The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988-11-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 27921 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 I I I1 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2792 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 FUTURE CANNON ROAD, WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD, AND EAST OF MACARIO CANYON. APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES CASE NO.: LOCAL FACILITIES MASTER PLAN - ZONE 24 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of November, and on the 16th day of November, 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 llND1l dated August 19, 1988, and IrPII1I, dated August 8, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings and conditions: Findinqs: 1. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 24 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 generally discussed in the plan. A Negative Declaration has been issued on August 19, 1988 and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on November 2, 1988. , mitigation of any public or private project that is I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 x0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of November, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Holmes, Erwin and Hall. NOES : Chairperson McFadden. ABSENT : Commissioner Marcus. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST : PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 2792 -2- Lnaadu'L .ir~ 0 0 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 @ita of MnrlE3bab PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION TELEPHONE (61 9) 438-1 161 PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: El Camino Real and College Avenue intersection and surrounding 201 acres. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 24 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. 1 (11 7 "iL (,;I i" .: f - /- DATED: August 19, 1988 .' VLCL I: CASE NO: LFMP 24 Planning Director APPLICANT: Hofman Planning Associates PUBLISH DATE: August 19, 1988 I +I L i, LLc\_( c - MICHAEL J. HDLZMILLER Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 140~ e enth Street, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 9 P 014 -- 916/445-0613 I 1 NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FORM I See NOTE Belou: I I SCH # I I I 1. Project Title LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 24 2. Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD 3. Contact Person: BRIAN HUNTER 3a. Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DR. 3b. City: CARLSBAD 3c. County: SAN DIEGO 3d. Zip: 92009 3e. Phone: (619) 438-1161 PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: SAN DIEGO 4a. City/Community: CARLSBAD 4b.(optional) Assessor’s Parcel No. 4c. Section: Tup. Range 5a. Cross Streets: COLLEGE/EL CAMINO REAL 5b. Nearest Community: 6. Within 2 miles of: a. State Hwy No. 1-5 b. Airports PALOMAR/McCELLAN c. Uaterways PACIFIC OCEAN For Rural, 7. DOCUMENT TYPE CEQA - 01 - NOP 02 __ Early Cons 03 X Neg Dec 04 - Draft EIR 05 - Supplement/ Subsequent EIR (if so, prior SCH # 1 - NEPA 06 - Notice of Intent 07 - Envir. Assessment/ 08 - Draft EIS OTHER FONSI - 09 - Information Only 10 - F i na 1 Document 11 - Other: 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE 01 - General Plan Update 01 - Residential: Units - Acres 02 - New Element 02 - Office: Sq. Ft. 03 - General Plan Amendment Acres Employees 04 - Master Plan 03 - Shopping/Commercial: Sq.Ft. 05 - Annexation Acres Employees 06 - Specific Plan 04 - Industrial: Sq. Ft. 07 - Redevelopment Acres Emp 1 oyees 08 - Rezone 05 - Sewer: MGD 09 - Land Division 06 - Uater: MGD (Subdivision, Parcel Map. Tract Map, etc.) 07 - Transportation: Type 10 - Use Permit 08 - Mineral Extraction: Mineral 11 - Cancel Ag Preserve 09 - Power Generation: Uattage 12 X Other LOCAL FACILITIES Type: MANAGEMENT PLAN 10 X Other: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN 9 TOTAL ACRES: 201.5 11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT 01 - Aesthetic/Visual 08 - Geologic/Seismic 15 X Sewer Capacity 22 2 Uater Supply 02 - Agricultural Land 09 - Jobs/Housing Balance 16 - Soil Erosion 23 - Uetland/Riparian 03 - Air Quality 10 - Minerals 17 - Solid Uaste 24 - Ui Id1 ife 04 - Archaeological/Historical/ 11 - Noise 18 - Toxic/Hazardous 25 - Growth Inducing Paleontological 12 & Public Services 19 X Traffic/Circulation 26 - Incompatible Landu 05 - Coastal 13 & Schools 20 - Vegetation 27 - Cumulative Effects 06 - Fire Hazard 14 - Septic Systems 21 - Uater Quality 28 _. Other 07 X Flooding/Drainage 12 FUNDING (approx.) Federal $ -0- State S -0- Total S -0- 13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZON1NG:Present land use is residential and open space. Zoning is mobile home park and limited control. 14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project is a Local Facilities Management Plan which guarantees the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with development to adopted performance standards. Facilities include City Administration, libraries, fire, parks, open space, schools, water, sewer, drainage and circulation. 15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE: %#@” Date: we&- - NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects If a SCH Number already exists for a project (e.g. from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. 0 -mm 0 - -Agency - Air" Consemation - X FishaMIGame _I_ X coastal ccrrcanission Caltrans District x CaltranS-Planning Caltrans - A€mmautics California Highway patrol Boating and waterways -Forestry State Water Resoruces Control Board - Headqyrters Regional Water Wity control Board, Region Division of Water Rights (SWRCB) Division of Water Quality (SWRCB) Department of Water mxxrces Reclamation Board Solid Waste Management Board Colorado River Board CTRPA (CalWA) TRPA (Woe RFA) Bay col.lservation & &vtt ccanm parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation Native mican Heritage Corm stat€?Lardscamm Azblic utilities cca~lm -" Food and Agriculture Health Senrices Statewide Health P1ard.q (hospitals) Housing and ccanmunity Devtt corrections General Services Office of hxal Assistance Arblic works Board office of IIppropriate Tech. (om) Local Government unit (om) santa Monica Mountains Conservancy other FOR SCH USE ONLY Date Received at sCH catalog NMlber Date Review Starts proponent Date to Agencies consultant Date to SCH CGntaCt phone Clearance Date Address Notes: e . Exhibit "PII~I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. LFMP 24 DATE : Ausust 15, 1988 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: Hofman Plannina Associates 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 6994 El Camino Real Suite 208, Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-1465 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: Ausust 8. 1988 11. . 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? X X c. Change in topography or ground X surface relief features? 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 e 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 interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? -2- 0 YES MAYBE - NO X X X X X X X X X X X 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)? unique, rare or endangered species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any 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 7. Liqht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have increase existing noise levels? nificantly produce new light or glare? significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -3- 0 - YES MAYBE - NO X X X X X X X X X X e 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 UDset - 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 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? -4- 0 YES MAY BE - NO X X X X X X X X X X X e 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? .5. Energv - 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? 6. 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? 7. 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 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? 20. Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleonto1oqical X - 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 DroPosed Proiect 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 infOImatiOn 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. 9) 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- e 0 YES MAY BE NO - 22. Mandatory findinss of sisnificance - 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.) X 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.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 24 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 proximity to the Pacific Ocean and the existing General Plan designation. -7- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL 0 EVALUATION (Continued) e 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 24 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 0 i7. 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 an 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. A 7 Auaust 15. 1988 d 1 Date Signature I I /q 106 ? Date Planning-Direkkor MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) -9-