The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-12-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 31750 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 €3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLTJTION NO. 3175 I A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATJSE DECLAWTION FOR A LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE CITIES OF VISTA AND SAN MARCOS EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL. APPLICANT! HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCUTES CASE NO.: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 18 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of December, 1990, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated October 4, 1990, and "PII", dated September 27, 1990, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinns: 1. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 will not cause any significant environmental impacts. The plan is a public facilities planning document that implements the existing General Plan. The plan makes generalized projections as to the demand for and supply of public facilities, and outlines the provision of adequate public facilities concurrent with estimated demands. The plan recognizes that CEQA review will be required prior to mitigation of any public or private project that is generally discussed in the plan. A Negative Declaration has been issued on October 4, 1990 and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on December 19, 1990. i. ..r e e 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 2 by the following vote, to wit: 3 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of December, 1990, 4 5 AYES: Chairperson Schramrn, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Holmes, Erwin, Marcus & Hall. t5 /I NOES: None. 7 8 9i ABSENT: Commissioner McFadden. ABSTAIN: None. 10 11 12 13 ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 14 15 l6 /I PLANNING DIRECTOR 17 18 l9 I! 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 11 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 3175 -2- NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue intersection and surrounding 906 acres. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 18 which guarantees the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with development to adopted performance standards. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the PI 21 days of date of issuance. pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act DATED: SEPTEMBER 27,1990 CASE NO: LFMP 18 APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 4,1990 BH:km 20?LaspPalmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (61 9) 438-1 161 w w ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. LFMP 18 DATE: September 27. 1990 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: LFMP 18 2. APPLICANT: Hohan Planninn Associates 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2386 Faraday Avenue, #120 - Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619)438-1465 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 30, 1987 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facilities Management Plan which marantees the adeauacy of pub faciliities concurrent with develoDment to adopted performance standarc ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental IIIlpi Assessment to determine if a project may have a signlticant effect on the environment. The Environmental Imp; Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biologic and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as t basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate t: determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project m cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insidcant. These findings are sho1 in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form unc DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation impacts which would otherwise be determined signhcant. . e PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT LL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property tu geologic hazards? , 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 beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? . Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? I. 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)? 3. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? ?. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? .O. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? -1. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or hfstorical site, structure or object? -2- e YES YES big) (insig) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO X - X X X - X - X X X X X X W w 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? HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 17. Alter the present or planned land use 18. Substantially affect public utilities, of an area? schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? YES YES NO (sip) (fiP) - X - - X X - X - X YES YES NO (sip) (insid - - X - - x -3- e HUMANENVIRONMENT LL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: . Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? . Increase existing noise levels? . Produce new light or glare? . Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? . Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? . Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? . Generate substantial additional traffic? . Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? . Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? . Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? . Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? . Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? . Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? . Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 0 YES YES NO (sip, (insig) - - x - - X - - X - - - X - - - X - - X - X - - - - X - - x - - X - - - - X - - x - - X - - X .4- w MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO big) (big) 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? X - - X - X - - X - - -5- 0 @ DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 is a facilities planning document. The intent of the plan is to establish parameters and thresholds that assure public facilities are available when needed as locations and costs of public facility improvements are estimated for informational purposes. determined by the City's adopted performance standards. To accomplish this purpose occasionally Traditionally, the developer in maxmizing their capital return passes such fees on to the home buyer or tenant. This results in higher priced housing which affects the availability of low and moderate income housing. However, as real estate value is determined primarily by location, without other market incentives, it is unreasonable to assume the subject property would be developed with either low or moderate income housing due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean and the La Costa Area. It is not the development fee that will force low and moderate income families into other communities, but the existing nature of the market place. It is recognized that CEQA review for these public facilities estimates is general and does not satisfy CEQA requirements for the specific project. The Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan requires complete CEQA review prior to initialization of any public or private project discussed in the Local Facilities Management Plan, -6- - w 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) The project is a public facility information and planning study. Phased planning wi 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 projec alternative would not assure adequate public facilities to meet demand. The n project alternative would therefore cause the most detriment. -7- * m 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 environment, and a - t find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a sigmficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - r find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 3 27, lqso Lj&vdkA,- Signature Date Planning Director BH:h LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE] -8-