The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-05-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 2996I1 m 0 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2996 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP AND A LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S 1989 SCHOOL LOCATION PLAN. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO.: GPA/LU 89-3/LCPA 89-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of April, 195 16th day of May, 1990, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to co request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tesl arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Corn follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Cq hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Ed dated November 8, 1989, and "PII", dated October 30, 1989, attached hereto a~ part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings; 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project n significant adverse impact on the environment. 2. The provision for school facilities is a necessary, positive use that serves to p enhance the human environment, character and image of the City. 3. The Land Use Element of the General Plan identifies proposed school sites to be by the respective school districts at time of development 4. The development of the school sites will confirm these locations and the ? environmental review by the State and school District will occur at that time. 1 I 28 9 0 1 I1 2 A I/ PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of t 11 Commission of the City of Carkbad, California, held on the 16th day of May, 1 3 4 /I following vote, to wit: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I/ AYES: Chairman Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Hoke Erwin, Hall & Marcus. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN! None. i' AITEST: . ..,._. ..__.. SHARON SCHRA", Chairpers CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMI; , I.\ ,j c pI f~;!, \, i II ," ,:-v' 9 &~~ /U& e \&y$:dk& ' ?, ,, * i i, MICHAEL J.'"H~LZWLLER 11 PLANNING DIRECTOR 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 2996 -2- 28 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: City of Carlsbad (throughout) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1989 Carlsbad Unified School District Location Plan The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described p pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Ac the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said rev Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact o environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Pla Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the pub1 invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30) di date of issuance. L DATED: November 8, 1989 MICHAW J. HC~~MILLER CASE NO: GPA/LU 89-3LCPA 89-3 Planning Director APPLICANT Carlsbad Unified School District PUBLISH DATE: November 8, 1989 BH:af 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 w e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. GPA/LU 89-3/LCPA DATE : October 30, 1989 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: 1989 School Location Plan 2. APPLICANT: Carlsbad Unified School District 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 6350 Yarrow Dr., Suite Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 729-9291 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 13, 1989 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1989 School Location Plan (adds/deletes ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS school sites throushout district) STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires tha conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project T significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact I appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This c identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be ir the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report Or Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no sl evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significi on the environment. On the checklist, *INO" will be checked to indi determination. k An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is SL evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sisnificant efft environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration hc adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects Can insisnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the llYES-sigvl and 9tYES-insig11 respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measure at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. I attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts wh otherwise be determined significant. w 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 7.3 YES (insig) 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? Result in changes in the deposition of be.ach sands, or modification of the channel of ,a river or stream or the bed of the ocean o'r any bay, inlet or lake? Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? -2- v 0 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? x 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? 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 (insig) YES (insig) *. @ 0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig) 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? YES (insig) -4- .. m 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE YES (Si91 YElnsiq) 33. 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. 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.) 35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (ItCumulatively con- siderable" 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.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? -5- *' w 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed General Plan Amendment adds and deletes future school from the existing General Plan map of the City of Carlsbad to accu reflect the adopted 1989 School Location Plan for Carlsbad Unified District. The City of Carlsbad has no jurisdiction authority over the sit construction of public schools as this function is controlled by the district and the State of California. However, the Land Use Element General plan identifies proposed school sites to be confirmed 1 respective school districts at time of development. Due to noncomF land uses, proximity to airport flight paths, the desire to minimize E interaction with prime arterials, perceived environmental constraint site specific nature of residential development, and economic factc Carlsbad Unified School District is presently better able to provic specific locations for these proposed future school sites. The development of the school sties will confirm these locations a appropriate environmental review by the State and School District wil: at that time. While it is recognized that the General Plan Amendment is a signj effect, it is not an adverse impact. The provision for school facj is a necessary, positive use that serves to protect and enhance tht environment, character and image of the City. -6- *, a 0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES 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 sj e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) Project is a General Plan Amendment. There is no phasing b) There is no site design proposed. c) There is no scale of development. d) The present land use for the new proposed sites are all residential. Schools will have to be sited to meet the residents needs. possible. e) Development will occur at some future time. f) Alternate sites have been analyzed by the School District and rejected due to environmental constraints, proximity to airport flight paths, noncompatible land uses, necessity for students to cross prime arterials, and other factors of critical importance to locating educational facilities. g) Surrounding landuses aregenerally residential. Schools have to be sited to meet the residents needs. All presently at capacity. schools in the Carlsbad Unified School District are -7- II 0 DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significar effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect this case because the mitigation measures described on an attache sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. x I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect c I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 4b /ii bate -sign'a'ture VI I\ hI@ date LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -a-