HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-04-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 32000 e
1
2
3
4
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3200
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATlVE
DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
CONSTRUCT AN 8,595 GROSS SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL
OFFICE BUILDING AT 2565 PI0 PICO.
CASE NAME: PI0 PICO MEDICAL BUILDING
CASE NO.: SDP 90-10
6
7
8
9
10 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering a1
11 testimony and arguments, exarnining the initial study, analyzing the informatior
12 submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Plannini
I.3 Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
14
15
16
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of April, 1991, anc
on the 17th day of April, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by lav
to consider said request, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
l7 /I A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
18 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according 19 to Exhibit "ND", dated January 16, 1991, and "PII", dated January 9, 1991,
20
21 Findings:
attached hereto and made a p& hereof, based on the following findikgs:
22 1. The field survey and the initial study show that there is no substantial evidence
that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 23
24
25 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed
2. The site has been disturbed by a prior agricultural use.
26
project.
27 // '**
28
0 0
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantlJ
1
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 2
impacted by this project.
3 Commiss;on of the City of Carlsbad, CalXornia, held on the 17th day of ApJ, 1991, bJ
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice-Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber
Schramm, McFadden, Marcus & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Chairperson Holmes.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
x=
TOM ERWIN, Vice Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DIRECTOR
18
19
1
2o /I
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 3200 -2-
28 //
NEGATNE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 2565 Pi0 Pic0 Avenue, Carlsbad, San Diego,
California.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Three story 9,150 sq. ft. medical professional office
building, on a 1/2 acre infill lot.
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. If you have any questions, please call Alan Sweeney in the Planning
Department at 438-1161, extension 4456.
DATED: JANUARY 16, 1991
CASE NO: SDP 90-10
/,fl\&Q&& .. , , $% a:
MICHAEL J. -ROL!&fILLER
Planning Director
APPLICANT: TRAYER/HARPER/WORTHING
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 24, 1991
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161
w w ENVIRONMENTAL JMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. SDP 98-10
DATE: JANUARY 9, 1991
ACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Pi0 Pic0 Medical Building
2. APPLICANT: Traver/Hamer/Worthininn
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Box 1041
Carlsbad. CA 92008
(619) 729-3965
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Julv 26.1990
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Development Plan to develop a 3 story 9.150 sauare foot medical/professional building - on a 1/2 acre infill lot.
,NVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
;TATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
hvironmental 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
hecklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed
lroject and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
:nvironmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
to indicate this determination. any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked
' An EIR must be prepared if the City detennines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the
project may cause 'a simificant 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
insifificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and YES-insig"
respectively.
i discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
IISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
nitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
0
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 0
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
1.
2.
31
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,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
-2-
X -
X -
X - -
- x
X -
X -
X - - -
X
X
X
X
W BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
big) (insig)
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)? X
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species? X
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 organisins
and insects?
16. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
X -
X
v A
HUMANENVIRONMENT
NILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
17. Alter the present or planned land use
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
of an area?
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
YES YES NO
big) (insig)
X - -
- - X
-3-
0 0
HUMANENVIRONMENT
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.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Generate substantial additional traffic?
Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking?
Impact existing transportation systems 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?
YES YES NO (six) (insig)
- - X
X
-
- - -
- x -
- - X
- X -
- X -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
X
x -
X
X
X
X
X -
X
-4-
w
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-
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?
YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
X
X
X
X
-5-
0 e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This proposal requires approval of a Site Development Plan to construct a 9150 square €01
disturbed, resulting in destruction of most of the vegetation. Elevation vanes from 84 feet above mean s(
medical/professional building of three stones with tuck-under parking on the ground level. The half acre si
is located between Pi0 Pic0 Avenue and Interstate 5 and slopes gently to the west. The site was previous
level (msl) in the southwest corner to 96 feet above msl in the northeast corner.
For this environmental analysis, staff conducted two inspections of the site. Based on those inspections ar
on information supplied by the applicant, staff finds that the proposed project could not have a significaj
effect on the environment for the following reasons:
. The site has been previously disturbed.
. There are no sensitive environmental resources on the site.
, The site is surrounded by developed properties.
. The proposed use is permitted by the general plan and zoning ordinance.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
1. Applicant proposes 550 cubic yards of grading with a five foot maximum cut slope and a two foc
maximum fill slope. Approximately 260 cubic yards of earth are proposed to be exported. No unstab:
earth conditions will be created because the grading plan is required to meet City engineering standard
2. The topography of the site will not be significantly changed. The northeastern portion of the site wi
be lowered in elevation by about 5 feet in some areas; the southwestern portion will be raise
approximately two feet. No unique physical features exist on this previously disturbed site.
3. The project will not result in or be affected by erosion of soils as all necessary drainage and erosio
control facilities will be provided to handle runoff fiom the site. The site will be landscaped aft6
construction.
4. As a result of the project's location, no impacts to beaches, rivers, streams, bays or lakes are anticipate(
5. The project will have an incremental impact on air quality in that it will generate 315 vehicle trips pf
day. This impact is not considered significant in itself, Long-term mitigation of region-wide air qualit
impacts will require that dependence upon the automobile be reduced regionally and statewide.
6. The building will be 35 feet in height and will not generate emissions beyond those required for heatin,
and air conditioning. Therefore it will not cause substantial changes in air movement, odor, moistur
or temperature. Traffic generation is below significant levels
7. The project will not change the course or flow of water as no streams are located in the area an
drainage waters will be handled by existing and/or proposed facilities.
# -b-
m w 8. The project will not affect the quality or quantity of surface water, ground water or public water supply.
There is no surface water on or adjacent to the site. Sewage will be discharged into the public sewage
system, water will be supplied by the Carlsbad Municipal Water district, and runoff will be handled bj
existing and proposed storm drains. Development of this proposal will create impervious surfaces onsite
which would reduce absorption rates and incrementally increase surface runoff and runoff velocities.
However, to accommodate this incremental runoff, drainage facilities will be incorporated into the
project to divert the runoff to a master storm drain, thereby mitigating this concern.
9. Implementation of this proposal will incrementally contrubute to the depletion of natural resources,
However, because of the small size of the proposal (9150 square feet), the incremental increase is no1
considered significant.
.o. Implementation of this proposal will incrementally contribute to the depletion of fossil fuels and othel
natural resources during construction and operation. This incremental increase is not considered
significant.
.1. This vacant previously-disturbed site does not have a significant potential for containing archaeologica:
or paleontological objects.
HOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
-2. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of weeds and grasses as the property has been previouslj
disturbed. Because of this and because of the small site size, impact on plants will be insignificant.
~3. No significant native vegetation exists on the site because it has been previously removed; therefore the
introduction of new species of plants will not cause an adverse impact.
14. The site is not being used for agriculture and implementation will not reduce the amount of acreage
of any agricultural crop or affect farmland of state or local importance.
~5. Because the site is surrounded by buildings, a public street, and Interstate 5 and because it is disturbed:
it is not valuable habitat for any animal species.
-6. The proposed commercial project will not add domestic animals to the area and is not located when
it would be a barrier to the migration or movement of animals.
WMAN ENVIRONMENT
17. The proposal complies with the present and planned land use of the area because the site is designatec
0 (professional and related) on the General Plan Land Use Map and is zoned RP-Q (residential
professional). Surrounding uses consist of a mix of professional offices and residences which an
compatible with the proposed use.
18. As discussed in the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan, with the payment of all required fees, al
public facilities and services will be available to meet the demands of the project.
-7-
0 0
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Adequate sewer and waste disposal systems exist to accommodate the use so it will not result in thr
need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems.
Cmstmctian af the building may result in short-term, insigrdicant noise impacts upon adjacer
properties, all of which are professional offices. The use is compatible with surrounding uses and it
operation will not create significant noise impacts. Noise impacts to the project from the freeway wi
be mitigated.
New light will be produced but it will be directed so as not to impact adjacent properties.
The proposed medical use may generate hazardous substances. The project will be required to compl
with County of San Diego Health Department regulations which will preclude a significant risk of the!
release.
The density of the human population of the area will not be significantly altered by this proposal whic
was designated for this site by existing land use plans.
Due to the scale of this proposal, it is not expected to create a significant demand for additional housin
which cannot be met by existing rates of residential development in the city.
It is estimated that the proposal will generate 315 average daily vehicle trips. This will nt
substantially impact the circulation system.
The demand for parking facilities created by this proposal will be satisfied onsite. One parking spac
will be provided for each 200 square feet of gross floor area, as prescribed by the zoning ordinance.
An insubstantial amount of new traffic will be generated. Present circulation patterns and moveme1
of people or goods will not be impacted.
The project is not near waterborne, rail and air traffic and will not alter such traffic. The site is outsic
the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport.
No substantial increase of traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians will result from th
proposal; it has one vehicular access point which is located so as not to cause conflicts with traffic.
The proposal will not affect emergency response or evacuation plans.
The proposal will not obstruct any scenic vista. It will be appropriately landscaped and is within tl
height limits of the zoning ordinance.
The proposal will not affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. b
recreational opportunities currently exist on the site. The park performance standard is being met fi
Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1 and no new facilities will be required as a result of th
proposal.
-8-
w w WALYSIS OF WLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development,
e) development at some future time rather than now,
f) alternate sites for the proposed, and
g) no project alternative.
a) The proposal is for a single building on a single lot, so phased development is not a viable
d) alternate uses for the site,
alternative.
b) The applicant has considered alternate site designs. The proposal creates no significanl
environmental impacts while being compatible with surrounding uses.
c) An alternate scale of development would not be an environmentally superior alternative
as the site is small, has been previously disturbed, and contains no significant natura:
resources.
d) The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the site.
e) Development at some future time has no environmental advantages since this infill lot ha:
been disturbed and utilities are available to serve the site.
f) There are alternate sites for the proposal; however, they have no environmental
advantages and the proposal is consistent with existing land use plans.
g) The no project alternative would leave the disturbed infill site vacant and would achieve
no environmental advantage.
-9-
** e 0
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
- X 1 find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATI?
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there w
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 ENVIRONMENT1 IMPACT REPORT is required.
+P” - 4Qa lib CilCLz, we
Planning Direct&- \I
AS
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLEl
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICAsLE)
-10-
m w **
'PLICANT 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
S
-11-