HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-07-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 28820 a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
~
1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2882
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSI CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A PLAN1 COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR
ACQUISITION OF TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST AND NORTH CORNERS OF LAGUNA DRIVE AND ELMWOOD STREET, APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO.: PCD/GPC 89-4
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of July, :
a duly noticed pub1 ic hearing as prescribed by law to consider saic
and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consid.
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the ir
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, thl
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declarat,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1 anning Comm
f 01 1 ows :
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative De according to Exhibit "ND", dated June 9, 1989 and I'PII", date
1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the findings:
Fi ndi nqs :
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence project may have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded and one of the parcels is improved with a single family residence.
3. No buildings or improvements are proposed at this time, there proposed development will undergo environmental review at a fut
4. There are not sensitive resources located onsite or located so significantly impacted by the acquisition of this property.
...
...
1
0 '0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of th
2
3
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th di
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
4
5
6
7
8
AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schramm, Erwin, McFal
Marcus & Holmes.
NOES : None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Schlehuber.
ABSTAIN: None.
9
10
11 ATTEST .:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RES0 NO. 2882 -2-
e Exhibit "ND"
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Northwest and northeast corners of Lagun;
and Elmwood Street.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of two parcels by the City of Carlsbaj
parcels are .27 and 1.83 acres in area respectively. The parcel s are adjacent to the City Hall and Main Library.
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 Carl sbad. 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
P1 anning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl sbad, Cal i forni a 92009. Cl
from the pub1 ic are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the P
Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: June 9, 1989
CASE NO: PCD/GPC 89-04
1 . '\ 1%
/ '. ' -'li- 1 b7 I I. 1 I> I.;.(- I,'\, 1,.1-,\1. I- -, t,I
MICHAEL 3. HOLZMILLER'
Planning Director
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
PUBLISH DATE: June 9, 1989
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (61 9) LIS€
". - ~~ ""_ . . - - ... . . .. . .
0 0 Exhibit 'I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. PCD/GPC 89-04
DATE : May 30, 1989
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
(619) 438-7753
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: MAY 16, 1989
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?
YES MAY BE
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. && - 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
0 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. 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
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 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?
YES MAY BE
-4-
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. 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
0 0
YES MAY BE
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?
19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon
the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20.
21.
Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontolosical - Will the proposal have significant
results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or
building?
Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed proiect such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site desigr
c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the s
e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
A) The project consists of the acquisition of two existing parcel! Phasing of the project could consist of acquiring only one of tl two parcels at this time. The phasing alternative would have 1 environmental advantage as the project consists of proper. acquisition only.
B) A specific site design is not proposed at this time. Alterna- site designs will be considered when a development proposal : submitted for review.
C) No buildings or improvements are proposed at this time, therefol an alternate scale of development could not be analyzed.
D) Should the parcels remain under their present ownership the para at the northwest corner of Laguna Drive and Elmwood Street wou: likely remain a residential use while the parcel ont he northea: corner could possibly develop as several residences under il
general plan designation. Ultimate City use of the property fc Civic Center expansion or related use would be permitted upon tl
issuance of a conditional use permit.
E) The project does not include development at this time on:
acquisition of property.
-6-
a 0
F) The acquisition of alternate sites which are adjacent to existi:
City owned property in the immediate vicinity and are nl
separated by public streets do not exist.
G) The no project alternative would leave the property under i' present ownership and have no environmental advantage.
-7-
0 0
YES MAY BE
22. Mandatory findinss of sisnificance -
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 the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (llCumulatively con-
siderablell 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?
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed property acquisition of Assessor Parcel Number l!
164-21 and 156-190-62 does not involve development of the parcc at this time. The first parcel is presently developed wit1 single family dwelling and is approximately .27 acre in arc The second parcel which is 1.83 acres in area is vacant i
relatively flat. The property appears to have been previour
disturbed.
-8-
a e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUED):
1. EARTH:
Grading is not proposed at this time. Minimal fine-grading wi: be needed for any future development of the properties as both a:
relatively level.
3. WATER:
Construction is not proposed therefore no affect to absorption a: runoff patterns will occur.
4. PLANT LIFE: 5. ANIMAL LIFE:
Both parcels have been previously disturbed. The parcels conta.
no significant plant or animal life.
8. LAND USE:
Acquisition of the property will alter the present or planned la:
use of the properties from residential and professional uses < is designated by the general plan to lands uses associated wi.
the Civic Center. The zoning ordinance allows public buildinl
and facilities in all zones including residential if a condition,
use permit is granted.
12. HOUSING:
The project has the potential to remove one existing single fami
could be affected the impact was determined to be not significan, residence from the City's housing stock. Because only one un
14. PUBLIC SERVICES; 16. UTILITIES:
Local Facilities are available to provide for development of t property. Public improvements will be required at the ti development of the site is proposed.
-9-
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 (
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significa: effect on the environment, there will not be a Significant effect
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attach€
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.
5/89 La ' Dkte Signature
k 4 p/ //\i*J M +X . ti : r: r/,' L' . it? :(,i&& ?
; /*
Date Plannind' Dirktor
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-10-
0 0
MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued)
VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEA AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
-11-