HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-11-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 27960 0
1 ll PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2796
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CONCURRENT PROCESSING OF LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLANS AND MASTER PLANS. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO.: ZCA 88-9
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did 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 P1 anning Commission as fol 1 ows:
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 "ND" and I'PII", dated November 9, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the foll owing findings:
17 1 Findinqs: l8 i 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment.
19 I 2. There are not sensitive resources located so as to be significantly
2o i impacted by this project.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3. The project is a process for effectively handling of specific applications. Approval of this Zone Code Amendment does not constitute prior environmental review for either Local Facilities Management Plans or Master Plans.
////
////
/I//
////
28
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
0 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 : Chairperson McFadden, Commissioners: Schramm, Schlehuber,
Holmes, Erwin and Hal 1 .
NOES : None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Marcus.
ABSTAIN : None.
ATTEST:
.-
! :q j
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLE'FT
PLANNING DIRECTOR
~, &b.* p\ . I i,'\, f ..f7
5 V&AdL. ~ E Ici <$Ab.
PC RES0 NO. 2796 -2-
0 0 EXHIBIT "ND"
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE TELEPHONE *
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1161
aitg uf U.lnrlstrah
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: City of Carlsbad
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone Code Amendment to allow concurrent processing of Local Facil ities Management Plans and Master Plans.
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 P1 anning 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: November 9, 1988
CASE NO: ZCA 88-9
l,\&&uq tb&.\a ~
MICHAEL J. HOLZ ILLE Planning Director
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
PUBLISH DATE: November 9, 1988
BH: af
0 0 EXHIBIT "PII"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. ZCA 88-9
DATE : November 9, 1988
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas
Carlsbad, CA 92009
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: November 4, 1988
E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written
under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
- YES MAYBE - 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?
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
X
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
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
e 0
- 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. Liaht and Glare - Will the proposal sig-
nificantly produce new light or glare?
6. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area?
-3-
MAYBE - NO
v A
V A
X
X
" X
" X
X
X
X
X
e 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. Pomlation - 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 ha.ve 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
~I_
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-4-
a @ 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. Enerav - 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 sc'urces of energy?
L6. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, QT 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)?
MAY BE - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-5-
0 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/Paleontolosical - 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 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.
The project is a process for efficacious handling of specific applications. Approval of this Zone Code Amendment does not constitute prior environmental review for the effected applications. There is no development or site to consider. The status quo (no project alternative) involves increased use of public services, natural resources, energy, and utilities as Master Plan processing subsequent to Local Facilities Management Plans adoption involves further pubic hearings, further staff review, additional field trips, etc.
-6-
,. 0 a
- YES MAYBE NO -
22. Mandatory findinas 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.) 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
. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project is a Zone Code Amendment to allow concurrent processing of
Local Facilities Management Plans and Master Plans. Approval of the
Zone Code Amendment does not constitute prior environmental review for
either application. Combined review periods will allow for more
resource efficient processing.
-7-
a e
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 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.
/.\
November 9, 1988 d
Date Sighature
1, Itr /sg
'Date Planni- Dirsctor
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-8-
>I - e e
ITIGATING MEASURES (Continued)
. 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
-9-