Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-06-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 3039-* .. I ! .* 1 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 m a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3039 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSI CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMF REPORT, EIR 86-2, FOR A PROJECT GENERALLY INCLUDING 1,076 SIb FAMILY DWELLINGS, A RECREATION/DAYCARE CENTER, 2 SCHOOL S AND 2 POTENTIAL CHURCH SITES ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST 0: CAMINO REAL, NORTH OF OLIVENHAIN ROAD, AND WEST OF RAN SANTA FE ROAD IN THE PC ZONE AND IN LFMP ZONE 12. CASE NAME: ARROYO LA COSTA CASE NO.: EIR 86-2 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit: Those portions of lots 3, 4, 9 and 10 of Rancho Las Encinitas, in the Ci Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, per map No. 848, filed il office of the County Recorder of said county on June 27, 1898 know Assessors Parcel No.’s 255-010-09, 18 & 19, 255-022-01, 255-030-09, 10 I 255-031-24 & 25, 255-041-14. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commissiol: WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Ti Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 16th day of May, 1990, 6th day of June, 1990, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to ( request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all ter arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considere ~ i relating to the Master Plan and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissio; A) That the FOREGOING recitations are true and correct. B) That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 86-2 will be amended to comments and documents of those testrfylng at the public hearing and respc hereby found to be in good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of th said public hearings into the report. C) That the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Environml 28 .. I 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 28 0 * Report EIR 86-2 has been completed in conformance with the California Er Quality Act, the state guidelines implementing said Act, and the provision of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and that the Planning Commission h; considered and evaluated the information contained in the report. D) That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 86-2 as so amended and ev attached errata sheets dated May 16, 1990 are recommended for acc certification as the final Environmental Impact Report and that the final EI Impact Report as recommended is adequate and provides reasonable inform project and all reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto, including no p E) That each and every significant environmental impact identified in the Ex Impact Report would be ovenuled or counterbalanced by changes or altel project which would mitigate against said adverse impacts or, in certain ci that mitigation of such adverse impacts would not be feasible under the c: and under the economic and social needs objectives and concerns in p improvements if the project were to be approved, would be included as ( approval of the project. Conditions: 1. Refer to CT 88-3, Resolution No. 3032 for all conditions, mitigation mc monitoring programs applicable to development of the Arroyo La Costa M, PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of June, 1990, by the fol to wit: AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Mar NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Erwin. McFadden, Holmes h Hall. ABSTAIN: None. SHARON SCHRA", Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSIO: ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 3039 -2- # * ,+=. 6 aay 16' lggo I ARROYO LA COSTA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ERRATA In response to comments received during the public review per for the Draft EIR numerous revisions and clarifications were m to the Final EIR. The Final EIR was prepared by a differ consulting firm which was retained by the City after the pub review period for the Draft EIR was over. During the preparation of the Final EIR, portions of the Proj Summary Matrix pages were not revised to accurately reflect conclusions of the Environmental Analysis in the Final E Portions of the matrix have been revised to reflect the conclusi of the Final EIR. Revised pages are labeled Vevisedl1. corrections to the matrix are under the Illeve1 of significan column except for page xix where the scope of impact for the 1 of habitat was mistakenly identified as cumulative as well project specific. There have been no changes to the Environmen Analysis in the Final EIR or to the conclusions of that analys The only changes on the attached pages pertain to items where summary did not accurately reflect the Final EIR document. other changes to the matrix have been made. Executive Summary Page xiii has been revised to correct typographic error in the number of units that could be built un the Master Plan Alternative. Page 254 of the Final EIR has been revised to correct typographical error in the second paragraph changing "elernenta to llsecondarytt. Environmental Summary Pages 342 through 344 have been revised reflect the conclusions in the Environmental Analysis section the Final EIR. Prior to this correction, potential impacts & can mitisated were incorrectly included in the section t discusses impacts that cannot be mitigated. All corrected pages follow. No changes to the Environmen Analysis in the Final EIR have been made. The only changes are the summary pages that are attached and typographical correcti discussed above. In addition, three comment letters from the public were responded to in the Response to Comments. Responses to those th letters are attached.