HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-01-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 2960I. I! 0 0
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2960
2
3
4
5
6
7
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 AND WEST OF THE CITY OF OCEANSIDE, AND EAST EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH OF RANCHO CARLSBAD. APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES CASE NO.: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 14
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of Janua
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to cons
8
9
request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considc
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the in
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, thc
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declarati
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Comm
fol 1 ows :
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, thc Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative De according to Exhibit IIND" dated December 6, 1989, and "PI November 30, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, bas following findings and conditions:
Findinqs:
1. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 14 will not 1 significant environmental impacts. The plan is a public f planning document that implements the existing General Plan. makes generalized projections as to the demand for and supply facilities, and outlines the provision of adequate public f concurrent with estimated demands. The plan recognizes that CE will be required prior to mitigation of any public or privat that is generally discussed in the plan. A Negative Decl aratior issued on December 6, 1989 and recommended for approval by the Commission on January 3, 1990.
26 ..**
27 ....
28
x. 0 0
1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
2
3
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of
1990, by the following vote, to wit:
4
5
6
7
8
AYES : Chairman Hall) Commissioners: Schlehuber, Scl Erwin, McFadden, Holmes & Marcus.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
1
9
10
11
12
ATTEST :
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMIS
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MICHAEL J. HOBMILL@ PLANNING DIRECTOR
23
24
25
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 2960 -2-
28
-. Exhibit "NI
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: East of El Camino Real and Tamarack A
north of Rancho Carlsbad, south and west of the City of Oceanside.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 14 which guar
the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with development to adopted perfor
standards.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above de:
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environ
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad.
result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not
significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justit
for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the P1
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments frc
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department
ten (10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: December 6, 1989
CASE NO: LFMP-14
.1'11,~$>JJ+++d&&( ,-
MICHAEL J. &LZMILEER
Planning Director
APPLICANT: Hofman Planning Associates
PUBLISH DATE: December 6, 1989
BH:af
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 431
0 w Lxnmr "ru"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. LFMP 14
DATE : November 30, 1989
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Local Facilities Manasement Plan Zone 14
2. APPLICANT: Hofman Planninq Associates
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2386 Faraday, Suite 120
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(619) 438-1465
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 24, 1989
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facilities Manasement Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may hi significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Asses: appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This check1 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impactt the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the I:
for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negi
Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substar evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant el on the environment. On the checklist, IINOtt will be checked to indicate determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substar evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sisnificant effect 01 environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration howeve] adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be dc insisnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the heac llYES-sigtt and "YES-insigtf respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures apy at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Partic attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which b otherwise be determined significant.
0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT e
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: Egs, YES (insig)
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features?
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site?
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality?
6. Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply?
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site,
structure or ob j ect?
-2-
e w BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig)
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants) ?
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local importance?
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects?
16. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig)
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public senrices? X
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare?
-3-
YES (lnsig)
YES (insig)
NO
X
X
X
X
X
NO
X
X
X
X
0
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT e
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(sig) (insig)
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not 'limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
-4-
m MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
YES (sigl YEsnsig) NO
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
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 the environment, 'substantially
of California history or prehistory. X
34. 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
35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (ltCumulatively con- siderablel' 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.) X
36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? X
-5-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONME 9 TAL EVALUATION 0
The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 14 is a faci: planning document. The intent of the Plan is to establish para] and thresholds that assure public facilities are available when 1 as determined by the City's adopted performance standards. accomplish this purpose, occasionally locations and costs of 1 facility improvements are estimated for informational purposes. estimates may result in increased development fees.
Traditionally, the developer in maximizing their capital return 1 such fees on to the home buyer or tenant. This results in higher 1
housing which affects the availability of low and moderate housing. However, as real estate value is determined primarj location, without other market incentives, it is unreasonable to the subject property would be developed with either low or mol income housing.
It is not the development fee that will force low and moderate
families into other communities, but the existing nature of the
place.
It is recognized that CEQA review for these public facilities est
is general, and does not satisfy CEQA requirements for the sp project. The Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan requires co CEQA review prior to initialization of any public or private p discussed in the Local Facilities Management Plan.
-6-
0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE AL &ATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 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 sdme 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.
-7-
.. = -_ 0.
I4 0 e 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 effec
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attachr 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.
II /3e/Rs -Ddte
_I ,. _- ti A' ,,
[. . T-) j , , /+, C-: -q# i,2&,W 4 i( i.L-:
' Date Planninh Didctor
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM [IF APPLICABLE1
-8-
e e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITh MTTIGATING 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
BH: af
-9-