The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-12-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 3729!I 0 * 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3729 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 121,000 SQUARE FOOT DISTRIBUTION CENTER ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE EL CAMINO REAL SCENIC CORRIDOR AT 5936 PRIESTLY DRIVE IN THE CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER. CASE NAME: CALLAWAY GOLF DISTRIBUTION CASE NO: SUP 94-02 CENTER 9 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of December, 1994, ho‘ 10 11 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and 12 13 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony ar arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, ar ll considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all facto 14 15 16 18 as follows: 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissic relating to the Negative Declaration. A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 19 20 21 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planni~ Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhil “ND”, dated October 31, 1994, and “PII”, dated October 19, 1994, attached here and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 22 // Findings: 23 1. This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negati 24 25 Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on October 31, 1994 and approv by the Planning Commission on December 7, 1994. In approving this Negati 26 Declaration the Planning Commission considered the initial study, the staff analysis, required mitigation measures and any written comments received regarding the significz 27 effects this project could have on the environment. 28 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 proposed project. /I 0 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 I 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significant1 impacted by this project. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannin Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of December, 1994, by tl. following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Savary; Commissioners Welshons, Noble, Compa Erwin, Nielsen, and Monroy. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSIOb PLANNING DIRECTOR 1 1 PC RES0 NO. 3729 -2- . e City of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 5936 Priestly Drive, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 12 1,000 square foot office/warehouse building located within the Carlsbad Research Center and El Camino Real Scenic Corridor. 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 21 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1 161, extension 4477. DATED: ’ OCTOBER 3 1,1994 CASE NO: SUP 94-02 Planning Director CASE NAME: CALIAWAY GOLF’ - DISTRIBUTION CENTER PUBLISH DATE OCTOBER 3 1, 1994 AH.vd 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO. SUP 94-02 DATE: OCTOBER 19.1 1. CASE NAME: SUP 94-02 - Callawav Golf Distribution Center 2. APPLICANT Smith Consulting Architects 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT 5355 Mira Sorrento Place, Suite 750. 1 San DiePo. CA 92121 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 12.1994 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 12 1.000 sauare foot offkelwarehouse building located within the Carlsl Research Center industrial park and El Camino Real Scenic Comdor at 5936 Priestly Drive. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environme~ Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environme Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physi biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with informal to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Enviromnental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or an: its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indic this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the proj may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration howey if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant. These findings shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig" 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 discussing mitigat for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. a 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig) 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 (insig) - - - - - NO X X X X - X X X X X X X -2- 0 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES (sig) 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? HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? -3- YES NO (insid X - X - X - X - X - YES NO (M€9 X - X e 0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (e9 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? 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 (sig> (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. 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 - adverse effects on human beings, effects which will cause substantial either directly or indirectly? X - X - - X - - X -5- 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1-4. The project requires the importation of soil to replace highly expansive soils under the building and parh areas to avoid unstable earth conditions. There are no hazardous geologic conditions in the vicinity of project. No appreciable change in the topography or alteration of unique physical features or the mod5cai of any water bodies will result from the proposed grading. 5-6. Although the proposed industrial project will incrementally impact ambient air quality due to increa automobile and truck emissions, the distribution warehouse operation will not create a substantial advc impact to air quality which is a regional problem. The proposed structure will not substantially affect movement or temperature since proposed coverage of the 8.2 acre site is 34% with ample separation fi development on adjacent lots. 7. 8. 9- 10. 11. 12- 16. 17- 19. The project, through incorporation of the geotechnical report recommendations, will redirect the site's drain flow into the City's storm drain system. No significant groundwater or surface water is present on the site according to the geotechnical investigz performed by Woodward Clyde Consultants. No natural resources exist on the previously graded industrial lot; however, an incremental increase in fc fuel consumption will result from the construction and operation of the development. This increase is considered significant. The project is proposed on an existing previously graded industrial lot; therefore, any sign& archaeological, paleontological or historical resources which may have previously existed at this location h been mitigated. The project requires grading of an 8 acre site to create a building pad on a previously graded industrial currently covered with grasses and weeds except for slope landscaping around the lot's perimeter. The pro will therefore not impact sensitive biological resources. The distribution center is consistent with the existing land use designations for the area. The Zone 5 LC Facilities Management Plan approved for the area has ensured that public facilities and services are adeql to supply the additional demand generated by the project which is located within an existing industrial pi The proposed distribution center does not necessitate new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazard waste control systems. 20- 21. Noise generated by this project will not exceed existing ambient noise levels in the primarily industrial a: Although the 121,000 square foot industrial building which is designed with glass elements will produce I light and glare, it is located within an industrial park where large structures with glass elements are typi Potential impacts of light and glare resulting fiom this project are reduced to insignificant levels through design which provides only thirty-four percent building coverage on the eight acre site resulting in a cam like setting, ample setbacks from roadways, and through the use of nonreflective glass and low inten parking lot lighting along El Camino Real. -6- 0 0 22. The proposed development consists of a warehouse and distribution facility which does not require s SignZicant use of hazardous substances in its operation. 23- 25. The industrial use will have no impact on the density of the human population in the area since the majol of the employees who will work at the proposed distribution center are already employed by the applicanl another facility located one block away. As a result, the industrial facility will not affect existing housing create a demand for additional housing or generate substantial additional traffic. 26. The project will not negatively affect existing parking facilities or create a large demand for new parking si the Carlsbad Research Center requires that adequate parking to supply the demand generated by the proj be provided onsite. The project will supply 180 additional spaces above its project demand to satisfy poten future parking demand. 27. Although the project will potentially increase the number of trips currently utilizing the street system, project is located within a planned industrial park in which the circulation system is adequate to handle additional trips generated by the shipping and receiving needs of warehouse users as well employees. 28. The proposed project will not impact waterborne or rail traffic. Although the project is located in proxin to the Palomar Airport, SANDAG has determined that the use and structure are consistent with requirements of the airport land use plan (CLUP) and has required the recordation of an avigation easem to ensure that the property owner and representatives are informed that the property is impacted by airc~ overflight from the airport. 29. The warehouse facility is designed to properly function by ensuring efficient and safe onsite circulation pedestrians, cars, and trucks in compliance with Carlsbad standards. Dual driveway access to the site fr the public street system and ample parking will avoid overflow impacts to the public street system serving project. The project will therefore not increase traffic hazards onsite or offsite. 30. The project will have no impact on any emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. 31. The project is located within the El Camino Real (ECR) Scenic Corridor requiring compliance with guideli adopted to avoid 'obstructions to scenic vistas and/or the creation of aesthetically offensive structures along 1 roadway. The project as designed is in compliance with the ECR Corridor Guidelines and therefore will result in a negative visual impact. 32. The project is located within an existing planned industrial park on a previously graded industrial lot with potential for impacts to existing recreational opportunities. 33. The project site is an infill, previously disturbed lot in an existing planned industrial park in which sensitive biological and/or historical resources are no longer present. 34. The project is not disadvantageous to long tern environmental goals due to its compliance with the Gent Plan, the Growth Management Ordinance requiring that public facilities are adequate to meet the additic demand, the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan, and the ECR Scenic Corridor Guidelines. -7- e 0 35. The project does not result in significant cumulative impacts since it is part of a planned industrial par1 * which land use, open space, public facilities, and potential aesthetic impacts have been considered and avoic 36. The project has been designed to avoid potential environmental effects will could negatively impact the hur population as explained in items 17-32 above. -8- @ 0 ANALYSIS 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 project is a single structure and cannot be phased. b) Alternate site designs will not provide any additional environmental benefits. c) The scale of development is consistent with that permitted by the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan w: d) The site is designated for industrial uses and alternate uses would not be consistent with the General Plan. e) The proposed site is a pre-graded infill industrial lot within an existing industrial park and development in future rather than now or on an alternate site or leaving the site vacant would achieve no environmental ben regulates development in the industrial park -9- 0 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 NEiGATl DECLARATION will be prepared. - I fmd 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 with previol certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a No of Determination has been prepared. - I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will no a sisnificant 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 fmd the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. A /[? -4s- 7 4/ & Date Signature /&-$/q 4- bate i AHxd -10-