Loading...
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-