Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 30967 e t* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~ ll I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3096 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION I A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL USE PER TO ALLOW FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF DANIELS CABLEVIS USE AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND FARAl AVENUE. APPLICANT: DANIELS CABLEVISION CASE NO.: SDP 80-3(A)/SUP 90-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of Septer hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said reql WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tes- arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted b considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission cor factors 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 publ;c he-ng, th Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaratio to Exhibit "ND", dated August 9, 1990, and "PII", dated June 13, 199 hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the 1 have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed devc allowed by the site's land use designations and is compatible wi development. 2. The site has been previously graded for the construction of a si residence and small scale farming. .... .... I @ x. 1 project and the estimated 120 average daily trips to be generated. 2 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the project. FJ Camino Real and Faraday Avenue will be able to adequatelJ 3 // 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be si: 4 5 impacted by this project. Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of Septem 6 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the 7 1990, by the following vote, to wit: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Erwin, N Hall. i NOES: Commissioner Holmes. ABSENT: Commissioner McFadden. AE3STAIN:None. , I CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: 17 18 19 ~~V~;y~Q$i&&&<)&y&2” p I-3lj \ ~ 6 yr MICHAEL ‘K-~OL~T~ILLER 20 1 PLANNING DIRECTOR 21 22 23 11 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 3096 ~ -2- 28 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: East side of El Camino Real northerly of the exi Daniels Cablevision at 5720 El Camino Real. APN: 209-041-05 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed expansion of Daniels Cablevision at 5 El Camino Real involving (1) an addition of 705 square to the existing structure and (2) the construction freestanding building on the adjacent lot to the north o existing facility with two floors of warehouse tot 20,980 square feet over a 50 car subterranean garage. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described pr pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Qualit! and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant in on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this acti on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the PlaI Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the p are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the P1 Department within 21 of date of issuance. DATED: AUGUST 9, 1990 CASE NO: SDP 80-3(A)/SUP 90-2 P APPLICANT: DANIELS CABLEVISION PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 9, 1990 ENM:lh 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438- e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. SDP 8@3( DATE: JUNE 13, BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: CABLEVISION 2. APPLICANT: DON MUELLER 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: (714) 831-1141 30131 TOWN CENTER DRIVE LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: AUGUST 11, 1989 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED EXPANSION OF DANIELS CABLE 5720 EL CAMINO REAL INVOLVING (1) AN ADDITION OF 705 SOUARE FE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND (2) THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FREE BUILDING ON THE ADJACENT LOT TO THE NORTH OF THE EXISTINC WITH TWO FLOORS OF WAREHOUSE TOTALLING 20.980 SQUARE FEI 50 CAR SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE. 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 ( The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. ' 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 Environn Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that t any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO1 wi to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any project may cause a significant - effect on the environment. The project may qualify fo Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects car insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" an( respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of th DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. V PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils 4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach either on or off the site? sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? 6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? 7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? 8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? YES YES (%> (insig) - - - - - -2- e 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES I (SiP) (insig) 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 bamer 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: 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? YES (sip) YES (insig) X - - - -3- U a 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 sys terns? 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? E?s YES r (1rnlS) - - - - - - X X - - 31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? - - - -4- L 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES b (Sk) (insig) 33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality 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. of the environment, substantially 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- 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.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - - - -5- e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1, Excavation for the proposed freestanding building with subterranean parking will tak place, however, unstable geologic or earth conditions will not result as a grading perm will be required and all applicable Engineering standards will be adhered to. 2. There are no unique physical features on the site and no appreciable change in the site topography is proposed. 3. The issuance of a grading permit will incorporate standard soil erosion control measurc to prevent the erosion of soils either on or off the site. 4. Due to the project’s location, there will be no impacts to beach sands, modifications river channels, inlets bays, lagoons or lakes. 5. The ambient air quality will not be altered by the proposed project. 6. The project, as proposed, will not alter air movements, temperatures or odors. 7. Due to the project’s location, there will be no changes to the courses or flows of marir fresh or flood waters. 8. The project will be served by existing public water supplies and will not affect the quant of quality of water resources. 9. There will be no increase in the use of or depletion of natural resources beyond the typic amount of resources required for the construction of a facility of this scale. 10. No substantial amounts of fuel or energy are proposed. 11. There are no cultural or archeological resources located on the subject site. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12. The project will involve the removal of existing shrubs and trees, however, there is I currently a diversity of significant plant species which will be disturbed. 13. Some new species of plants will be introduced to the site through the propos landscaping scheme. 14. The subject site was previously used for small scale agricultural operations which are longer in service. This use, however, did not represent agricultural crops or farmlands state or local importance. -6- w 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued): 15. There is not a diversity of animal species which will be impacted by the proposed projec since the site currently is not in its natural state. 16. Since the project site is surrounded by developed properties, no impacts to migrator corridors are anticipated. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 17. The present land uses on the subject site are a single family residence and the sale ( locally grown produce and flowers. These uses will be eliminated by the proposed projec and replaced with a use more consistent with the General Plan designation of Planne Industrial. 18. The project will be conditioned to comply with all of the performance standards for Loc, Facilities Management Zone 5 so there will be no adverse impacts to public services ( utilities in servicing the project, 19. The existing sewer systems and solid waste systems will be able to adequately serve ti proposed expansion. 20. No sources of significant noise levels are associated with this use. Existing noise levels w not be significantly increased since the proposed expansion is for an existing use. 21. No significant increase in light or glare will result from the project. Solar radiation beiI reflected off the proposed parking areas and freestanding building may create son incremental, insignificant glare. 22. The use or storage of hazardous materials are not proposed and the risk of an explosi( is unlikely given the nature of the proposed use expansion. 23. This is a non-residential project and will not impact the area’s density. 24. The proposed expansion may correspond with the addition of new employees. TI magnitude of this, however, would not in itself create any significant increase in tl demand for housing. 25. Additional traffic will be generated by the project in conjunction with the expansion of tl Cablevision use. The conditions placed on the project and the project’s compliance wi development standards will ensure that traffic generated by this use expansion will n create a significant impact. 26. Existing parking will be eliminated from the area adjacent to the existing structure shown on the approved site plan. The project is proposing additional parking a1 subterranean parking to satisfy the entire use’s parking requirements. -7- e e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued): 27. The existing transportation systems, Faraday Avenue and El Camino Real, will not b significantly affected by the proposed expansion. On site circulation will function proper1 and integrate with the adjacent public roads. 28. The project’s location prevents any impacts to waterborne or rail traffic. The project in the City’s Airport Influence Area and has undergone review by staff and SANDAG 1 ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palom; Airport. The proposed project will not impact or alter airborne traffic. 29. By complying with applicable development standards and keeping the City’s right of w: clear, there will be no significant increased traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists ( pedestrians. 30. The proposed project will not interfere with the implementation of any emergency plar 31. No scenic vistas will be affected by the project and the project’s free standing building w be architecturally compatible with the existing structure and will not create an offensi view. 32. Recreational opportunities or resources will not be impacted. As required by applicak development standards, outdoor eating areas are proposed for employees. In summary, the Cablevision use expansion will be compatible with adjacent uses and will not c significant environmental impacts. Staff will prepare a Negative Declaration. -8- w 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. a> The scale of the proposed expansion does not justify phasing development. b) The proposed site design is compatible with the existing use, appropriate for the site’s size and shape, and conforms to all applicable development standards. c> The proposed scale of development is appropriate while serving the needs of d) The proposed site is ideal for the expansion since it is available, adjacent to the e) The expansion is needed now. f) Same as (d) above. g) Same as (e) above. the Cablevision expansion. existing use and has the same land use designations. -9- 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 environv NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmel not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an at1 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 environme ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. &-s43 pA 3 -90 Date Date LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -10- .. w (e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING ME AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJEC Date Signature ENM:lh -11-