The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-05-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 3222r II 0 e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3222 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATrVE DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,500 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/ WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON A PRE-GRADED, INFILL PROPERTY OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF IMPALA DRlVE AND ORION WAY. CASE NAME: BALDWIN ENGINEERING ~ CASE NO.: SDP 91-4/SDP 78-1 (D) 9 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of May, 1991, lo hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and 11 12 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all ll testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information 13 14 15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission 16 Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning 17 11 as follows: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 April 4, 1991,, and "PII", dated March 28, 1991, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: FhClinjS: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 25 26 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis. ... 27 28 ll e 0 1 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantl: 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the propose( 2 3 project. impacted by this project. 4 5 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannin: Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of May, 1991, b: the following vote, to wit: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 AYES: Chairperson Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramrr Savary, Noble, Erwin & Hall. NOES: None. 1 ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ROBERT HOLMES, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 16 17 ATTEST: 19 18 PLANNING DIRECTOR 2o 1 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 3222 -2- 28 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Southwest corner of Impala Drive and Orion Way, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Grading and construction of a 5,500 square foot office/warehouse building on a pregraded, infill industrially designated 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 Mike Grim in the Pldng Department at 438-1161, extension 4499. -/Jjy DATED: APRIL 4,1991 HAE J. HO ZlWI LER CASE NO: SDP 91-4/SDP 78-1(D) fi Plannin Director APPLICANT: BALDWN ENGINEERING PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 4,1991 MG:h 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO. SDP 91-4/SDP 78-1(D DATE: MARCH 28,1991 1. CASE NAME: Baldwin Ennineerinn - 2, APPLICANT: James Baldwin 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1561 Neptune Leucadia, CA 92024 (619)436-6602 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMIl'TED: November 28.1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a 5.500 sauare foot office/warehouse building a prenraded infill. industriallv desimated parcel. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environme The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This check 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project 2 provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmer Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the projecr any of itsaspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checl to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negal Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deen insinnificant. - These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and fYES-in respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the forrn un DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discuss mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. W 0 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 physkal features? 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? 4. 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? 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 big) YES (insig) - - - NO X X X -x- X X X X X X X -2- e 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? HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? 1 a. Substantially affect public utilities, YES Dig) - - YES big) - - YES (insig) - YES (insig) - - -3- NO X X X X X NO X X 0 HuMANENvIRoNMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLR 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 signiffcant 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? 0 YES (sig) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - YES (insig) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO X X - - X - X - X - X X - X X X - X - X - X X -4- m 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 levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. population to drop below self-sustaining restrict the range of a rare or en. 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- W e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project involves the construction of a 5,500 square foot office/warehouse building on an infill, industrial designated site. The project site is a pre-graded pad and virtually no grading is required for proje implementation. Site development will include landscaping, circulation aisles, a small parking area, and : outdoor employee eating area. Based upon several site visits, staff concluded that the project will have I adverse environmental impacts. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Virtually no grading will be required for development on this pre-graded lot and no geologic hazards or unstable earth conditions will result. 2. No unique physical features currently exist on the pre-graded site. 3. Erosion control will be required during the construction of the project and the final development will not include any barren or exposed soils. 4. This project on a pre-graded site has no relation to any beach sands or river beds and there are no drainage channels on the site. 5, An incremental increase in iIir pollutants will result during construction and operation of the industrial building but these pollutants are considered insi@cant. 6. The site will be changed from a vacant, dirt area to a developed site with asphalt paving, landscaping, and building which will alter the surface to air exchanges of moisture and temperature. This incremental charge is considered insignificant, however. 7. No water courses are being affected as no drainage channels exist on site. 8. No significant groundwater or surface water resources exist on the site and no public water will be used for construction and operation unless the Carlsbad Municipal Water District determines that sup:ply is adequate. 9. No natural resources exist 011 site and an incremental increase in fossil fuel consumption will result from construction and operation of the development. This increase is considered insi@cant, 10. See #9 above. 11. There are no significant archeological, paleontolgical, or historical structures or objects on this pre-graded, infill indlustrial site. 12. No significant diversity of either plant or animal species or habitats currently exist on this previously disturbed, infill lot. Therefore no effects to such species or habitats are anticipated. -6- 0 13. The landscaping associated with this development will introduce new species of plants to the currently barren lot, however these species can be found on neighboring lots in the area and will not create any barrier to natural floral replenishment. 14. No agricultural crops or farmlands exist on or near the site therefore no effects to such will result. 15. See #12 above. 16. No introduction of animal species are proposed with this project and, as stated above, the landscaping proposed is consistent with the existing urban habitats currently existing around the project site. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 17. There is no alteration of land use proposed as the industrial development is consistent with the zoning and general plan designation of the parcel. 18. The development will produce an incremental increase in the need for public utilities and other public services but this increase is insignificant and accommodated by the Local Facilities Management Zone Plan. 19. As stated above, the incremental increase in sewer and waste systems produced by this project is accommodated by the Local Facilities Management Zone Plan. 20. Construction and operation of the project will produce an incremental increase in noise, light, and glare however, this increase is considered insignificant for this infill, industrial lot. 21. See #20 above. 22. All standard safety practices will be involved in both construction and operation of the project and, therefore, no significant risks of explosion, release of hazardous substances, or risk of upset are anticipated. 23. As this is an industrial project, no residential development is proposed. There will therefore be no affect on density of human population or existing housing supply or demand. 24. See #23 above. 25. The approximately 45 additional daily trips generated by this project can be accommodated by the existing street and arterial system serving the project as shown in the Local Facilities Management Zone Plan. 26. All parking needs generated by this infill industrial project will be accommodated on site and, therefore, no impacts to parking facilities will result. -7- 0 e 27. As stated previously, all existing transportation systems can accommodate the development and, therefore, no affects on present patterns of circulation are anticipated. 28. No waterborne, or rail traffic exist on or near the site and, therefore, no alteration of such will be necessary. While the building is near Palomar Airport, there will be no impacts to airborne traffic due to this one-story building. 29. All required signage, and safety precautions will take place during construction of the project therefore no significant increase in traffic hazards will result. 30. As this project is on an infill, industrial site, no interference with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans will result. 31. No significant scenic vistas exist on or near this infill, industrial site and the architecture and landscaping are compatible with the surrounding development. 32. No recreational opportunities currently exist on site and an outdoor employee eating area will be incorporated into the new development, therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 33. As stated previously, the site is an infill lot in an industrial area and no significant habitats or historical resources exist on or near the site, therefore no degradation to such will result. 34. Neither short-term nor long-term environmental goals will be disadvantaged because of this infill industrial project on a previously disturbed, pre-graded lot. 35. No cumulative environmental effects will result from this infill project as all potential impacts are well below any level of significance. 36. As shown above, no direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings will result from this infill industrial project. -8- 0 0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) altemate 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 project is one building and cannot be phased. b) Alternate site designs do not increase compliance with applicable ordinances or provj environmental benefits. c) The scale of development is in keeping with neighboring development and within t range allowed by applicable ordinances. d) The site is designated for industrial uses so alternate uses would not be consistent wj the general plan. e) Development at a future time would leave a pregraded lot designated for industr development vacant and would not produce any environmental benefits. f') The site can accommodate the proposal and is designated for industrial developme] Alternate sites may not meet these criteria. g) The no project alternative will leave a pregraded lot, designated for industr development vacant and would not produce any environmental benefits. -9- 0 e 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 endronment, and a NEGAT~ DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because tl environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction wil previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is require' Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been 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 ENVIRONMENTF IMPACT REPORT is required. 3G$ - w Date Signature 3-22 Date 9/ bp&ad&Dyhctor &yl!!..ii+ MG:h LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ilTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE1 -10- 0 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR wI"l THE ADDlTION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature MG;h -1 1-