Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 3089r 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 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3089 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSI CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIC USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A PRESCHOOL FOR 135 CHILDREN ON PROP1 GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE LA CC SHOPPING CENTER NORTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE AND EAST OF EL CAI REAL. CASE NAME: LOS NINOS PRESCHOOL CASE NO: CUP 90-1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of August, 1990, noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider siad request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te: arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted b considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considerec relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissiol of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to e dated July 5, 1990, and "PII", dated June 28, 1990 and attached hereto and hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project significant impact on the environment. The proposed site is an existing str existing shopping center. 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental an 3. The streets are adequate in site to handle traffic generated by the proposed I shopping centeis existing internal circulation and adjacent street systems, La C and El Camino Real will be able to adequately serve the project and shoppir 4. There are not sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be impacted by this project, since the subject area is already developed. i 1 2 3 4 5 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning ( of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of August, 1990, by the follow I wit: 1 AYES: Vice-chairman Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, McFadden, En & Hall. 6 I1 NOES: None. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ABSENT: Chairperson Schramm. ABSTAIN: None. n - ROBERT HOLMES, VicY-Chairman - CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOL~ILLE-R PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 3089 -2- 28 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Existing Structure in the northeast corner of the La Shopping Center. APN: 216-124-01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Operation of a State licensed preschool for 135 childre; The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described : pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Qual and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a sigr impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification j action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the P1 public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the P1anning.B ,partment 21 days of date of issuance. DATED: JUNE 28, 1990 e 'iC &L J. H ZM APPLICANT: LOS NINOS PRESCHOOL PUBLISH DATE: JULY 5, 1990 Department, 2075 Las Palrnas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments fr( CASE NO: CUP 90-1 Pla 'ng Director 2075 Las Palmas Drive * Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 43€ .- w a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CUP 90-1 " . DATE: JUNE 28, BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: LOS NINOS PRESCHOOL 2. APPLICANT: CINDY CESENA 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 6439 CAYENNE LANE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 (619) 699-8342 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: JANUARY 19, 1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: OPERATION OF A PRESCHOOL FOR UP TO 135 CHI EXISTING STRUCTURE IN THE NORTHEAST CORNE COSTA SHOPPING CENTER. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the Cil Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on thc The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a c checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted bl project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether En-vironmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tl or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklis checked to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City detennines that there is substantial evidence that an project may cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects c insimificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" 2 respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the el under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be give mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. \ \. w PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: - 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 object? -2 - YES YES (4 (insig) - Nl - - - - - - - - - - - w. 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ~~ WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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: 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? YES (Sid - YES f&) YES (insig) - - YES (insig) -3 - HUMAN Eh VI RONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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? 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- 0 YES (si@ YES (insig) X X -. .~ ..! MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES (48 (insig) 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? ("Cumulatively 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. m DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. No earth movement or grading is proposed. 2. No changes to topography are proposed to the existing structure or adjacent area. 3. Since no grading or site preparation is involved, no soil erosion will take place. 4. Due to the project's location, beach sands, river channels, bays, lagoons or lakes w not be impacted. 5. Operation of a preschool use in the existing structure will have no effect on air qualit movements, odor or temperature. 6. See above. 7. Water courses will not be impacted since the site is already developed. 8. The quality or quantity of ground or surface water supplies will not be affected. Sin the site is already developed, the existing public water supply can adequately serve t: proposed use. 9. The proposed use will not create a significant demand on natural resources. 10. No substantial amounts of fuel or energy are proposed or associated with the use. 11. No cultural resources exist on this developed site. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12. Since the site is already developed, there are no significant species of plants to impacted. Existing landscaping surrounds the structure and the site. 13. Some additional landscaping is proposed but it will not present a barrier to the nom replenishment of existing species. 14. No agricultural land or uses exist in the area. 15. No animals have habitats on this developed site. 16. No new animal species are proposed with this project. " -6- w :‘ 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION - (Continued): HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 17. The site is currently vacant. The proposed use will not impact adjacent existing uses prevent future permitted uses. 18. Public utilities and services will be available to adequately serve the proposed preschc use. 19. Present sewer systems will be adequate to serve the use and no hazardous waste cont~ systems will be required. 20. Existing noise levels will be increased since the site is currently vacant. Playing childr and other typical noise associated with a preschool use will be generated, however, t site’s isolated nature at a developed location prevent the noise impacts from becomi significant. 21. Light and glare sources will not be generated beyond the existing parking lot light poll 22. No hazardous materials are proposed and a risk of explosion is not anticipated. 23. Residential densities will not be affected. 24. The use will not create a demand for additional housing. ~- . 25. Additional traffic will be generated since there is currently no use on the site. TI additional traffic however, will be adequately served by the existing parking circulation, adjacent street systems and conditions of approval for the project. 26. Existing parking facilities which are now not used will be utilized but a demand . parking beyond what exists will not be created. 27. Present circulation patterns will not be affected in an adverse manner. The preschot peak traffic hours are mostly during no-peak traffic hours for most of the adjac, existing uses. 28. Water, air or rail traffic will not be impacted. 29. Due to the site’s isolated location, no increased traffic hazards to bicyclists, vehicles pedestrians will be created. The project’s site design and proposed improveme: maximize the children’s safety with regards to the drop-off/pick-up area. 30. Emergency plans will not be affected. -7- m. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION - HUMAN ENVIRON a' T (Continued),: 31. No public or scenic views are involved. 32. The site currently does not represent any recreational opportunities. ~~ -8- w m 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 site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) Phasing is not applicable to this use. b) The site design is existing; only minor improvements are proposed. c) The proposed scale of development is compatible with the existing site and structurc d) Alternate uses are pe-tted but the site has been vacant for some time. e) The preschool use is needed now. f) The proposed, existing isolated site is ideal for this use. g) Same as (e) above. ~- ~ -9- L. -I. 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 on the envimm NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmen not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an 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 environmer ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. c / ". 28 , \q4Q e,, /VI h-0-t Date I Signature Ii Date Planning Directo? U LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ~. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITOFUNG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -10-