The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-10-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 3131e 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. 3131 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SEVEN LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CREATE SIX POSTAGE STAMP LOTS AND ONE COMMON ACCESS LOT AT 2711 LOKER AVENUE WEST. APPLICANT: PROMONTORY BUSINESS PARK CASE NO.: CT 90-18/PUD 90-19 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of October, 1990, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated September 11,1990, and "PII", dated September 11,1990, attached 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 project may have a significant impact on the environment. ~ 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis. 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project. 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly impacted by this project. 1 ..... 1 ..... ~ I i I e 0 1 2 3 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of October, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, McFadden, Erwin and Marcus. 5 11 NOES: None. 6 7 8 9 ABSENT: Hall and Holmes. ABSTAIN: None. ___". "-..- 10 l1 12 ATTEST: SHARON SCHRA", Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 13 14 PLANNING DIRECTOR 15 16 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 3131 -2- 28 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION; 271 1 Loker Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Seven lot Tentative Map and Planned Unit Development The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 21 days of date of issuance. A - DATED; September 20, 1990 CASE NO: CT 90-18/PUD 90-19 APPLICANT: Promontory Business Park PUBLISH DATE:- September 20, 1990 AH:rV0 - 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 * (619) 438-1 1 Eil W - ENVIRONMENT& Ih@A(rT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 90-18/PUD 90-19 DATE: September 11, 1990 ACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Promontow Business Park 2, APPLICANT: St. Andrews Investment 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1300 Bristol Street North. Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 4. DATE EIA FORM PART E SUBMITTED: June 12.1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Seven lot Tentative Tract MaD and Planned Unit Development to create six postaze stamp condominiums and one common access lot. _- NVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an ,nvironmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. 'he Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist ientifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and trovides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental mpact Report or Negative Declaration. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate this determination. ' An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidencd that any aspect of the project may cause a sianificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" and 'YES-insig" respectively. 1 discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form unde1 IISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing nitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 0 - PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ,L THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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? 1. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 1. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? YES (sk) - - - - - - - - - YES (insig) - - - - - - - NO X X X X - .. - X X X X X X X -2- w W BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ., MILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: gjs -2. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? .3. 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 (sig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? - 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? - E8 - - - YES (insig) - - -3- NO X X X - - X X NO X X W HUMANENVIRONMENT /ILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 9. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 0. tncrease existing noise levels? 1. Produce new light or glare? 2. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 13. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? !4. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? !5. Generate substantial additional traffic? !6. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? 17. 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? e E? - - - - - - - - - - .4- YES (Imig) NO X - x X - X X X - - X - X - X X X - X - X X w w MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE VILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: gs YES NO (mig) 3. 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. 14. 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.) IS. 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? X - - - X X - - X - - -5- m CUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION lSICAL ENVIRONMENT m proposed subdivision of an existing industrial development will cause no additional physical impacts. The existing industrial buildings were constructed on a previously disturbed lot. Drainage facilities were uded in the review of a Planned industrial Permit and grading plan approved prior to construction of the ject. LOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ~ proposed subdivision of an existing industrial development wiII have; no. additional impact, MAN ENVIRONMENT td Use ? proposed subdivision is consistent with the existing General Plan, Specific Plan and zoning designations the site. Aic Utilities .ce the proposed project is the subdivision of an existing facility, the necessary public utilities have already :n provided for the site. ise. Lkht and Glare pificant noise impacts are regulated by zoning performance standards for noise generation. Building :backs and landscape requirements mitigate any significant light and glare impacts. jk of UDset lustrial users are subject to Chapters 13.16 and 17 regulating the discharge of industrial waste and potential e hazards. pulation - - le project is located in the industrial zone and will not directly contribute to increased population. ousing lthough the project will add to the supply of jobs which could create an additional demand for housing, the :oject is too small in nature to create a significant impact. -6- w w IISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Icont'dl 'ransportatiodCirculation 'he proposed project consists of the subdivision of a previously approved industrial development within a lanned industrial park. The circulation system provided within the Business Park as well as parking and riveways are adequate to serve the traffic generated by this use. ,mergency Resbonse Plans 'he project will not interfere with emergency response plans. iesthetics 'he project is designed to be architecturally compatible with the surrounding area and will be required to t-ovide visual screening through the use of landscaping. .ecreation he project will not directly create a demand for any additional recreational facilities nor does it impact the uality or quantity of existing facilities. - - -7- 0 UYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATNES 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. The proposed project consists of the subdivision of an existing industrial development The. above alternatives do not apply to this project. .. - -8- - w ETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ' L I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a sipficant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE - 1 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. DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I Y-lY-4 0 Date Q-17-9D Date Signatur U &g&.mi &,fkd& Director / - - H:m0 ST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1 TTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE1 -9- .. 1 0 PLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REWEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDiTION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature - - -10- II w w /I \ 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. 3132 F THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, ROVING A TENTATIVE MAP ON PROPERTY GENERALLY 21 OF THE CARLSBAD OAKS BUSINESS PARK. ation for certain property to wit: d and referred to the Planning Commission; and tion constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 17th day of October, 1990, hold a duly to consider said request; and g and considering all testimony and id Commission considered all factors g Commission as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and cone B) , That based on the evidence presented at the p ring, the Commission recommends APPROVAL of CT 90-18, based on the following hgs and subject to the following conditions: Findings: \ 1. All findings of PUD 90-19 Planning Commission Resolu k ;on No. 3133 are incorporated 2. All necessary public improvements have been provided or I be required as conditions herein by reference. \ of approval. i:, t\ 3. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding 'future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for Planned Industrial develypment on the General Plan. \ \% '1 ..... '\ ',. II