The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-07-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 352273 *, /I 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ~ i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3522 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MARINE FISH HATCHERY/RESEARCH FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF GARFIELD STREET, NORTH OF THE AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON, WEST OF THE AT&SF RAILROAD TRACKS, IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 1. CASE NAME: HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE CASE NO: CUP 92-10/HDP 93-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of June, 1993, and on the 7th day of July, 1993, 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, 16 17 as follows: 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission 18 factors relating to the Conditional Negative Declaration. and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all 20 21 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning according to Exhibit "MND", dated May 6, 1993, and "PII", dated April 21, 1993, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following 22 Commission hereby APPROVES the Conditional Negative Declaration 23 24 25 26 27 28 findings: Filldhm: 1. The initial study shows that the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, however, there will be no significant impact in this case because the mitigation measures described in the initial study have been added to the project. ‘1, , ‘1 ., I1 0 .i 2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project. 3. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantlJ impacted by this project provided that the mitigation conditions of approval are 1 2 3 complied with. 4 6 1. Approval of this project, is subject to all conditions contained in Planning 5 Conditions: 9 8 2. The applicant shall receive approval of the following permits prior to issuance of a 7 Commission Resolution No.’s 3523 and 3524. grading or building permit, whichever occurs first: a) Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission; 10 b) 404 Permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers; 11 12 13 14 15 c) Permit to Discharge Wastewater issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, prior to issuance of a building permit; and d) Any other permits that may be required by responsible agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Game. All responsible agency permits must substantially conform to this approval. Ii substantially different, an amendment to CUP 92-10/HDP 93-05 will be required. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. The proposed sea water intake pipes leading from the project to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon shall be relocated to entirely avoid any areas of eel grass habitat, unless it is determined, through the 404 Permit or a subsequent responsible agency permit, that the encroachment into the eel grass habitat is not considered a significant impact, or is determined a significant impact that can be mitigated with eel grass habitat enhancement or replacement. 4. The applicant shall comply with the City‘s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. 5. The applicant shall submit a roof color and materials board for Planning Director approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The roof finish shall consist of a non-glare type finish that will minimize reflective light impacts to adjacent residential land uses. ... /1 PC RES0 NO. 3522 -2- I1 ‘7 ,I ll 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 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of July, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble; Commissioners: Betz, Welshons, Savary, Erwin & Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Schlehuber. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: . w i?7 >q&- f BAILEY NOgE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 3522 -3- I. ,a 1. 0 @ CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Garfield Street and the outer basin of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon APN: 206-070-1 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the; (1) construction of a 20,300 sq. ft. experimental marine fish hatchery/research facility; (2) construction of accessory outdoor race-ways; (3) installation of underground seawater intake and outlet pipes connected from the Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the facility; (4) construction of sewer and water pipes leading from the facility to Garfield Street; (5) 1640 cubic yards of grading to enhance the existing access road at the terminus of Garfield Street; (6) 3300 cubic yards of remedial grading for a building pad and the driveways, and; (7) dedication of a 25 foot wide lateral public trail easement along the north shore of the outer basin of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. 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 Rotection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Conditional 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 Conditional 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 Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4455. a DATED: MAY 6,1993 CASE NO: CUP 92-10/HDP 93-05 Planning Director ME NAME: HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE g.LISH DATE: MAY 6,1993 MICHAEL J. HOCZMILJSR 2075 “as Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 (61 9) 438-1 161 i t. .. 0 0 ENWRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II ' (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CUP 92-10/HDP 9: DATE: APRIL 21. 1993 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Hubbs - Seaworld Research Institute 2. APPLICANT: Hubbs - Seaworld Research Institute 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1700 South Shore Road San Dieno. CA 92109 (619)931-1677 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: AD^ 20. 1993 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the: (1) construction of a 20.300 sq emenmental marine fish hatchew/research facilitv: (2) construction of accessow outdoor r; ways: (3) installation of undermound seawater intake and outlet Dipes connected from the A Hedionda Lagoon to the facility: (4) construction of sewer and water Dipes leadinn from facility to Garfield Street: (5) 1640 cubic vards of pading to enhance the existinn access r at the terminus of Garfield Street- (6) 3300 cubic yards of remedial mding for a building and the driveways. and: (71 dedication of a 25 foot wide lateral public trail easement along north shore of the outer basin of Arma Hedionda Lagoon. - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct Environmental Impact Assessment to detexmine if a project may have a significant effect on the environm( The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This ched 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environme~ 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 sirmificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negai Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deer insinnificant. 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 un DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discuss mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. ':, e a. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT NILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES. YES NO (sig) (insig) 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? - - - - X - X - - - - x 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? - X - - 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? - - - X' - - - X - - X X - - 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of.any natural resources? v - - A 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? - - X - 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? , X - - - -2- e e I .. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECIZY 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 limd use of an area? YES (si@ - 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fie, emergency or other public services? - -3- YES NO (insig) X - - - X - X - - X X - YES NO (insig) X - X - - a 0 * ,, HUMANENVIRONMENT NLL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES (sigl 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? - 20. tncrease 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 plansor emergency evacuation plans? 2 - I 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) - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - NO 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 big) (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, 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 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 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - X -5- ,!* 0 e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project would be located on a 10.4 acre parcel dong the north shore of the.outer basin of Ama He&n Lagoon. The fish hatchery building, exterior race-ways, driveways and parking areas would all be located the level portion of the site which currently contains disturbed vegetation. The fish hatchery building WOI be located approximately 125 feet from the lagoon (100 year flood line). The facility would be accessed an existing driveway leading from the tenninus of Garfield Street. The project site is located adjacent to t Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the west and south, existing single and multi-family residential development to I north, and the AT&SF railroad tracks to the east. The adjacent residential development to the north approximately 20 to 30 feet higher in elevation than the project site. PHYSiCAL ENVIRONMENT The Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated December 1992, indicates that no s or geologic conditions are present on the site that would preclude the development of the property. T geologic reconnaissance and exploratory borings indicate no evidence of faulting and the seismic risk in r considered significant. A majority of the site improvements would be constructed on the level areas of the site which cont: hydraulic fill soils and lagoon deposits, therefore, the project would not appreciably change the topograp; of the site or create additional soil erosion. Grading to enhance and widen the existing access road at t terminus of Garfield Street would require minimal cut and fill slopes. AU manufactured slopes would ' landscaped. and adequate drainage facilities would be provided to reduce slope erosion to a level insigmficance. The project would include an underground intake pipe constructed from the facility, through the riprap do1 the lagoon shore, and into the lagoon. The riprap would be temporarily displaced to install the new pipe a] then replaced over the pipe. The underwater intake structure would be sunk into the lagoon substratt approximately six inches, therefore, it would not substantially modify the bed of the lagoon. Prior to issuan of a building pennit the 'applicant would be required to obtain a 404 Permit from the Amy Corps Engineers. Surface drainage from the developed portions of the site, including the roof, driveways, and parking area would be diverted'into a grass lined drainage swale and catch basin prior to entering the lagoon. This wou 4iminate the urban pollutant and silt content of the =off and reduce water quality impacts to below a lev If significance. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant would be required to obtain a Nation ?ollutant Discharge Elimination System pexmit The project would include an outfall into the lagoon and would periodically discharge and exchange seawat From the fish cultivating tanks. The outflow would contain small amounts of ammonia and excess fish foo however, it would not contain any chlorine or coliform bactkia. Prior to issuance of a building permit tl spplicant must obtain an Environmental Protection Agency Permit to Discharge Process Wastewate Compliance with this permit would ensure that any water quality impacts to the lagoon are reduced to belo I level of significance. ;he property was surveyed for archaeological resources by Gallegos & Associates and the report dated Apl 1993, indicates that one archaeological site (AH-1) was located on the bluff adjacent to the terminus ( -6- *. -1.. e 0 Garfield Street. The site was tested and evaluated and determined to be not significant under CEQA and 1 City's guidelines. No additional work was recommended for the site by the archaeolo@cal consultant. Proj, improvements would be constructed on the surface of lagoon dredge deposits and along an existing grai access road, therefore, the presence or discovery of paleontological resources onsite is not anticipated. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT The property was surveyed for sensitive biological habitat and sensitive plant and animal species Sweetwater Environmental Biologists Inc. The survey report dated March 1993, indicates that the entire 5 contains disturbed or ruderal vegetation, and no sensitive plant or animal species were observed. As a res of the biological survey and subsequent analysis there are no biological constraints to development and projl improvements would not create a significant biological impact. The site constraints map for the recently approved special use permit (SUP 92-04) to allow dredging of 1 outer lagoon by SDG&E indicates the presence of eel grass habitat in the vicinity of the proposed intake pi] The intake pipe has the potential to impact approximately 24 sq. ft. of eel grass which may create a potent significant impact, therefore, the intake pipe should be aligned further west along the shore a minimum approximately 100 feet to entirely avoid the eel grass habitat. If it is determined through the Federal 4 Permit process or other subsequent required resource agency permits that the encroachment into rIze eel g; is not considered a significant impact, or determined a significant impact that can be mitigated w replacement of habitat, the intake pipe would not have to be relocated to the west. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT The large metal roof of the hatchery building has the potential to create significant glare impacts on t residential land uses to the north. To reduce impacts to a level of insignificance the roof must be painted coated with a non-glare type finish. The fish hatchery building would be surrounded with landscaping on all sides and be located as close to t base of the existing northern slope as is feasible. Locating the main structure along the northern propel line places it further from the lagoon and Carlsbad Blvd. and utilizes the natural topography to minimize t visual impact to public viewsheds. In addition, the parking areas would be screened with an earthen be! and landscaping. These design and landscaping features of the project would reduce potentially signifies impacts to public views along Carlsbad Blvd. and the railroad tracks to a level of insignificance. The project would provide a 25 foot wide lateral public trail easement along the northern shore of the OUI basin of the lagoon, therefore, there would be no significant impacts to recreational opportunities. This tr easement would extend east to the railroad right-of-way and would potentially connect to any future C proposed rail trail. -7- ' .. 0 0 .. WALYSIS 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 project, and g) no project alternative. a) The fish hatchery is a one phase project, therefore phasing is not a feasible alternativt b) Several alternate site designs have been evaluated prior to selection of the proposed si plan. Placement of the building adjacent to the northern slope reduces visual impacts a allows a 25 foot lateral access easement for the purposes of a future public trail. A wid and straighter access alternative leading directly from the terminus of Garfield Street w also evaluated and would result in additional 25 to 30 foot high manufactured fill slop that would create visual impacts from Carlsbad Blvd. Utilization of the existing dirt accc driveway leading from Garfield Street minimizes grading impacts to the site. c) Visual impacts to public viewsheds are reduced to below a level of significance wi landscape screening and building placement, therefore, a smaller scale project designed f the purposes of minimizing impacts to public views would not be warranted or consistent with the goals of the project. d) The site is designated for Aqua Culture land use in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Pk The Agua Hedionda Lagoon presents a unique opportunity to support Aqua Culture la: uses at this location. Alternate uses of the site such as commercial serving tour (restaurants) or residential land uses would not necessary create any less of an imp; than the proposed project. Use of the site for open space would eliminate all types development impact, however, that would not meet the goals and objectives of t proposed project. e) All project impacts can be mitigated to below a level of significance, therefore, postponi the project to a future date would delay the project and not provide the additional bene to the halibut and seabass fishing resource. f) There are no other locations within the City of Carlsbad or in north San Diego County tl have the site characteristics (public road access combined with a good supply of eas accessible seawater) necessaxy to accokodate a marine fish hatchery of this nature. g) Project impacts are not significant given the proposed mitigation, therefore, the I' project" alternative would eliminate the opportunity to enhance and replenish deplet marine resources. The benefits new marine fishery research could have on the oce environment far outweighs any localized environmental impacts to the project si therefore, this alternative is not feasible or desirable. -8- ._ 'v-. 0 0 DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: - 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 t environmental effects of the proposed project have .already been considered in conjunction w previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is requirc Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there v 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 ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature 4P" Planning DirecFor JG:km LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1 1) The applicant shall receive approval of the following pennits prior to issuance of a grading or bd& permit, whichever occurs first: a) Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission; b) 404 Permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers; c) Permit to Discharge Wastewater issued by the En&nmental Protection Agency, prior to issum of a building permit. d) Any other permits that may be required by responsible agencies, including the Califor Department of Fish and Game. -9- I. : @ -.. e a ?) The proposed seawater intake pipes leading from the project to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon shall 1 relocated to entirely avoid any areas of eel grass habitat, unless it is determined, through the 404 Pem or a subsequent responsible agency permit, that the encroachment into the eel grass habitat is nc considered a significant impact, or is determined a significant impact that can be mitigated with eel gra habitat enhancement or replacement. 3) The applicant shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Eliminatic System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surfac pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shs be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs fi~ L) The applicant shall submit a roof color and materials board for Planning Director approval prior 1 issuance of a building permit. The roof finish shall consist of a non-glare type finish that will minimi; reflective light impacts to adjacent residential land .uses. i'ITACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 2 -1 0- I" 'e., .. 0 APPLICANT 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'. &d 37,lW- le5J?L&A Date Signature JG:h J -1 1-