HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-05-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 28564, 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2856
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLS CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOP PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE EXPANSION AND TEMPORARY PARKING 1 APPLICANT: FARMERS INSURANCE CASE NO.: SDP 85-2(A)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of May,
17th day of May, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consic
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the i
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, tt
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaral
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1 anni ng Com
f 01 1 ows :
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, tf Commi ssi on hereby APPROVES the Negat i ve Decl arat i on accordi ng "ND", dated April 5, 1989 and "PII", dated January 10, 1989 hereto and made a part hereof, based on the fol1 owing findin!
Findinqs:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidenc:
project may have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier en\ analysis.
3. The streets are adequate in size to hand1 e traffic genera proposed project.
significantly impacted by this project. 4. There are no sensitive resources 1 ocated onsi te or 1 ocated 5
.. .
...
...
...
II
.,
I
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 thc
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th d
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES : Chai man Hal 1, Commissioners: Schl ehuber, Schramm
NOES: None.
ABSENT : Commissioner McFadden.
ABSTAIN: None.
Erwin, Marcus and Holmes.
ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLA~NING COMMISSION
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 2856 -2-
., 0 Exhibit "NE
CORRECTED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FARADAY AVENUE AND EL CAMIN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 45,822 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE B' AND A TEMPORARY PARKING LOT FOR 173 CARS.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above de project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Cal
Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of t of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (decl that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file P1 anni ng Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. CI from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the P' Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
A'
DATED: Apri 1 5, 1989 j.'
CASE NO: SDP 85-2(A)
%* MICHAEL J. mLZMKLER Planning Director
APPLICANT: FARMERS INSURANCE
PUBLISH DATE: April 5, 1989
AML : af
2075 LaS Palmas Drive O carisbad P=I~+---. -e-
0 0 Exhibit I'PII"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. SDP 85-2(A)
DATE : JANUARY 10, 1989
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: DEEM, LEWIS, MCKINLEY (Farmers Group)
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 320 LAUREL STREET
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
3 DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: JULY 1, 1988
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 patterns, or the rate and .
amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the courie 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
oxyyen 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
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?
-2-
YES MAY BE - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
_. 0 e
YES
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. Lisht 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-
MAYBE
0
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- tion, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif-
'icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for add4,tional 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?
-4-
YES MAY BE - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e e
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. Enerqy - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel .
or energy?
4' 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)?
MAYBE
-5-
#
W m
YES MAYBE - 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? X
19. Recreation - Will the proposal have
significant results in the impact upon
the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? X
20. Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontoloqical - Will the proposal have significant
results in the alteration of a significant
archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? X
21. Analyze 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) alter-
nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
I'
See Page IO.
Rev. 12/
-6-
a 0
YES MAY BE
22. Mandatory findinss of siqnificance -
a. 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.
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 tlie possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (llCumulatively con- siderableil 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.) -
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? -
-7-
a 0
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. Earth - The proposed project is an expansion of an existing
facility on a previously graded site. For this reason, there will be no changes in earth conditions, and only minor changes in
topography. Approximately 3,900 cubic yards of earth work are
proposed for grading. This is a balanced or equal amount of cut
and fill and will be used for the foundations Of the Structure as
well as leveling out the proposed parking area. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the site and there will
be no increase in erosion either on or off the site.
2. Air - The proposed project will contribute to the incremental
increase in local and regional emissions; however, the office
development proposed for this site was planned for in the City’s General Plan, and included in the Zone 5 Local Facilities
Management Plan (LFMP). The potential emissions generated by
this development have been anticipated and would not adversely effect the attainment of regional air quality standards. Construction emissions are considered short-term and
insignificant.
3. Water - Development of the project would create impervious surfaces on site which would reduce absorption rates and increase surface runoff and runoff velocities. To accommodate this runoff,
the project will incorporate drainage facilities and erosion
control measures. As discussed in the Zone 5 LFMP, the runoff from this site will drain into the desiltation basin/retention pond within the Carlsbad Research Center. From there it will go through unimproved open channels in Macario Canyon Park to Aqua Hedionda.
4. Plant Life - Due to the fact that this is a previously graded site
there are no natural plant species located on the property,
therefore, the diversity of species is not affected nor are there
any unique, rare or endangered species of plants. The location
of the proposed building is presently utilized as a parking lot
and is surrounded by landscaped area with ornamental plant species.
5. Animal Life - The site has been previously graded and no impacts
to animal life are anticipated. There are no rare or endangered species of animals on the site nor will the proposed project
create a barrier to the migration or movement of animals.
6. ” Noise - The traffic generated by the proposed project would incrementally contribute to community noise levels within the
project vicinity. However, since this proposed office project is
located within a non-noise sensitive industrial area of Carlsbad, no noise impacts are anticipated.
-8-
9, I 0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
7. Liqht and Glare - Because the project is located in an area w
is either developed or approved for development of indust uses the project would incrementally and insignifica contribute to light and glare in the project vicinity.
8. Land Use - Development of the subject property with office is in conformance with the City of Carlsbad's Planned Indust General Plan designation for the site. Land use compatibilit ensured in that surrounding properties are already approved
similar uses.
9. Natural Resources - Implementation of the proposed project
incrementally contribute to the depletion of fossil fuel
other natural resources required for project construct However, this is not regarded as a significant impact in vie the limited scale of the project.
10. Risk Of Upset - AS an office use, the proposed project does
present a significant increase in the use of chemic pesticides or other hazardous materials.
11. Pormlation - The proposed office project will increment increase the work force population within Carlsbad's indust
zone during the work week. As discussed in the Zone 5 LFMP, s
all required services an,d facilities will be provided concur
with need, no populatioh related impacts are anticipated.
12. Housinq - This project may create an incremental demand
additional housing. The City's Growth Management Program ens that as additional housing is developed, all required pu
facilities and services are provided concurrent with need.
accordance, no impacts are anticipated.
13. Transportation - The 916 ADTs generated by the proposed use
included in the traffic circulation for the LFMP Zone 5.
analysis concluded that existing roadways were adequate to s the development. Right-of-way dedication for future roa improvements along Faraday and El Camino Real have been incl
as conditions for this project. These improvements will en
compliance with the adopted performance standards as identi in the LFMP Zone 5.
14. Public Services - The public facility fees required to be pai this project will be used to adequately mitigate any impacts public services within the project vicinity.
15. Enerqy - Implementation of the proposed project will increment contribute to the depletion of fossil fuels. However, this im is insignificant in view of the limited scale of the projecl
-9-
e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
16. Utilities - The public facility fees required to be paid by this
project will be used to adequately mitigate any impacts upon
public services within the project vicinity.
17. Human Health - The proposed office project is an extension of an existing office project which has been in existence for several years now and has operated without creating any health hazards as a result of development of the subject site. Future health
. hazards, therefore, are not anticipated.
18. Aesthetics - The proposed office building will maintain the same
building height and same architectural style as the existing
structure. The existing structure as well as the proposed structure are in compliance with the El Camino Corridor Standards and the Carlsbad Research Specific Plan (SP-180) . No scenic views
will be obstructed nor will the building be aesthetically
offensive to the public view.
19. Recreation - This section is not applicable since the site is
designated for industrial development rather than residential development.
20. Archeolosical/Historical/Paleontoloqical - As an extension of an
existing building the site has been previously graded and no
archeological impacts are anticipated as the building will be placed on an existing parking area.
4'
21.
a) N/A. The proposed expansion is the second phase of development on the project site.
b) N/A. The proposed site design best utilizes the existing site
design by incorporating an extension of the building footprint and maintaining the same architectural style and building height. The site is minimally impacted through the present site design.
c) An alternative scale of development of the subject site would not
significantly alter the impacts created by the proposed project.
Circulation systems adjacent to the property and in the near
vicinity are adequate to handle the traffic generated by the
proposed project. The building scale and mass are consistent with development in the surrounding area and are consistent also with the intent of the specific plan regulating this area.
d) Alternative uses are not appropriate for this particular site
because of the use of the existing building as an office space.
The expansion of the present office building is the most appropriate use for an area in this proximity to the existing building.
e) N/A. The proposed expansion is 'really a second phase of an
existing use and development at some future time would not significantly alter any impacts created by the proposed development.
-10-
,. % . . 0 *
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
f) N/A. An alternate site is not appropriate due to the fact t the proposed use is an extension of an existing building.
g) N/A. The proposed use was anticipated through the approval of
original Site Development Plan 85-2, therefore, the impacts the proposed expansion have already been addressed and considc to be nonsignificant in relation to the surrounding propertit
IV. 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
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signific
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effe this case because the mitigation measures described on an attac 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 tk environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I /IO /&I9
L'
k.-L&& -
Date Signature '
I /l0/89 . &a
Date PlanniM DiMctor
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-11-
0 0
MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued)
I'
VI. 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
-12-