HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 3496IT 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3496
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNlA APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
CONSTRUCT A TEMPORARY FACILITY FOR RETAIL WINE
SALES/TASTING TO INCLUDE A GIFT SHOP ON THE WEST
SIDE OF PASEO DEL NORTE, NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD AND PEA SOUP ANDERSEN'S.
CASE NAME: BELLEFLEUR WINE TASTING & GIFT SHOP
CASE NO: SDP 92-08
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of March, 1993,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
10 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
11
12
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff,
and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
l3 11 factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
l4 i! NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
15
16 as follows:
17
18
19
20
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 January 21, 1993, and "PII", dated January
15, 1993, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
21
22
Findinns:
23 have a significant impact on the environment.
24
25
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis.
j/ 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project. 26
27
28
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly
impacted by this project.
/I II
I’
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
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannin]
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of March, 1993, by tb
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm
Welshons, Savary & Hall.
NOES: Commissioner Erwin.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
.
Uf rg ““l.,f.+\
... ..”.. ~ . -.
BAILEY NDBrEFChairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
MICHAEL J. H-ZMILLER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 3496 -2-
rf
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: West side of Paseo Del Norte, north of Palomar Airport
Road and Pea Soup Andersen’s.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A temporary facility for retail wine sales/tasting to include a
gift shop, outdoor veranda, courtyard and turf picnic area on
a 2.3 net acre property.
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 Don Neu in the
Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4446.
DATED: JANUARY 21,1993
CASE NO: SDP 92-08
1 MICHAEL J. HOLZMIUW
Planning Director
CASE NAME: BEIFLEUR WINE TASTING AND GIFT SHOP
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 21,1993
DN:vd
2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 di
I' 0 0
ENvlRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. SDP 924
BACKGROUND
DATE: Januarv 15, 1%
1. CASE NAME: Bellefleur Wine Tastinn and Gift ShoD
2. APPLICANT:. John C. Culbertson
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2608 Via Rancheros
Fallbrook. CA 92028
(619) 758-0156
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: September 28, 1992
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A temporaw facilitv for retail wine sales/tastinn to include a sift
shop. outdoor veranda. courtyard and turf picnic area on a 2.3 net acre property
located on the west side of Paseo Del Norte. north of Palomar hort
Road and Pea Soup Andersen's.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct 2
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the enviromer
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form, of a checklist. TE:
checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the propost
project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare 2
Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project (
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checkt
to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of tl
project may cause a sinnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negatil
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemc
insinnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings '"YES-sig" and 'YES-insi
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form und
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussi
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
a 0
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES
big)
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 come 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-
YES
(insig)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NO
X
X
X
X -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0 c
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
pldnts)? - - X
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?
- - X -
- - X
15. Mfect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organism
and insects? - - X
16. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals? - - X
HUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECI'LY
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fie, emergency or other
public services?
YES YES
big)
- -
- -
NO
(insig]
X
X
-3-
0 c
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?
YES
big)
-
-
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-
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:
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.)
YES YES NO
big1 (insig)
- X
X - -
- - X
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? X - - -
-5-
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project is a temporary facility for retail wine sales/tasting including a gift shop, outdoc
veranda, courtyard and turf picnic area. A 2,880 square foot modular structure is proposed to be utilizec
The site is a 2.3 net acre parcel located on the west side of Paseo Del Norte immediately north of Pea Sou
Andersen's. The property is presently vacant and has been previously graded. Vegetation consists of wee&
and grasses. On January 6, 1993 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed zon
change from L-C-Q (Limited Control, Qualified Development Overlay Zone) to C-T-Q (Commercial-Tourisl
Qualified Development Overlay Zone) to make the zoning consistent with the TS (Travel Service
Commercial) general plan land use designation. Also approved by the Planning Commission on January t
1993 was a Tentative Tract Map which included subdividing this property from property located on the ea:
side of Paseo del Norte to which it is legally connected. The realignment of Paseo del Norte created th
existing situation whereby this parcel is separated by the road.
Physical Environment .
1. A report titled, "Phase I Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California" was preparec
for the project by Geotechnics Incorporated. The report is dated September 25, 1992. This lot on th,
west side of Paseo Del Norte is located on the Lindavista Formation. Generally, the Lindavist;
Formation encountered in the subsurface exploration is dense to very dense and non-expansive. Nc
faults were observed on this site which was previously graded and is relatively flat. Only minima
grading would be needed for development of the site therefore, no unstable earth conditions will bt
created.
2. The property is relatively flat and has been previously graded. Only a minor amount of finished grading
will be necessary to develop the property. No significant change to the topography of the' site wil
occur.
3. Public street and drainage improvements exist on the property's frontage. In addition an existint
concrete channel is located on the property to channel drainage from two 48 inch pipes located unde,
Paseo Del Norte. No significant erosion problems have occurred on the property.
4. , As indicated under item 3 above drainage facilities exist which will carry drainage waters to cit)
approved outlets.
5. The project will not have a significant effect on ambient air quality as it will generate only 115 averagf
daily vehicle trips.
6. The proposed modular structure covers less than 3 percent of the property. In addition 60 percent of
the site. will be landscaped with the remainder of the site utilized for parking. As a result the project
is not expected to result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature.
7. The project will not chge the course or flow of water as no streams are located in the area and
drainage waters will be handled by existing facilities.
3. Surface waters will not be impacted by the project and water will be supplied to the site by the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
-6-
0 0
9. No natural resources exist on this previously graded site which is bordered by existing development
graded vacant property or public improvements.
10. As a result of the relatively small size of the property and scale of the proposal development of this site
is not expected to use substantial amounts of fuel or energy.
11. This previously ' graded site does not have a significant potential for containing archeological 01
paleontological objects.
Biological Environment
12. Vegetation on site consists primarily of weeds and grasses as the property has been previously graded
13. Existing species of vegetation on the property are not environmentally significant, therefore, tht
introduction of new species of plants will not cause an adverse impact.
14. Development of the site will not reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or .affec.
farmland of state or local importance.
15. Because the project site has been previously graded , it does not presently provide significant habita
for wildlife.
16. The proposed commercial use will not result in the introduction of domestic animals into the area.
Human Environment
17. The proposed land use is permitted upon approval of a Site Development Plan under the C-T-(
(Commercial-Tourist, Qualified Development Overlay Zone) zone for the site and the TS. (Trave
Services Commercial) General Plan land use designation.
18. All necessary public utilities and services will be provided in conformance with the Local Facilitie
Management Plan for Zone 3.
19. Sewer systems exist to accommodate development of the site.
20. The site fronts on Paseo Del Norte a secondary arterial and is in close proximity to Interstate 5.
Surrounding land uses are commeraal or agricultural. Development of the site with the propose!
commercial use will generate additional vehicle traffic which will not significantly increase ambien
noise levels.
21. Lighting necessary for the use is required to be directed so as to not impact adjacent properties.
22. The commercial tourist zone limits the types of commercial uses that can be permitted on the properg
As a result of the types of land uses that can be permitted such as the proposed wine sales/tasting an
gift shop on the property there is no significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardou
substances from the site once it is developed.
-7-
e 0
23. The density of the human population of the area will not be substantially altered as development of th
site will implement the existing general plan land use designation for the site.
24. Commercial development of the site will not affect existing housing and will not generate a significar
demand for additional housing.
25. The Locai Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3 was based on the buildout of the existing general pla
designations. The proposed actions will implement the existing general plan designation. The propose
wine sales/tasting and gift shop will only generate 115 average daily vehicle trips.
26. The City‘s Zoning Ordinance requires 10 onsite parking spaces for the use. A total of 57 parking spact
are proposed resulting in the provision of 47 spaces over the city requirement.
27, Street improvements presently exist dong the properties. frontage on Paseo Del Norte.
28. The site is within the outer limits of the airport influence area for McClellan Palomar Airport and
located outside of the 60 CNEL noise contour. No impact to airport operations is anticipated.
29. Access to the site is proposed to be limited to one point off of an entrance utilized by Pea Sou
Andersen’s as the property fronts on a secondary arterial. This will help to limit potential conflicts wit
bicyclists or pedestrians.
30. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans. The existing public roadway will not t
significantly impacted or altered by the project.
31. Development of this site will not obstruct a scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public viev
The site is located between Paseo Del Norte and Interstate 5 in addition to being lower in elevatio
than property to the east. A significant percentage of the site is proposed to be landscaped to furthc
enhance the site’s appearance.
32. Commercial development of the site will not create a large demand for recreational facilities.
-8-
0 0
ANALYSIS OF VlABLE 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 project, and
g) no project alternative.
a) The proposed actions for this relatively small site cannot be phased.
b) Alternate site designs are not environmentally superior.
c) The proposed scale of development is very low for the site as evidenced by the building coverage of les,
than 3 percent of the site.
d) The requirement for development to be consistent with the general plan which designates this propeq
and the adjacent properties to the north and south as Travel Services Commercial (TS) results in there
being no alternate. uses for the site than those permitted by the TS designation and commercial-touris1
zone. The proposed use is consistent with the site’s land use designations, however it is proposed tc
be a temporary use of the property.
e) Development at some future time rather than now has no environmental advantages and the proposa
is consistent with existing land use plans.
f) There are alternate sites for the project; however, they have no environmental advantages and the
proposal is consistent with existing land use plans.
g) The no project alternative would not be environmentally superior as the project site contains no
significant environmental resources and is located adjacent to a secondary arterial.
-9-
0 0
)ETE€ZMINATION (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 the proposed project COULD NOT.have a significant effect on the environment, because the environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required.
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been 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 significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
/--~ ~L" ;Gy 41977 &+I. 7'LU
hate /' Signature
.t / t elq 3 4tux-
Date Planning Director
,IST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
.'TTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-10-
r. 0
WPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WlTH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
)N:vd
-11-