The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-07-31; Planning Commission; Resolution 3274.a 0 0 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3274 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC PLAN 181. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD AIRPORT CENTRE CASE NO: SP 181(A) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of July, 1991, and on the 31st day of July, 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 30, 1991, and "PII", dated December 22, 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 mal 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 significantlJ impacted by this project. 28 .. 9 e PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannin Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 31st day of July, 1991, by tk following vote, to wit: 1 2 3 4 5 6 AYES: Chairperson Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Savq Erwin, Noble & Hall. NOES: None. 7 11 ABSENT: Commissioner Schramm. 8 10 9 ABSTAIN: None. 11 ROBERT HOLMES, chairperson 12 // ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING C~MMISSION 13 /I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MICHAEL J. HOLZMILL~R' PLANNING DIRECTOR 23 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 3274 -2- 28 .. NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDR!XS/LOCATION: North side of Palomar Airport Road, west of McClellan- Palomar Airport. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Designation change of commercial and industrial lots within Specific Plan 181 business park. e 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 sigruficant 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 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4471. .. - '.\ ! \ DATED: MAY 30, 1991 CASE NO: SP 181 (A) Planning Director APPLICANT: CARLSBAD AIRPORT CENTRE PUBLISH DATE: MAY 30, 1991 ''\\bb&-+ !,,, . ?7., WL, , - MICHAEL J. H~LZMILLER EB:km:rvo 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161 0 m ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PARIT 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. SP 181(A) DATE: DECEMBER 22,1990 ZKGROUND . CASE NAME: Airport Business Centre :. APPLICANT: Carlsbad Airport Centre {, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1921 Palomar Oaks Way, Suite 300 Carlsbad. CA 92008 (619) 931-0244 .. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: AUmSt 14, 1990 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Desimation chanae of commercial and industrial lots within SDecific Plan 181 business park. WRONMENTAL IMPACTS {ATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an nviromental 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 .entifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and :ovides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental npact 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 evidence that any aspect of thc project may cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negativc Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemec insinnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig' respectively. 4 discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the foz mde XSCUSSEON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussin nitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 0 0 PHYSICAL, ENVIRONMENT VILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9* LO. 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 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? river or stream or the bed of the ocean or 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- YES YES NO (sill (insis) X - X X X - - X X - X X X .- X - X w BIOLOGICAL. ENVIRONMENT ULL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: ES 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? 4. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? 5. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? 6. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? HUMAN ENVIRONMENT (ILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 7. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 8. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? YES big) -3- E21 YES (~nsig) NO X X X X X NO X X 0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WTLL 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? 2 1. Produce new light or glare? 22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (including, but not limited to, oil, 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 movemen1 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? -4- 0 YES big) YES (msig) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO X X X X X X X X X X X X X X - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE LL THE PROPOSAL, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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 comunity, 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. ES E21 NO X - - 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.) X - 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.) . ,Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X - X - - -5- .- e 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Proiect Description The proposed project is part of a 330-acre Specific Planned business park which will contain industrial, offic and related commercial uses. The area is to be developed in three phases of approximately 110 acres eac The project currently proposed would redesignate the specific lots to be used for industrial ("Area 1") us and commercial and support ("Area 2") uses reducing the total commercially designated acreage. Specificall one lot of Area 1 uses, totalling approximately 5.65 acres, would be changed to Area 2 uses. Five lots of ~r 2 uses, totalling approximately 9.43 acres, would be changed to Area 1 uses, a net reduction of 4.3 acres I Area 2 uses. Potential environmental impacts of the business park were evaluated in EIR #81-6, preparf in 1982. Additionally, Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) will be required for development of each site. EIF will be prepared again with each project proposed. Phvsical Environment The proposed project will not result in impacts not previously considered in EIR #81-6. The uses current proposed do not differ from those originally evaluated except for their specific locations and acreages with the business park. This proposal does not involve any construction. BioloRical Environment The current proposal is for land use designations only. No construction is proposed. The presently proposed change in use locations will not affect plant or animal life of the site in any way, sin( no construction is being proposed. The area is not currently used for agricultural crops, nor is it designate as a significant agricultural area by the California Coastal Commission. The potential biological impacts we] evaluated in EIR #81-6. Human Environment The proposed project, while redesignating the land uses on specific lots, does not alter the planned land usc for the overall specific planned area. The current proposal to redesignate specific lots and their proposed land uses will not itself result in an negative impacts. Because the specific planned area is near Palomar Airport, the suitability of the propose uses has been evaluated based on the latest revised Noise Exposure Map for projected year 1995 (prepare in May, 1990). SANDAG review indicates that the current proposal for land uses is acceptable for all of th lots. ' Traffic EIR 81-6 called for the following mitigation measures: 1. Strongly promote means of reducing the number of trips generated by each land use and to spread th trips out over a longer period of the day. -6- 0 W XUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (cont'd) Construct College Boulevard to the Master Plan width between Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real including a right turn lane from eastbound El Camino Real to College Boulevard. A minimum of two lanes should be constructed by the completion of the first phase of the Airport Business Center. Widen Palomar Airport Road along the project frontage and eastward to El Camino Real including a right turn lane on Palomar Airport Road. Provide a connection to Interstate 5 via Faraday Avenue and Cannon Road. Widen Palomar Airport Road over Interstate 5. Construct traffic signals at the following intersections: a. Palomar Airport Road - College Boulevard b. Palomar Airport Road - Camino Vida Roble c. College Boulevard - Unnamed Collector Road d. Palomar Airport Road - Palomar Oaks Way (if "D" Street connects with Palomar Oaks) Revise the street system to meet the City's intersection spacing policy or request a waiver of the policy to allow a "T" intersection with no median break. formal mitigation monitoring plan was established by the EIR. However, a summary of the status of each the measures is as follows: No easily measured goal was established. However, the City is currently participating in the formulation of a Congestion Management Plan which will focus on numerous methods including reducing trip generation and promotion of "flex-time" work schedules. The widening of College Boulevard has been completed. The widening of Palomar Airport Road has been completed except for the section between Yarrow Drive and El Camino Real. This project is in progress. The EIR for the project is now in the draft stage. This project is also in progress. Construction will start in February, 1992. Item 6, the four traffic signals, is almost complete. Signals have been installed at the first two locations (Palomar Airport Road/College Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road/Camino Vida Roble). The connection of College Boulevard and Palomar Oaks Way ("unnamed collector road') has not been made and is not planned for the near future. -7- a 0 )ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (cont'd) The signal project for Palomar Airport Road/Palomar Oaks Way goes to bid shortly and will be completed by the end of 1991. 7. The street system of the project was redesigned to meet the City's policy. 'he change proposed by this project will result in a decrease in the number of trips per day. The project n-oposes no change in the street system within or around the business park. No new access is being roposed. Therefore, the only change resulting from the proposal will be some slight redistribution of traffic vithin the business park and two intersections leading into the park (Palomar Airport Road/Palomar Oaks Vay and Palomar Airport Road/Camino Vida Roble). Both of these intersections are currently functioning It level of service "A" and can accommodate the resulting slight redistribution of traffic. Palomar Airport Road s also functioning at level of service "A" between Paseo Del Norte and College and between Yarrow Drive ant d Camino Real. -8- 0 w NALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate she 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) Development of the business park will occur in three phases of approximately 110 acres each. The planned phasing is not changed by the currently proposed project. b) The proposed specific plan amendment does not involve specific site designs. c) The proposed specific plan amendment does not address the scale of development in the area. d) Alternate uses for the site were not considered. The proposed uses are consistent with the land uses recommended for the area by the General Plan and with the specific plan for the area. e) The development of the business park will occur in phases as City services are available. The current proposal does not involve any actual construction. f) Alternative sites for the proposed use would not be reasonable. The project area (the specific planned area) is appropriate for the uses. This "project" is in keeping with the plan for the area. g) The no project alternative would, in this case, mean leaving the uses designated for each lot as they were approved in the original specific plan. -9- .e 0 0 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 NEGATN DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wj 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. /x?&/ 4 /T'-y// .7 date / - .. - r 1'. I 5 3-2, -j/ , . -., L. , , _:.. . 1:/. - ._ . ' , v . -.. , V~A'. ' - 1 Date Planning Director i EB:rvo LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -10- W 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 -11-