaurant to provide food service prim
employees and customers of the Floral Tra!
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project md
significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact A: appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This ch identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be imI the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as t
for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or
Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no suk evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significar on the environment. On the checklist, "NO1' will be checked to indic determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is sub evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant effec
environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration hob
adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can bt
insisnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the "YES-sigIr and llYES-insig1l respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures
at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION, pa attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts whic
otherwise be determined significant.
w I
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: E? $58 NO
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards? X
2. Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features? X
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? X
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? X
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? X
6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? X
7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? X
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? 2
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources? - X
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 2
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site, structure or object? 2
-2-
- v
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: vL3 CinYSgF
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants) ?
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects?
16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: v!3 CinYSgij
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare?
-3-
- -
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: &E?
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
F[E& NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-4-
.L w w
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
7% gsg,
33. 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.
34. 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.)
35. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
considerable? (llCumulatively 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.)
dividually limited but cumulatively
36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
-5-
- - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Physical Environment
1. The site was previously graded and the building presently exists. unstable earth conditions exist or will be created by the project.
2. No grading is associated with the proposal which is proposed to be cond within an existing building.
3. Site drainage will not be altered by the proposed project, therefore, er will not result from the project.
4. The project site is presently developed. No grading is proposed fo
restaurant.
5. The restaurant is primarily to provide food service for employee customers of the Floral Trade Center resulting in a reduction of trips the center to obtain meals with a corresponding reduction in VE emissions.
6. The proposal will not affect air movement as it is proposed to be IC in a portion of an existing building.
7. Because the project site is presently developed and no grading is prc
there will be no change to the course or flow of flood water.
8. All wastewater from the project will go through the sewer syste
processing causing no impact to surface or ground water.
9. No natural resources exist on the project site which is presently deve:
10. The restaurant which is of a relatively small size will not use subst:
amounts of fuel or energy and may reduce the number of employee and CUI trips from the center to purchase meals.
11. The project site which has been developed does not possess any cu: resources.
12. All vegetation on site has been planted for project landscaping as thc was previously graded.
13. The site is presently landscaped and no natural species exist to be imp:
14. The project site is presently developed and is utilized as a support u:
the flower growing industry.
15. Because the project site is presently developed it is not of signi: value as wildlife habitat.
16. The proposed restaurant will be located in a portion of the ex
structure and will not introduce new species of animals into the are,
-6-
I,
.'
A. w v
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (cont'd)
Human Environment
17. A restaurant is permitted on the site by the existing zoning desi5 P-M (Planned Industrial) upon the issuance of a conditional use E:
18, Public utilities and services are presently provided to the site to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3.
19. Sewer connections exist to the structure.
20. The restaurant will be located inside the existing structure. I made to the restaurant would take place on the south side of thc adjacent to existing loading bays with no significant increase
levels.
21. On-site lighting presently exists and is directed away from properties.
22. The proposed restaurant use will not utilize hazardous substance:
23. The use is primarily to serve employees and customers of th therefore, a substantial alteration to the density of the human 1 of the area is not anticipated.
24. Because of the relatively small scale of the restaurant there 1 significant affect on or demand for housing.
25. An evaluation of the possible traffic generation of the proposed within the Floral Trade Center has been prepared by Urban Systems A Inc. and is dated October 5, 1989. The determination was that the would result in only 190 ADT as new trips to be added to the stre
This traffic generation total was approved by the Engineering De
26. All parking required for the proposed restaurant has been provid in addition to the parking required for the rest of the Floral Tra
27. The 190 ADT generated by the restaurant which the applicant propos
open from 6 A.M. to 3 P.M. to serve breakfast and lunch would h trip generation of 15.2 trips between 7-9 A.M..
28. The project appears to be adjacent to, yet outside the airport inf 1
of Palomar Airport. Because of its location the project was sent
for review in regard to conformance with Palomar Airport's Comprehc
Use Plan. SANDAG staff found the project consistent with the
Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
29. As a result of the minor increase in average daily vehicle trips the proposal no substantial increase in traffic hazards is antic
30. The project will be within an existing structure and have no emergency response plans.
-7-
v - ,.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (cont'd)
Human Environment
31. NO scenic vista will be obstructed by the project. A trash enclosure e:
to screen a dumpster and grease bins needed by the restaurant from pi
view.
32. The project will create no demand for recreational opportunities.
-8-
-. - w
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site desigr c) alternate scale Of development, d) alternate uses for the 2
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 a phase of the overall development of t
Trade Center.
b) The site is presently developed. The restaurant is propos
area in the building which was used as an employee cafeter
Burroughs corporation, the former owner of the building.
c) An alternate scale of development would have no si
environmental advantages.
d) The area of the building proposed for the restaurant coul as office space or for another support use. Such uses
environmentally superior.
e) Development at some future time would retain this area of the in a vacant condition which is not consistent with the Gen
and Zoning designations of the site.
f) There are no alternate sites for the proposal that would c restaurant to be within the Floral Trade Center Building z
presently have kitchen facilities.
g) The no project alternative would result in this tenant space I vacant or being used for another purpose.
-9-
w - 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 on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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.
January 9, 1990 &% Date Signature
1 I r(o/m
' date Plannyng DHector
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-10-
.' j .c w
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
W
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEA!
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
-11-