Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 3533r II a e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3533 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF 10 ACRES AND LEASING OF 5 ACRES OWNED BY SDG&E LOCATED ON THE POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT PURPOSES INCLUDING A WASTE PROCESSING AND TRANSFER STATION. CASE NAME: CITY ACQUISITION OF SDG&E CANNON ROAD CASE NO: PCD/GPC 93-02 NORTH SIDE OF CANNON ROAD WEST OF 1-5 FOR A RANGE OF & 1-5 PROPERTY 9 WEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of August, 1992 10 11 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and 12 13 14 15 as follows: 17 NOW, THEFSFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning CommissioI 16 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimon and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by stafl and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a: factors relating to the Negative Declaration. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A> That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannin; Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibi "ND", dated July 15, 1993, and "PII", dated June 30, 1993, attached heretc and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: FindinnS: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the propeq acquisition may have a significant impact on the environment. 25 26 2. The site has been previoudy graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis 27 .... 28 . // a 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 3. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly impacted by future development of this property. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of August, 1993, bs the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners: Schlehuber, Savary, Erwin & Hall. NOES: Commissioners: Welshons & Betz. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Chairperson Noble. ATTEST: -.n i-i 4 in BAILEY NOELE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 3533 -2- 28 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECI' ADDRESS/LOCATION: North side of 'Cannon Road west of 1-5 (Portion of ' Assessor.Parce1 Number 210-010-32) PROJErn DESCRIPTION: A Planning Commission Determination of General Plan Consistency for City Acquisition of 10 acres and leasing of 5 acres owned by SDGM for a range of possible government purposes including a waste processing and transfer station. 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: JULY 15,1993 CASE NO: PCD/GPC 93-02 Planning Director CASE NAME: CITY ACQUISITION OF SDG&E CANNON ROAD & 1-5 PROPERTY PUBLISH DATE: JULY 15,1993 DN:L 2075 tas Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California.92009-1576 (619) 438-1 161 4 * e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) ' CASE NO. PCD/GPC 93- DATE: JUNE 30. 19 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: CITY ACOUISITION OF SDG&E CANNON ROAD AND 1-5 PROPERTY 2. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD UTILITIES MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 LAS PALMAS DEUVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 (619) 438-7753. EXT. 4107 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITI'ED: JUNE 30.1993 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PL CONSISTENCY AS REOUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65402 FOR THE CITY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CANNON ROAD WEST OF INTERSTATE 5 FOR A RAN OF GOVERNMENT PURPOSES WHICH MAY INCLUDE A WASTE PROCESSING AI TRANSFER STATION. CARLSBAD TO ACOUIRE io ACRES AND LWE 5 ACRES OF PROPERTY OWNED BY SDG 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 environme The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This check identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project s provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmer 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 checked to indicate this determination. * An ERmust be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of 1 project may cause a sinnificant effect on the .environment. The project may qualify for a Negat Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that en&nmental effects can be deen insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" and "YES-im 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. 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? YES (sig) - 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? to. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? - - - -2- YES NO (insig) - X - X - X - X - X - - X - X X - X X - - - - X - - 0 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 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 'mount 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 organism and insects? - 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? l"ANm0NMENT WILE THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR.INDIREC"L,Y YES 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? (Si@ - - -3- .. YES (insig) - - - - - YES (insig) - - NO X X X X X NO X. X a 0 I”ANENVlR0NMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? YES (sig) - 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- YES (insig) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO X X X - - - X - X - X X - - X - X X - - X - X - X - X - a 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGJXFICANCE 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 animalcommunity, 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.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - X - - - - X x - x - -5- .. 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This environmental analysis is confined to the determination of whether acquisition of 10 acres and leasing of 5 acres presently owned by SDG&E located on the north side of Cannon Road west of Interstate 5 is consistent with the City's General Plan as required by Government Code Section 65402. The property is proposed to be acquired for a range of possible government purposes including a waste processing and transfer station. When development plans for the property are available and required permit applications are Ned they will undergo further environmental review. Phvsical Environment 1. The property is relatively level containing a gentle slope from north to south allowing it to drain in the direction of Cannon Road. The City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study dated November 1992 prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. indicates that the site has a low probability for geologic hazards and is considered generally stable. Potential governmental uses to which the site may be put are compatible with the geotechnical characteristics of the property as it is rated as containing insignificant or very minor risk in accommodating the full range of possible land uses. Only minimal grading would be needed for development of the site therefore, no unstable earth conditions will be created. 2. The property is relatively flat and has been previously graded. Only a minor amount of finished grading is anticipated to be necessary to develop the property. No significant change to the topography of the site will occur. 3. Public street and drainage improvements exist on the property's frontage. .No significant erosion problems have occurred on the property. 4. As indicated under item 3 above drainage facilities exist which will cany drainage waters to city approved outlets. 5. Acquisition of the property will not result in substantial adverse affects on ambient air quality. Any future development of the property will be subject to further environmental review to determine its affect on air quality. 6. No specific development plans are available for the property at this time. Acquisition of the property alone will not result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature. Adjacent transportation facilitates to the property, the Interstate 5 Freeway, AT&SF Railroad right-of-way, and Cannon Road result in the mairitenance of significant corridors allowing for air movement. 7. Acquisition of the property will not change the come or flow of water as no streams are located in the area, no development is being proposed at this time and drainage waters from the property will continue to be handled by existing facilities. 8. Development of the property is not being proposed at this time. Drainage from the property is directed toward Cannon Road and not the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Water can be supplied to the property by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. -6- 0 8 9. No namal resources exist on this previously graded site which is bordered by existing development, graded vacant property or public improvements. 10. Acquisition of the property will not use significant amounts of fuel or energy. The property is not needed for power plant operations according to SDG&E. Any future development of the property will be subject to environmental review to determine if there is an impact regarding the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. 11. This previously graded site does not have a significant potential for containing archeological or paleontological objects. A review of the City's cultural resource records indicate that no resources have been identified within a close proximity of this property. Bioloaical Environment 12. Vegetation on site consists of perimeter landscaping, a row of eucalyptus trees near the northern area of the property as well as weeds and grasses. The property has been previously graded. 13. Existing species of vegetation on the property are not environmentdy significant. The introduction of new species of plants will not result with the acquisition of the property. 14. Any future development of the site will not reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect farmland of state or local importance. 15. Because the project site has been previously graded, it does not presently provide quality habitat for wildlife. 16. The government uses that may be proposed for the property will not result in the introduction of domestic animals into the area. Human Environment 17. A 'part of the property is designated for public utility use. The remainder of the site is designated for tourist commercial land uses. No development of the property is proposed at this time. The Zoning Ordinance permits public buildings and accessory public and quasi-public buildings and facilities upon the approval of a conditional use pennit. Any development permits required for the property will be subject to further environmental review. . 18. All necessary public utilities and services will be provided in conformance with the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3 or development of the property will not be permitted. 19. Sewer systems exist to accommodate development of the property. 20. The site fronts on Cannon Road a major arterial and is adjacent to Xnterstate 5 and the SDG&E Encina Power Plant. No development permit is being requested at this time. When development plans are prepared for the property they will be subject to further environmental review to determine if development of the site will result in a significant increase of existing noise levels. -7- 0 e 21. When the site is developed necessary lighting will be required to be directed so as to not impact adjacent properties. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Future development of the site with public uses will require the approval of a conditional use permit. Environmental review of uses proposed for the site will evaluate the potential risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances from the site for significance under the California Environmental Quality Act. The density of the human population of the area will not be substantially altered as development of the property with a nonresidential land use is anticipated by the land use designations applicable to the site. The possible public or quasi-public facilities contemplated for the property will not create a significant demand for additional housing. Acquisition of the property only is proposed at this time. Development plans for the property will be subject to further environmental review to evaluate potential traffic impacts and ensure compliance with the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3. Any parking demand. created by development of the site will be required to be satisfied on site pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance. Street 'mprovements presently exist along the properties frontage on Cannon Road. Improvements required to assure safe tr&c conditions in the immediate vicinity of the site will be determined at the time development of the property is proposed. The site is outside the airport influence area for McClellan Palomar Airport and is located outside of the 60 CNEL noise contour. The AT&SF Railway runs along the western property line. Future development plans for the property will be evaluated for potential railway conflicts. The number of access points to the site will be limited as the property fronts on a major arterial. This will help to limit potential conflicts with bicyclists or pedestrians. 30. The City's acquisition of the property will not interfere with emergency response plans. Future development plans for the property will be reviewed for potentially significant impacts to the public roadway. 31. Future development of this site will not obstruct a scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view. The site is located between Interstate 5 and the AT&SF railway in addition to' being in the immediate vicinity of the SDGM Encina Power Plant. Development plans will be evaluated for potential negative aesthetic impacts. 32. Future development of the site with a nonresidential public or quasi public facility will not create a large demand, for recreational facilities. -8- a 0 ANALYSIS OF VLABLE'ALTERNATMS 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) No development of the site is proposed at this time. This action is limited to a determination of general plan consistency for the acquisition of the property. Development plans for the property will be subject to further environmental review. b) Site designs are not being considered as part of the action being requested on this property. c) No plan of development is being proposed as part of the action requested on the site at this time. d) Alternate uses for the site will be evaluated at the time a development plan is formulated for the property. e) The site is not proposed to be developed as part of the action being requested. However, there is no environmental advantage from deferring development of this site. f) While the site may be used for a range of government purposes the specific use has not yet been determined and will be subject to an alternative sites analysis. g) The no project alternative would not be environmentally superior as the property contains no significant environmental resources and is located adjacent to a major arterial, Interstate 5, the AT&SF rail line, and the SDGW Encina Power Plant. -9- e 0 DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: - X I hd the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGAT DECLARATION will be prepared. - I hd 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 w previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is requir Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there 1 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. 7-2- 93 Date Signature I1 a n . 'A mLQ. . .nn, w? 193 / i In- Date ' Planning Director" LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) -ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPrJcABLEl -1 0- 0 9 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature DN:vd:lh -11-