Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-07-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 3415,,e 7 I/ e e 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 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3415 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO THREE RESTAURANTS, ONE WITH DFUVE THRU FACILITIES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, NON- AVENIDA ENCINAS NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, CASE NAME: PALOMAR PLACE CASE NO: SDP 83-1 1 (D)/PUD 92-4/CUP 92-1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of July, 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 informatior 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 Commissior 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 APPROVES of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibil "ND", dated May 28, 1992, and "PII", dated May 15, 1992, attached hereto anc made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Filldinm: 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 graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the propose( project. .. , P. e 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly 1 2 impacted by this project. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 3 4 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of July, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: 5 6 AYES: Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, 1 Noble, Savary & Hall. 7 11 NOES: None. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION - I1 \ 15!! 16 1 MICHAEL J. MLZM~LER 1'7 PLANNING DIRECTOR 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 /I 26 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 3415 -2- *- 1. w e NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: West of Interstate 5 between Palomar Airport Road and Avenida Encinas, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development of three restaurants, one with drive-through facilities, and associated parking and landscaping on an inf1ll commercial site. The City of Carlsbad has condbcted 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 Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4499. DATED: MAY 28, 1992 - MICHAEL J. HOLZ~LLER CASE NO: SDP 83-ll(D)/PUD 92-4/ Planning Director CUP 92-1/MS 92-4 CASE NAME: PALOMAR PLACE PUBLISH DATE: MAY 28, 1992 MG:vd 7n75 I a- Psalrn2q Drive Carisbad California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 ,. .. 1. 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAm ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. SDP 83-11(D)/PUD 92-4/CUP 92-l/MS 92-4 DATE: MAY 15, 1992 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: PALOMAR PLACE 2. APPLICANT: RUSSELL W. GROSSE DEVELOPMENT 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD. CA 92008 (619) 434-2824 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: DECEMBER 5. 1991 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DEVELOPMENT OF THREE RESTAURANTS. ONE WITH DRni THROUGH FACILITIES. AND ASSOCIATED PMNG AND LANDSCAPING ON AN INFILL COMMERCIAL SITE, 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. 1 checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the prop0 project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare Environmental 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 simificant effect on the environment. The project may quale for a Nega Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be dee1 insinnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" and 'YES-in respectively. .. .. 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 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? YES big) - - - - - - - YES (insig) - - - - - - - - NO X X X -x,- x X X X X X X -2- .. m a BlOLOGICAL 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 piants)? 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 ::e migration or movement of annals? HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 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 (si& - - - - YES (insig) - X X X X X NO X X -3- .. .. e 4UMA.N ENVIRONMENT 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? 3 1. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32, Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? e YES (sip) - - - - - - - - - - -4- YES (insig) - - - - - - - - - - NO X X X X X X X X X X X. X X - X .. .. 0 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sip) (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. X 34. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environinental 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.) X - - X - - 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X - - -5- *. W 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed project consists of the construction of three restaurants, one with a drive through facilir parking lot, and landscaping within a partially developed commercial site. The site is located wes; Interstate 5 between Palomar Airport Road and Avenida Encinas and already contains two restaurants on southern end and an office building on the northern end. The middle portion of the site, the area prop0 vegetation. Based upon field visits, staff determined that the infill site contained no sigmficant enviromel features and no adverse impacts should result from the proposal. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: for development, was graded in accordance to a previous approval and is currently scatted with distur 1. Very minimal grading will be required for the construction of the restaurant development and substantial changes to the existing terrain are proposed. All standard safety practices will be requ: during grading operations and, therefore, no unstable earth conditions or geologic hazards shc result . 2. The site has been graded and left barren for several years. No unique physical features exist on and the grading for restaurant complex shall not substantially alter the existing grade. Therefore, appreciable change in topography of the site. 3, All standard erosion control mechanisms will be implemented during grading and construction an( improved surfaces will be built with adequate drainage. No erosion of soils, either on or off sitt expected. 4. No beach sands, river or stream channels, bays, or lakes exist on or in close proximity to the site 2 therefore, no impacts to such features will result. 5. An incremental increase in aerosol pollution will occur during construction and operation of the restaurants, however, this small reduction in ambient air quality is considered insignificant. 6. Some minor changes in climatological indices, such as moisture, temperature and air movements, will occur due to the transformation of surfaces on the site but this small change in surface characteristics is not considered climatologically significant. 7. No marine, fresh, or flood watercourses exist on or near the project site. This proposal will not, therefore, substantially change the course of flow of water, 8. Except for a small sump in the middle of the site, no surface or public water supply exist on or near the site. The proposal involves no deep excavation and no contact with ground water is anticipated. Therefore, no impacts to the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water, or public water supply is expected. 9. An incremental increase in the use of fuel and natural resources will occur during construction of the project but this small increase in considered insignificant and no natural resources exist on site. -6- .- e e 10. See #9 above. 11. The site has been previously graded pursuant to a previous project approval (SDP 83-1 1). r significant archeological, paleontological, or historical structures or objects exist on the project sire a] no impacts are anticipated. 12. The site is currently graded with a disturbed vegetation cover. No significant diversity of species, habitat or number of any species of plants exist on the site and, as such, no significant impacts will result. 13. The proposed landscaping for the project is in keeping with the landscaping of the surrounding development and no impacts to the existing urbanized landscaping is expected. 14. No agricultural crops or prime farmlands exist on or near the site and, therefore, development of the restaurants will not cause any adverse impacts to these features. 15. There are no significant habitats or species of animals on this graded, disturbed site and no impacts to fauna or habitat diversity will occur due to this project. 16. The proposal does not propose to introduce new species of animals to the area, and no impacts to the migration or movement of animals is anticipated. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT: 17. The present and planned land use for the site is travel services commercial. Both the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan allow restaurants within areas of this land use designation, therefore, no alteration of land use is proposed or necessary. 18. No significant increase in the demand on public facilities and services is expected as a result of this infill, commercial development, The project applicant has already committed 10 provide fees for their proportionate share of public facilities impacts. 19. There will be no hazardous waste on site and no control systems will be needed. The incremental increase in the solid waste and sewerage disposal needs caused by the project can be accommodated by the existing services. 20. No significant levels of noise will result from the construction and occupation of the restaurant development and no adverse impacts are anticipated. 21. The parking lot lighting will be directed downward and all headlights entering the drive through will be screened from freeway views, therefore, no significant amounts of light or glare will result from this proposal. 22. No explosive or hazardous substances will be involved in the construction and operation of 1 resrauranrs and no adverse impacts due to such will result. -7- ., -7 * 0 23/24. The development of the restaurant uses does not involve any residential development nor doc create a demand for additional housing. No adverse impacts to housing will occur. 25. While the commercial development will draw traffic to the area, the street system serving the sir adequate to handle the incremental increase in traffic generation. 26. The existing parking facility will be supplemented with additional parking and, taken together, will be adequate to serve the entire restaurant development. No adverse parking impacts will result from this development. 27. No transportation or circulation systems shall be affected by this project as no development is proposed outside of the confines of the site. 28. No waterborne, air or rail traffic exists on or in close proximity to the project site and, therefore, no impacts to such will result. 29. All construction activities will be'confined to the project site and no significant traffic hazards are expected. 30. The site is not included as a part of any emergency response or evacuation plans and no impacts to these plans will result from this project. 31. The development of the restaurant complex will be landscaped so as to offer aesthetically pleasing views from Interstate 5 and other public views. No scenic vistas are taken from development of this project and no impacts to aesthetics are anticipated. 32. This project will not affect the quantity or quality of recreational opportunities since no recreational facilities exisr on sire and no impacts 10 existing facilities will result. 33. The project site is currently graded and disturbed. No impacts to any significant environmental features or significant examples of California history or pre-history will result. 34. The id111 site is designated for commercial development and no short-term or long-term environmental goals will be compromised with the proposed project. 35. No cumulative impacts are expected as the incremental impacts listed above are very insignificant and do not compound to a level of significance. 36. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because all potential impacts are well below the level of significance and do not reflect adverse impacts. -8- *' * ., 0 0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, 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. c) alternate scale of development, a) Phasing of the restaurant complex would result in a longer overall construction period and more incremental disruptions to traffic and noise, therefore not being a preferable alternative. b) The proposed site design and scale of development already minimize the impacts to the site and no alternate site designs would produce environmentally preferable results. c) ' See "B" above. d) The site is partially developed with and designated for travel service commercial uses. Any other use would be less .compatible to the existing development, e) Development at this time provides allows a graded pad with disturbed vegetation to be transformed into a landscaped, commercial complex as designated in the City's General Plan. Postponement or prevention of development would leave a partially developed site bare, which has no environmental advantages. f) The project is consistent with the land use designation for the site and with surrounding development. Alternate sites may not offer this consistency and would leave a site designated for development graded and disturbed. g) See "E" above. -9- ,’ I ’- 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 NEGAT DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction p previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is requi Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - E find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there 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 ENVIRONMEN IMPACT REPORT is required. /” Yhd?> F&Z. - date / Signature Ll’ 5]18/.i z -a Date Planning Direc% 5/18/.i z 1 Date Planning Direc% /J LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE] -10- I. 0 0 c ,. PPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE EVEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WLTH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature MG:vd -1 1-