HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-11-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 3155z li 0 0
3
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
PLANNJ.NG COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3155
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WSBm,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN 11,500 SQUARE FOOT LAUNDRY
FACILITY WITHIN THE SAN MARCOS FLOODPLAIN.
APPLICANT: LA COSTA HOTEL & SPA
CASE NO: SUP 90-10
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of November, 1990, hold a duly I
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 October 4, 1990, and "PII", dated September 25, 1990, attached hereto and made a
part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinns:
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.
....
....
....
....
II
1 I1 e 0
1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commissio:
2
to wit: 3
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of November, 1990, by the following votc
4 AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Holmes, McFadden, Marcus and Hall.
5 .NOES: Commissioner Erwin.
6
7
8
ABSENT: Commissioner Schlehuber.
ABSTAIN: None.
9
10
11 ATTEST:
- -CARL'SBAD -SHARON SCHRAM~Sktirperson PLANNING CO"ISSIoN" .'.- '. .' " 'I'
12
13
34 MICHAEL J. H~ZMILIAR
PLANNING DIRECTOR
15
16
1'7
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 3155 -2-
28
* 0 e
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: La Costa Hotel & Spa, Costa Del Mar Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed construction of an 11,500 square foot laundry
facility at the La Costa Hotel & Spa resort within the
flood hazard area.
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.
1
DATED: October 4, 1990
CASE NO: SUP 90-10
1 MICHAEL J. HOLZ~ILLER
Planning Director
APPLICANT: La Costa Hotel & SpaMr. Paul Graham
PUBLISH DATE: October 4, 1990
AHrlV0
2075 Las Palmas Drive * Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161
W 0 L
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACI' ASSESSMENT FORM - PART U
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. SUP 90-10
DATE: SeDtember 25, 199
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: La Costa Laundrv Facility
2. APPLICANT: La Costa Hotel & Spa
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad. CA 92008
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: July 23. 1990
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed construction of an 11,500 sauare foot laundry facility at the t
Costa Hotel & SDa resort within the flood hazard area.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES7 Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct E
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environmen
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checkli
identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project ar
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environment,
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
+; A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project (
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checke
to indicate this detennination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of tk
project may cause a sirmificant effect on the environment. The project may qual@ for a Negatil
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deeme
insimificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings !YES-sig" and YES-insil
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form undc
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussin
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
/ i
0 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?
AppreciabIy 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?
L. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
X - -
X - - -
X - -
X - - -
X -
X - -
X -
X -
X
X
- -
-
X - -
-2-
W 0 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:
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-
as
-
-
-
as
-
-
Ea
-
-
YES (msig)
-
-
NO
X
X
X
X
x -
NO
X
X
0
HUMANENvlRONMENT
L THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems?
Increase existing noise levels?
).
7.
3.
3.
0.
1.
j2.
Produce new light or glare?
Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
Generate substantial additional traffic?
Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
Impact existing transportation system or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans?
Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
-4-
0
as E$
7 -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
NO
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
w MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 0
JILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
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 WildIife
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-
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?
gs YES (lnsig) NO
X - -
X - - -
X - -
X - -
-5-
h 0 e
JSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
.cal Environment
?reposed .7 acre project requires an approved grading permit which will preclude any unstable earth
itions or erosion problems. No geologic hazards are located on site.
laundry facility will be constructed within the limits of the 100-year flood inundation. The pad for the
.ty will be raised to accommodate possible flooding. The proposed pad elevation is one and one-half feet
re the post development 100-year inundation.
hydraulic analysis performed for the project by Rick Engineering Company indicates that no substantial Ige to the flow of flood waters will result from this project.
pality will not be affected by this project nor does it have potential to affect the quantity or quality of
ace or ground water or public water supplies.
project is located on a previously graded site so that any archaeological or paleontological sites would
e been previously identified. There are no designated historical sites in the area.
logical Environment
: proposed project is located on a previously graded and denuded site within an existing resort
relopment. There is no potential for a significant impact to the surrounding biological environment.
[man Environment
e proposed project is an addition to an existing resort facility. The project will not affect public utilities
emergency services nor will it create a need to modify sewer or hazardous waste control systems. The
Indry will use potentially hazardous materials, however, the use and disposal of these materials are
plated by Chapters 13.16 and 17 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The laundry facility is replacing an
isting facility in operation at another location within the La Costa Hotel and Spa resort; therefore, it will
:ate no additional noise or risks or adversely affect traffic or circulation within or outside the project;
ne laundry facility wilt be partially screened &om public view and is located SO that no recreational
2portunities will be impacted.
-6-
w 0 *
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
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.
c) alternate scale of development,
a,d & e) Phased development, alternate use or development at a future time does not apply to this projec
since it is an accessory structure and use to an existing resort facility.
b & c) The site design and scope of development has been reviewed for compliance with the Floodphi!
Management Ordinance as required.
f) The proposed site is one of several proposed locations. Staff determined that this location i
preferable due to constraints existing at other locations.
g) The no project alternative would force La Costa Hotel & Spa to contract with an off-site laundr
to provide this service for the resort. That action would result in additional congestion within th
interior circulation system due to necessary pick up and deliveries.
-7-
:TERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
- I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATm DECLARATION will be prepared.
e 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 wi.11 be proposed.
- 1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
r/. 7/90 p um& r:
Date Signature , -
+kL -+x Planning Dirxtor
I:rV0
ST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ITACH *l MITIGATION
-8-