Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-02-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 33560 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 EO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3356 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WAFEHOUSE/DISTRIBUTION FACILITY AT 6020 AVENIDA ENCINAS, CASE NAME: CARLSBAD DISTRIBUTION CENTER CASE NO: SDP 91-12 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of February, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering a1 testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the informatio1 submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planninj Commission considered all facrors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissior as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planninl Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration accordin: to Exhibit "ND", dated February 19, 1992, and "PII", dated February 19, 1992 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Fhdin-: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project ma have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously disturbed and is presently tilled for fire preventio and weed abatement. 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the propose project. e 0 1 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significant1 impacted by this project. 2 3 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannin 4 5 by the following vote, to wit: Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of February, 199; 6 7 AYES: Chairman Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramn Holmes, Savary, Noble & Hall. 8 /I NOES: None. 9 ABSENT: None. 10 ABSTAIN: None. 11 12 13 14 ATTEST: r TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 15 16 MICHAEL J. HO~ZMIL~~R 17 11 PLANNING DIRECTOR 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 3356 -2- 28 .I City 0 of Carlsbad oE~~Nfia~=4m NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 6020 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92009 APN: 21 1-030-27 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of an 98,563 square foot distribution/warehouse facility on an infill lot in the industrial and coastal zone. 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 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4325. s DATED: JANUARY 16, 1992 CASE NO: SDP 91-12 Planning Director CASE NAME: CARLSBAD DISTRIBUTION CENTER PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 16,1992 VL:lh 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 a 8 JWVXRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO. SDP 91-12 DATE: JANUARY 9.19 1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD DISTRIBUTION CENTER 2. APPLICANT: RLA ARCHITECTURE 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1120 SYCAMORE AVE. SUITE #2B Vista CA 92083 (619)727-9606 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 5. 1991 5, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Single story warehouse facility and truck distribution center M SUDDO~~ office area in the California Coastal Zone. Total square footaze - 98,563. 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 environmc The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checE 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project i provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmel Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the projec any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO' will be chec 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 sidcant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Nega Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deeI insianificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" and 'YES-in respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form UT DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discus! mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. .. 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 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- e YES big) - - - - - - - - - - YES (insig) - - - - - - - - - - NO X - x X X - X X X X X X X * a BIOLOGICAL ENVTRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES big) 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? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public, services? YES big) - - -3- YES NO (insig) x X X - X - - X - YES NO (-1 X - - X - - 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. 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? 4- 0 YES YES NO big) (insig) X X X - - - - - - X - X - X X - - X .- X X - - - - - x - - X - - X - - X - - e 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (ski (insig) 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 occw in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X - - X - - 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 - - - -5- e 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project consists of the construction of a 98,563 square foot building for warehouse and distributiol uses in a manufacturing designated area. The 9.76 acre site is partially developed with 82,000 squar feet of office and manufacturing uses. The adjacent property to the North and South is developed wit: manufacturing and office uses. The portion of the lot to be developed is predominately devoid of vegetation. The lot has been disce for weed and fire control. The existing entry way and parking lot landscaping for the existing building ' will be removed and replaced with other landscaping. Based on site visits and project review, st& concludes that the proposed project will not have an adverse environmental impacts. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. The project will require some fill material, but will not increase the exposure of people ( property to geologic hazards. 2. The project proposes to fill with 16,000 cubic yards, but will not appreciably change tl topography. There are no unique physical features on site. 3. The project will be required to provide erosion control during construction and the fin development of the site will not have any exposed or barren soils. 4. This project is not associated with any beach sands or river beds and there are no drainal channels on site. 5. An incremental increase in air pollutants will result during construction, but the project warehouse in nature and will not be producing any significant amounts of air pollutants. 6. The site will be changed from a vacant, plowed field to a developed site with asph; paving,landscaping and building which will change the surface to air exchanges of moisture a temperature. This incremental increase is considered insigmficant. 7. The project is in a Flood Insurance Rate Map Zone' C which is an area of minimal flooding. T project and will not change any water course or flow. 8. The project will be conditioned to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Eliminatil System, therefore reducing any potential to decrease surface water quality. 98~10. No natural resources exist on site and the incremental increase in fossil fuel consumption that v be used for construction and operation of the site is considered insignificant. 11. A site inspection done by st& did not reveal any potentially significant archeologic paleontological or historical sites. -6- 0 0 12. The project site is void of animals and vegetation except for some non-native trees and shrubs thal will be replaced with other non-native trees and shrubs. 4 13. The proposed landscaping will introduce new species of plants to the area, however these same species are found on surrounding lots in the area. This is an infill lot that will not change thc barrier to natural floral replenishment. 14. This lot is not being used for agricultural purposes. The project site is too small of area to be o prime importance as farmland. 15. The existing condition of the lot, a plowed field, does not support any significant diversity o animal species. 16. The project does not propose to introduce any new animal species. As an infill lot, this projec will not change the migration or movement patterns of any animals. 17. . There is no alteration of land use as the industrial development is consistent with the Zoning an General Plan designation for the parcel. 18. The project is located in Local Facilities Management Zone 3 and services will be provided by th implementation of this plan. 19. The incremental increase in sewer and waste systems produced by this project is accommodate by the Local Facilities Management Zone Plan. 20. Construction and operation of the project will produce an incremental amount of noise, light ar glare, but this increase is considered to be insignificant for this industrial lot. 21. See No. 20. 22. The proposed use of the site is a warehouse-distribution center ' and will not involve ar manufacturing processes that may involve a significant risk of explosion or release of hazard01 substances. 23. As an industrial project in an industrial zoned area, the density of the human population or tl demand for additional housing of the area will not be altered. 24. See no, 23. 25. The project will add an additional 646 average daily trips which can be accommodated by t' existing street system as shown in the Local Facilities Zone Plan. The Zone Plan will also requi the project to pay Traffic impact fees, Public Facilities fees and participate in the Bridge a: Thoroughfare Benefit District. 26. Parking for the project will be provided on site and will not affect existing parking facilities generate a large demand for parking. -7- 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 0 e As stated above, the existing circulation system is,adequate to support the project. A The project is not associated with any waterborne or rail traffic. The project is in the Paloi;;a Airport Influence Area but is compatible with the Airport Land Use plan. All required signage and safety precautions will take place during construction of the projec therefore no significant increase in traffic hazards will result. The site has existing sidewalks fc pedestrian use. This project is on an infill industrial site and no interference with emergency response plans c emergency plans will result. The site does not have, nor will obstruct, any scenic vistas. The architecture and landscaping ( the building will be compatible to the surrounding buildings. The site currently does not provide any recreational opportunities, therefore the project will nc affect the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities. The project site is an infill lot wh,h is void of any significant habitats or historical resource; therefore the project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of th environment. Neither short-term nor long-term environmental goals will be disadvantaged because of this infi industrial project is on a previously disturbed lot. The project will not result in any cumulative effects since the potential impacts have bee determined to be well below any level of significance. As shown in this assessment, there will be no environmental effects which will cause substanti; adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. -8- 0 0 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. a) The project is one building and cannot be phased. b) Alternative site design would not increase compliance with applicable ordinances or providc environmental benefits. c) The scale of the proposed project is conformance with the local ordinances. d) The site is General Planed and Zoned for industrial development and other uses may bc incompatible with the General Plan. e) Development at a future time will only stall the development of the industrial lot and leave th f) The proposed site can accommodate the proposal and is designated for industrial developmen site undeveloped with no environmental benefits. Alternate sites may not meet these criteria. g) A no project alternative would leave the site undeveloped with no environmental benefit: -9- . .. 0 DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) a On the basis of this initial evaluation: - X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, becaus the environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunctic with previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review required. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a si@cant effect on the environment, the will not be. a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on i 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 i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. i , -. LAA L L ! _* ; , ; . </z q r 4./ Date Signaturg Ipjv /1t,wa Date Planning Directi?! LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLEl -10- . b A. * e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS ES TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature vL:h -11-