Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 3084I 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 I ~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3084 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A THREE BUILDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TOTALING 23,982 SQ. FT, ON 2.3 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HOSP WAY AND EL CAMINO REAL. APPLICANT: WESTERN FINANCIAL SAVINGS BANK CASE NO.: SDP 89-14/PUD 90-2/SUP 90-1/MS 827 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of September a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tes arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Con follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning C hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", date 1990, and "PII", dated June 8,1990, attached hereto and made a part hereof, b following findings: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project I significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental ana 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed p 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantl by this project. .... .... 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 ~ i I PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of th Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of September, 1 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Hol Marcus and Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner McFadden. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR 1 I I ~ PC RES0 NO. 3084 -2- ~ 1 ~ NEGATNE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION; South of Hosp Way and east of El Camino Real PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 2.3 acre commercial office center including ofices a bank daycare The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described prc pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said revie1 Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on fil the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plam Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 21 days of of issuance. DATED: JUNE 21, 1990 CASE NO: SDP 89-14/PUD 90-2 Planning Director APPLICANT: WESTERN FINANCIAL SAVINGS BANK PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 21, 1990 CW: kd 6 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 * (619) 438-1 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. MS 827/SDP 89-14/SUP 9O-lL DATE: June 8, 1990 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Western Financial Plaza 2. APPLICANT: Western Financial Savings Bank 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 10140 Campus Point Drive San Diezo. CA 92121 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 9, 1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 2.3 acre commercial office center including offices, 2 daycare. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City ( Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the er The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. TI identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Em Impact Report or Negative Declaration. -?; A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that th any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will to indicate this determination. ;': An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any a project may cause a sinnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can insimificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings YES-sig" and respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given tc mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be deterrnined significant. c 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? 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? Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Alter a significant archeological, structure or object? paleontological or historical site, -2 - 8 0 YES YES big) (insig) - - N - - - - - - - - a e BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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: YES YES big) (insig) - - YES YES (six) (insig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? -3 - c N( - - - - - 1 0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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? 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? -4- F 0 YES YES (sig) (insig) X X - X - N( - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 a MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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? ("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.) dividually limited but cumulatively 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES YES Nc big) (insig) - - - - -5- c 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 0 Physical Environment The project site is located in an area where no geologic hazards have been previously identified. also no known faults which run through the City of Carlsbad. Soil disturbance will be min maximum cut or fill will be limited to 3.5 feet and overall grading export from the site is estim: cubic yards. All manufactured slopes, existing or proposed, will be planted and irrigated to potential for erosion. The project is not located within close proximity to any significant bodies of water and will, tht have an effect on or result in change to any channels, stream beds, oceans, bays or inlets. The project in and of itself will not create any emissions which will be a significant adverse imp, will be generated by the proposed uses, which in turn will contribute to the air quality. Ho contribution can not be considered significant under the assumption that the emissions prod1 individual automobiles are within allowable emission standards set by the state. It is acknowledge that air quality is a regional issue which must be addressed on a regional level. The project is not anticipated to have an effect on air movement, odor, moisture or temperatl buildings are relatively low and the site will be landscaped which will balance the hardscape o areas. The uses proposed do not require the use of large amounts of water or other natural resources. water source will be required when available for irrigation purposes. The utility companies will those entities. The project will be required to comply with the conditions of Zone 2 LOC Management Plan, to provide all necessary facilities and services concurrent with development. Based on the resources available, there has not been identification of the site as an archaeolc standard condition will be required of the project to perform studies in a two phase program if thc indicates the presence of fossil bearing material. Biological Environment Currently, the site is disturbed by earlier grading. There are some plant species which have bee: a result of adjacent development and also some species which are indigenous grasses. None of th observed is considered significant. The site itself does not provide an important link between largc open areas and thereby does not create a barrier to the movement of animal species or replenishment of significant plant species. The property has not been used for agriculture nor is it suitable for such use. The site is not 1; for the development of a substantial agricultural crop nor is its proximity to adjacent der contributing factor to the compatibility of agriculture within an urban setting. Because the site can be considered an "island' within a fully developed area, the potential fc significant habitat or species is minimal. There has been no observance of animal life on the s necessary energy to operate the different uses. Those levels fall within capacity capabilities as esl -6- c 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (cont’d) 0 Human Environment The project proposal is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Designations. Other like us1 the vicinity which are compatible with the overall character of the El Camino Real Corridor. All public services required by the proposal can be provided by the individual agencies and fall w given service levels. This includes the sewer capacity of the Costa Real Municipal Water District. Although the project will not produce additional levels of noise which could be considered signific be subjected to noise generated by traffic along El Camino Real. As a commercial project, there are standards which will require special mitigation measures. Light will be produced by parking lot lighting and natural reflectivity will be altered by the cons. new buildings. Because these changes occur within an already urbanized area, the effects v significant. No hazardous materials are proposed as a part of this project. The proposal consists of daytime uses such as banks and office space. There is no housing providf therefore have no direct effect on the density of human population. It is not anticipated that the j will encourage movement to this area but provide jobs and services to existing residents. Also, generated by the site will be a function of diverting existing commuters onto the site versus creatinl from the project. All parking will be provided onsite. New transportation systems will not be I provide sufficient levels of transit to the site nor will waterborne rail or air traffic be altered. The onsite circulation system has been designed to separate vehicular movement from pedestrian which minimizes hazards to either motorists or pedestrians. The site is located at the base of an existing manufactured slope and it is not anticipate1 development, limited to a maximum of 35 feet, will obstruct any scenic vistas or create aestheticall public views. An overall trail system is proposed throughout the City of Carlsbad. Appropriate conditions have t on the project which will require a link be provided adjacent/through the property which is a overall system, Open space has also been designed onsite which offers passive recreational op directed at those who will be using the facilities. -7- I 0 0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 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) alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. There may be some advantage to phasing the development of the project. In essence it would : gradual accumulation of the specified impacts versus a singular increase in traffic generation a] needs. However, the ultimate impact will be the same. Infrastructure is present which can acc generated service needs. Several alternate designs have been discussed for the site. The current proposal has minimal surrounding properties and related environmental issues. Other design solutions could be genera. overall reduction of environmental impacts would not be expected to be significant. Just as the alternative theoretically minimizes environmental impacts through no development so does altern development, assuming a reduction in proposed development. The size of buildings or use intensi reduced however that might lessen the economic viability of the proposal. As submitted the use are allowed under the current zoning and General Plan designations. Day Care is an encouragec provides a needed service to the surrounding community. Public services are available to the site now. Delaying the project for future development or 1 alternate sites for the project will not have significant environmental benefit. -8- 6 e 0 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 r DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an att 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 ENVIRO IMPACT REPORT is required. b/B/qs Date Signature -, , :;i' ii -. I. .. I , , . .\. :, z t -a- . ' . -. Date Planning Director .; LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -8- c I.. e e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature cw:rvo -10- c