Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 29361 r // 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LO 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2936 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 THE CITY OF OCEANSIDE, WEST OF CALAVERA LAKE, AND EAST OF ZONE 2. APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES CASE NO.: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 7 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of Octobe hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consil request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considel testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the inf submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaratic NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commi f 01 1 ows : A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 6) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Dec according to Exhibit "ND" dated August 19, 1988, and IlPII", date 15, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the f findings and conditions: Findinqs: 1. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7 will not c significant environmental impacts. The plan is a public fa planning document that implements the existing General Plan. makes general ized projections as to the demand for and supply c facilities, and outlines the provision of adequate public fa concurrent with estimated demands. The plan recognizes that CE( will be required prior to mitigation of any public or private that is generally discussed in the plan. A Negative Declaration issued on August 19, 1988 and recommended for approval by the Commission on October 18, 1989. ///I //// I I1 W 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the '11 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th 2 11 October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: 3 4 AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Sch Erwin, McFadden, Holmes and Marcus. 5 II NOES : None. 6 7 ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. a 9 10 11 ATTEST: MATTHEW HALL, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMIS! 12 13 14 11 PLANNING DIRECTOR 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 2936 - 2- w rn 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSEIAD, CA 92009-4859 aitp of aJar1s;bab PUNNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: College Avenue and Elm Avenue intersect! c surrounding 818 acres. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facil i ties Management Plan Zone 7 which guar the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with development to a performance standards. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above des project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Cali Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of th of Carl sbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Decl arat ion (decl a 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 Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. COI from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Pll Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. /ttlL4 kt; MA,W - (&; /- DATED: August 19, 1988 MICHAEL J. HOLmILLER L ) - CASE NO: LFMP 7 P1 anni ng Director APPLICANT: Hofman P1 anning Associates PUBLISH DATE:... Augfht 19, 1988 BH: af - w EwIR(W"AL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE CYXIPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. LFMP 7 DATE : Auaust 15, 1: I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT : Hofman Plannincr Associates 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 6994 El Camino Re: Suite 208, Carlsbad. CA 92009 (619) 438-1465 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: Auaust 8, 1988 11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation: - YES MAY BE 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 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? w 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? 1' h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? -2- w - YES MAY BE - NO - - - - - - - - - - - w w - 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)? 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 habit*? . 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- w w 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. 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. TransDortation/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 MAYBE X -4- - NC - - - - - - - - - - - - w YES MAY BE 14. Public Senrices - 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. Enersv - 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- w w - YES MAY BE N( - 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. Archeolosical/Historical/Paleontolosical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? - 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the DroDosed Droiect such as: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the si1 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 of 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 2’ 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- 6 w w - YES MAY BE 22. Mandatorv findinus of siunificance - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? 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 endure well into the future.) time while long-term impacts will 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.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7 is a fac planning document. the intent of the plan is to establish pal and thresholds that assure public facilities are availab: needed as determined by the City's adopted performance standal accomplish this purpose occasionally locations and costs of facility improvem,ents are estimated for informational p~ These estimates may result in increased development fees. Traditionally the developer in maximizing their capital returr such fees on to the home buyer or tenant. This results in priced housing which affects the availability of low and II income housing. However, as real estate value is det primarily by location, without other market incentives, unreasonable to assume the subject property would be develor either low or moderate income housing due to its view proxi the Pacific Ocean. -7- - - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) It is not the development fee that will force low and moderate incc families into other communities, but the existing nature of t market place. It is recognized that CEQA review for these public faciliti estimates is general, and does not satisfy CEQA requirements for t specific project. The Zone 7 Local Facilities Management P1 requires complete CEQA review prior to initialization of any pub1 or private project discussed in the Local Facilities Management Pla # -8- IV: DETERMINATION (To e Completed By The Planning Department) .I F w On the basis of this initial evaluation: x I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effec the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signifi effect on the environment, there will not be a significant eff this case because the mitigation measures described on an atta Declaration will be proposed. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on t environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. sheet have been added to the project, A Conditional Negative " YG PA 7- 1 I" 8.i" m " Date 2E Y &y.AU CY& SZ I - cimmLt4l-a- I 4) I il ;- It:, L" " 1.1 1'7 ' Date V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) 4' -9-