HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-08-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 27621
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 @
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2762
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, NORTH AND WEST OF THE PACIFIC RIM MASTER PLAN AREA AND EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE.
CASE NO.: LOCAL FACILITIES MASTER PLAN - ZONE 20
APPLICANT: DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS CONSORTIUM
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of
August, 1988, 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, and considering
any written comments received, the Planning Commission
considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing,
the Planning Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the
Negative Declaration according to Exhibit I'NDII and tIPIIll, dated May 27, 1987, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings and conditions:
Findinqs:
1. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20 will not cause any significant environmental impacts. The plan is a public facilities planning document that implements the existing General Plan. The plan makes generalized projections as to the demand for and supply of public
facilities, and outlines the provision of adequate public facilities concurrent with estimated demands. The plan recognizes that CEQA review will be required prior to mitigation of any public or private project that is generally discussed in the plan. A Negative Declaration has been issued on May 27, 1988 and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on August 3, 1988.
II 0 0 1
1
2 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
3 Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on I
4
5
the 3rd day of August, 1988, by the following vote, to wit:
6
AYES : Commissioners: Marcus, Hall, Holmes, Erwin, Schramm E
7
NOES : None.
8
ABSENT : None.
ABSTAIN: Chairperson McFadden.
Schlehuber.
9
10 I
11 ~
12
13
14
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST :
15 MmzM+ \EQ
16
17
18
PLANNING DIRECTOR
19 I I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 PC RES0 NO. 2762 -2-
0 A
2075 US PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859
0
aitn of Uhsrlsbaa
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
EXHIBIT "ND"
TELEPHONE
(619) 438-1161
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: College Avenue and Poinsettia Avenue intersection and surrounding 760 acres.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20 which guarantees the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with development to adopted performance standards.
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 ten (10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: May 27 , 1988 4btJYwGgl-\e&.lbL aq MICHAEL 'J. HO!L~MILLER
CASE NO: LFMP 20 Planning Director
APPLICANT: Development Consultants Consortium
PUBLISH DATE: May 27, 1988
BH: af
0 0 EXHIBIT "PI I"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PhT 11
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. LFMP 20
DATE : 5/19/88
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: Develomnent Consultants Consortium
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P.0, Box 2143
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(619) 434-3135
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: November 24, 1987
[. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
- YES MAY BE - NO
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?
X
X
X
d. The destruction, covering of
modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X
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? X
a
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 dr 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
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
a a
- 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-
MAY BE - NO
X
X
X
X
.. x
X
X
X
X
X
.<
9.
a.
b.
10.
11.
12.
13.
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
0
Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in:
Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
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?
Powlation - Will th8 proposal signif-
icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?
Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
Trans~ortation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in:
Generation of additional vehicular movement?
Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking?
Impact upon existing transportation systems? ,
Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
-4-
*
- YES MAY BE
X
- NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.I 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-
MAY BE - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e 0
- 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? X
19. Recreation - Will the proposal have
significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? X
20. Archeolosical/Historical - Will the
proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? X
21. Analyze viable alternatives to the moposed Droiect 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.
a) The project is a public facility information and planning study. Phased planning will not efficiently or adequately address the need for public facilities.
b) The project is a public facility information and planning study.
c) The project is a public facility information and planning study.
d) Uses for the area covered by the plan are based on the
existing General Plan
e) The plan considers phased development.
f) The project is a public facility information and planning study.
g) As the project is a public facility information and planning
study the no project alternative would not assure adequate public facilities to meet demand. The no project alternative
would therefore cause the most detriment.
-6-
-I 0
- YES MAY BE NO -
22. Mandatorv findinqs of siqnificance -
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? X
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
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.)
. project may impact on two or more
X
.X
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
I. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20 is a facilities planning document. The intent of the plan is to establish parameters and thresholds that assure public facilities are available when needed as determined by the
City's adopted performance standards. To accomplish this purpose occasionally locations and costs of public facility improvements are estimated for informational purposes. These estimates may result in increased development fees.
Traditionally the developer in maximizing their capital return
passes such fees on to the home buyer or tenant. This results in higher priced housing which affects the availability of low
and moderate income housing. However, as real estate value is determined primarily by location, without other market
incentives, it is unreasonable to assume the subject property
would be developed with either low or moderate income housing due to its view proximity to the Pacific Ocean.
-7-
0 0
SCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
It is not the development fee that will force low and moderate income families into other communities, but the existing nature of the market place.
It is recognized that CEQA review for these public facilities estimates is general, and does not satisfy CEQA requirements
for the specific project. The Zone 20 Local Facilities Management, Plan requires complete CEQA review prior to initialization of any public or private project discussed in the Local Facilities Management Plan.
-8-
0 " a- '.- 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Mav 19, 1988 Date Signature '
Date Planniny Dire\Etor
MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-9-