Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 28350 e I. // PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2835 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION /GENERAL PLAN CONSISTANCY TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE A TEMPORARY FIRE STATION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LEVANTE STREET JUST VEST OF LA COSTA AVENUE. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO. : CUP/PCD/GPC 88- 1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of March, 1989 duly noticed pub1 ic hearing as prescribed by law to consider said requc WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tc and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information SI by staff, and considering any written comments received, the I Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaratio NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1 anning Commis fol 1 ows : 14 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 15 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the I 16 Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration a( to Exhibit "ND" dated January 27, 1989, and IlPII", dated January 15 17 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following fin 18 Findinas: 19 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence t 20 21 analysis. 22 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated project may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earl ier envirc proposed project. 23 24 significantly impacted by this project. 4. There are not sensitive resources located onsite or located so a 25 26 27 28 II 0 0 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the P' 2 3 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of 1989, by the following vote, to wit: 4 AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schramm, Schlehuber, Holme: McFadden & Marcus. 5 NOES : None. 6 7 ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN : Erwin . 8 9 10 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION I.1 12 ATTEST: 13 PLANNING DIRECTOR l4 MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLERU 15 16 17 18 19 I 2o I 21 22 23 24 25 26 I1 27 28 II 2075 Lh PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 e e (!I@ of (!Iarlrrltttb , PLANNING DEPARTMENT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION Exhibil (' PROJECT ADDRESS/LOC.ATION: On the south side of Levante Street just west 0' Costa Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A temporary Fire Station composed of .two tempor buildings approximately 1500 square feet and 1300 square feet in size on approximately 15,000 square portion of an approximately 4 acre site. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above descri project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califor Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the C of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declarat that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is her issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in P1 ami ng Department . A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Commer from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planni Department within-ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: January 27, 1989 MICHAEL J. @X!ZMILLM CASE NO: CUP/PCO/GPC 88-1 Planning Director APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLISti DATE: January 27, 1989 LBS: 1 h GPC881.DCC e 0 Exhibit ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 1 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPIWIMENT) CASE NO. CUP/PCD/GPC 88 DATE : January 19. 19 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD - MUNICIPAL PROJECTS 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 LAs PAWS DRI CARLSBAD, CA 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: JANUARY 19, 1989 11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) YES MAY BE - 1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 0 2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c, Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through or excavations? interception of an aquifer by cuts h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? -2- YES MAYBE - NO - - - - - - - - - - - 0 e YES MAY BE "- - 4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants ( including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? 7. Liaht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -3- w W 9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- human population of an area? tion, density, or growth rate of the 12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? YES MAY BE - NO - - - - - - - - 1 1 -4- 0 0 YES 14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Enerqv - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? -5- MAYBE e e YES MAY BE NO - 18- Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? - 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? - 20. Archeolog,ical/Historical/Paleontoloqical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? - 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the DroDosed project such as: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the sitc e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. A) The project as a temporary Fire Station is a phased project. B) The project is an outgrowth of alternative site designs which had n C) The project is,at a reduced scale from alternatives explored in (E D) The project's temporary use of the site will not preclude ultimate environment impacts. above. of the site as Medium - High Residential Land. E) Delay in the project would unnecessarily continue less than adequat fire protection for the area. F) Alternate sites where explored as discussed in B L C above. G) See (E) Above. -6- e a " YES MAYBE - NO 22. Mandatorv findinss of sisnificance - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the in the environment?. environment, or curtail the diversity b. 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.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. The project will temporarily place structures on an exisi graded lot. Paving and landscaping will also be provided. significant grading or earth disturbance will occur. 2. The project will reduce existing travel demands and air emissi from Fire Station X2. 3 . As stated in X1 above the project has minimal impacts. Irrigal for drought tolerant landscaping will be provided. 4. The project is being designed to avoid the removal of exisl street trees on Levante Street. The site is presently vacan -7- w 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION, (CONTINUED) : 5. See #4 above. 6 ti 7. Most Land surrounding the Site is Vacant so the project's isolated and intermittent noise limit impacts will be insignificant. The site is very close to arterial roadways thus reducing noise and light impacts on local streets. 8. The project is a temporary land use and will not preclude ultimate use of the site as medium-high residential. 9. The project is designed to use minimal natural resources until a permanent Fire Station can be developed. 10. There are no occupied land uses within 200 feet of the project. The operations and location of the project present no significant impacts. 11. See #8 above. 12. See #8 above. 13.See #6 L #7 above. 14. This project will provide public services - Fire Protection - to an area of identified need. 15 & '16. gee #Is 2, 3, and 9 above. 17. See #'s 6, 7, and 10 above. 18.Screening landscaping is a part of the project 19. N/A 20. See #1 above. -8- 0 0 IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: X 1 find the Proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effec I the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signif: effect on the environment, there will not be a Significant eff this case because the mitigation measures described on an atta 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 . environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ,” /\ 1-23-Bq ;:.,*z- L.Ichl& Date I Signature ! I Iz-ejgq ’ Dad V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) -9-