Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-12-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 28051 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2805 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 PARK DRIVE, WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, AND EAST OF INTERSTATE 5. APPLICANT: KAUFMAN AND BROAD CASE NO.: LOCAL FACILITIES MASTER PLAN - ZONE 8 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of December, 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 foll 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" dated April 29, 1988, and "PII", dated April 20, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings and conditions: Fi ndi nqs: 1. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 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 April 29, 1988 and recommended for approval by the P1 anning Commission on December 21, 1988. //// //// 0 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of December, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 AYES : Commissioners: Schlehuber, Holmes, Hall & Marcus. NOES: Chairperson McFadden, Commissioners: Schramm & Erwin. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10 11 ATTEST: 12 18 17 16 15 14 PLANNING DIRECTOR 13 22 21 20 19 26 25 24 23 28 PC RES0 NO. 2805 -2- 27 . ,f>: Oj i, ?\ q (;: i" p: -% dq&&..2w . '? ,, :&??j,?&/JW-l MICHAEL J. HO~MLLER) 0 0 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (619) 438-1161 Vtitg of Carlllbab. NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Kelly Ranch, Macario Canyon Park, and the Kirgis Property (APNs 201-101-12, 15; 208-020-28, 30; 212- 010-03, 05, 07, 11-13; 212-080-19, 20) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Based on the City of Carlsbad's General Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 provides for public facilities to meet 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: April 29, 1988 MICHAEL J. HOMMILLM CASE NO: LFMP 87-8 Planning Director APPLICANT: Kaufman & Broad PUBLISH DATE: April 29, 1988 BH: af e 0' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. LFMP 8 DATE : 4/20/88 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: Kaufman 61 Broad 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 12520 Hish Bluff Dr. Suite 120 (619) 259-6000(Brian Milich) San Dieso, CA 92130 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: SeDtember 24, 1987 11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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 - YES MAYBE NO - " 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 strealm or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X X X X 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 MAY BE NO - X X X X X " " x X X X X X 0 0' - 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? I 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- - NO X X X x X X X X X X @ 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? ,'lo. 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. PoDulation - 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. Transwrtation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects cn 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 - X X . X X - X X " X X X - X - X -4- 0 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: Mabtenance 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? 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 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 - WiiL 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 DroDosed Droiect s'uch 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- e e - YES MAY BE - NO 22. Mandatorv findinqs of sianificance - 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 111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 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 and Agua - "7 - 0 0 . DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) Hedionda Lagoon. It is not the development fee in itself that will force lower 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 8 Local Facilities Management Plan requires complete CEQA review prior to initialization of any public or private project discussed in the Local Facilities Management Plan. Macario Canyon Park (EIR 80-91, Kelly Ranch (EIR 83-4) are examples of that level of review. -8- .+ e 0 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. dm 16% / Date Signature ' V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) -9-