The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-06-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 3134, ar I/ rn 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 98 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3134 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 7.6 ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER. APPLICANT: TIENDA DE LA ESQUINA CASE NO: CT 91-6/SDP 91-6/CUP 91 4/PUD 91-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of June, 1991 , 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 May 2, 1991, and "PII", dated April 24, 1991, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: FilldilES: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project maJ 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 proposec project. 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantll impacted by this project. It < 1' /I e 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of June, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AYES: Chairperson Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Savary, Erwin, Noble & Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 1 ABSTAIN: None. 11 12 ATTEST: ROBERT HOLMES, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 13 14 15 16 \ PLANNING DIRECTOR 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 3134 -2- 28 W City e of Carlsbad - -~ ~ NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Southeast comer of Camino de 10s Rancho Santa Fe Road. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development of a 7.6 acre neighborhood commercial center which includes a gas station, office and retad suites, 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 Christer Westman in the Planning Department at 438-1 161, extension 4448. DATED: MAY 2, 1991 MICHAEL J. HO&MILL%R CASE NO: CT 91-6/SDP 91-6/ Planning Director CUP 914/PUD 91-3 APPLICANT: TIENDA DE LA ESQUINA PUBLISH DATE: MAY 2, 1991 CW:vd 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161 1. W 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 91-6/SDP 91-6/CUP 91-4/PUD 91-3 DATE: Auril24. 1991 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Tienda De La Esauina 2. APPLICANT: Cunninnham Barisic 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Cunningham Barisic Development Corn 340 South Flower Street Orange, CA 92668 4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development of a 7.6 acre neinhborhood commercial center whicf includes a gas station, office and retail suites located at the southeasl comer of Camino De Los Coches and Rancho Santa Fe Road. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impacl Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impac, Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biologica basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of it; aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate thi determination. and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with mformation to use as thl * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project ma: cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, i adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insinnificant. These findings are show in the checklist under the headings "YES-sign and "YES-insig" respectively. A discussion, of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form unde DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation fo impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. w 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 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? -2- W YES YES NO (sigl (insig) X - - X - X X - - - X X X - X - - X X - - - - X - - I .. W e 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)? 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 18. Substantially affect public utilities, of an area? schools, police, fie, emergency or other public services? X - X - X X - - X YES YES NO (sit9 (insig) X - - - X - - - -3- W HuMANmoNMENT 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 (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? or the release of hazardous substances 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? w YES big) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -4- YES NO (insig) - x - x - x X - X - - x X - - X - - x - X - X - - - x - x - x L .( e MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE MILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO big> (big> 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? X - X - - X - X - - -5- w w DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project proposes approximately 27,500 cubic yards of cut and fill. Grading quantities based on net pad area of 5.9 acres will be less than 5000 c.y. per acre. Grading will eliminate a split pad situatic and create a single superpad. Because the site has been previously graded the change in topography w not be significant. Slope planting and other erosion control methods will be employed to eliminate t] affects of erosion. The project location is not adjacent to any significant bodies of water. There is a riparian corridor ( an adjacent property to the south which is in an open space designation. That corridor will not directly affected by development of the subject site. At some future date the corridor may be enhanc as part of a City wide trails implementation program. Although CEQA does allow for a certain percentage of particulates to be released the cumulative efft has created a level of substandard air quality on a regional level. The projects location, adjacent tc section of the City's proposed trail system and in close proximity to apartments and single farn residential developments, will offer the opportunity of greater than average pedestrian movement t higher numbers of visits by foot or bicycle will theoretically reduce the impacts on air quality. It is not anticipated that the proposal will have an effect on air movement, odor, moisture, temperature. The buildings proposed are single story and relatively low and no uses have been identifi which would have offensive odors, create moisture or change the general temperature. Although the project site is located adjacent to a riparian corridor there is no intended disturbance to carried out. That corridor is within a designated open space zone and will be enhanced as open spa( From project construction the rate at which water percolates to the water table will be altered. Becau it will be over a relatively small area it is not expected that there will be a significant effect. The projc will also include a drainage system which will filter urban pollutants which further protects the groul water, No significant natural resources have been identified as being used for operation or constructic of the project. It is not anticipated that substantial amounts of fuel or energy will be necessary operate any of the proposed uses. The Project has been disturbed by previous grading. There has been no evidence of ~cheologic; paleontological or historical significance on the site. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT Field observation did not reveal the presence of any mature trees or significant areas of mature sh€ The cause of the absence of plant life on the site must be do to the previous grading activity whil denuded the site and created pads. Once the project is built and landscaped there will be more landsca: than is currently onsite. The site has not been used as an agricultural site nor is it a viable location for crop production. The is not enough acreage for agriculture and its proximity to Rancho Santa Fe Road may have negati effects if there was fanning. -6- w 0 It is assumed that because there is an absence of vegetation onsite that there are no species of animals which are dependent on the site. No wildlife was observed during field inspections. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT The site is designated as a commercial zone on the General Plan and also as commercial in the La Costa Master Plan. The intended use is consistent with these designations. There is no application pending to change the designated zoning or General Plan. It is not anticipated that there will be a significant increase on the demand for services from public utilities, schools, police, or fire. Sewer needs can be accommodated by existing systems so there is no need to expand or create a new system. Noise and light will be generated by the project, however not in significant quantities. Commercial lighting will be designed to focus the throw on parking lots and specified locations on the buildings. Noise will be produced primarily by automobile traffic and related sources. Noise levels will not exceed existing levels of adjacent uses. A gasoline service station is proposed as part of the project. Installation of the gas tanks will be subject to current standards. As mentioned earlier in this analysis a filter system will be implemented to protect the surrounding environment from contaminated surface run off. Because of these precautions the impacts will be reduced to insignificance. The project will not alter the density of human population in the area nor will it affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing. The project will ultimately serve the existing neighborhood. Traffic will be generated by the development. A traffic study has been done and some mitigation has been designed into the project to lessen impacts. A deceleration lane will be provided on Rancho Santa Fe Road for an ingress only. A full exit/entrance will be provided on Camino de 10s Coches where there will also be a nearby traffic signal. All parking necessary will be provided on site. Because of these provisions there will not be a significant impact on the environment. The project will not impact existing transportation systems; alter waterborne, rail or air traffic; increase traffic hazards; or interfere with emergency response plans. The site is both cut and fill. Closest to the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Camino de 10s Coches the site is at its lowest point relative to the streets. The buildings are designed as single story structures and will therefore not have a significant impact relative to view obstruction. The proposal will neither add to nor remove from existing recreational opportunities. -7- e w 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. If the development was phased the ultimate impacts of the project would be delayed until all phases we1 complete. However, the ultimate impacts are not considered significant so there would not be a overriding environmental benefit by phasing. The project could be redesigned, the scale of development could be reduced or the uses could k different. Any combination of the above alternatives may have an effect on the overall impacts, Becaw of the relatively small size of the site any changes made would not have a significant benefici; environmental impact. Development at a future date will postpone impacts until that time. Services are available now and the] are no significant biological impacts that have been identified. No alternate sites have been reviewed. The no project alternative would have no environmental impac to existing conditions but could have an economic impact. -8- , I- e 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 environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - 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 will be proposed. - I find the proposed project MAY have a sigmficant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Aiyki \ $E-, \(TI\ Da e Signitture 4#/w h I 4U-h j ,) Date Planning Directo$ cw:km LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -9- a w APPLICANT 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 cw:h -10-