HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-02-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 3246' I1 a 0
/I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3246
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
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATlVE
DECLARATION FOR A LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
PLAN FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF
EXISTING TERMINUS OF FARADAY AVENUE, SOUTH OF
SQUIRES DAM, WEST OF THE CITY OF VISTA, AND NORTH
OF THE EXISTING TERMINUS OF EL FUERTE.
APPLICANT: PAUL TCHANG
CASE NO: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 16
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of February,
1992, 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.
€3) 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 January 31, 1991, and "PII", dated January 22, 1991,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following finding:
Finding:
1. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 16 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 January 31, 1991, and recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission on February 5, 1992.
0 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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of February, 1992,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm,
Holmes, Savary, Noble & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
MICHAEL J. HOLYMILL&
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 3246 -2-
I
w 0 -
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESSLOCATION: East of existing terminius of Faraday Avenue,
south of Squires Dam, west of the City of Vista,
and north of the existing terminus of El Fuerte.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 16.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
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 Planning Department within 21 days
of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning
Department at 438-1161? extension 4468.
DATED: JANUARY 22, 1991
CASE NO: LFMP 16
5
MICHAEL J. BOL~ILLER
Planning Director
APPLICANT: PAUL TCHANG
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 31,1991
BH:km
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161
w a
E!X"ROI"ENTAL JMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. LFMP 16
DATE: January 22,1991
'ACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 16
2. APPLICANT: Paul Tchang
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3575 Kenvon Street
San Diego, CA 921 10
(619) 223-1663
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: January 15,1991
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION; Local Facilities Manameent Plan which guarantees the adeqacy o
public facilities concurrent with development to adoptec
performance standards.
NVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
iTATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct a1
lnvironmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environmenl
'he Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklis
identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project anc
n-ovides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmenta
mpact Report or Negative Declaration.
7 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project o
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checkec
to indicate this determination.
r An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of th
project may cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negativ
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deeme
insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and 'YES-insig
respectively.
i discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form unde
>ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussin
nitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
w
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
VILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY;
I. 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?
to. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
t 1. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
-2-
e
YES YES
(+I (insig)
-
-
- -
-
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
w e
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
mL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO bid (insig)
2. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)? - X
3. Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species? - - X
4. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
5. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
. or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
X
X
6. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMANENVIRONMENT
VILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
.7. Alter the present or planned land use
.8. Substantially affect public utilities,
of an area?
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
- - X
YES big) YES (insig) NO
X - -
X - -
-3-
w e
HUMANENVIRONMENT
'ILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO big) (insig)
J.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
0.
1.
2.
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?
- X
X
-
- - -
- - x
X - - -
X - -
X
X
- -
- -
X - -
X
X
- -
- - -
X - -
X - -
X - - -
X - -
-4-
W m
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
IILL THE PROPOSAL, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
3. 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.
4. 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.)
5. ,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
the effects of probable fkture projects.)
effects of other current projects; and
6. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, .
either directly or indirectly?
YES
bid
YES (insig) NO
X -
X
X -
X
-5-
W 0
ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
ie LocaI Facilities Management Plan for one 16 is a facilities planning document. The intent of the plan is
I establish parameters and thresholds that assure public facilities are available when needed as determined
1 the City's adopted performance standards. The land uses analyzed are taken from the adopted general an. Locations and costs of facility improvements are estimates for informational purposes only.
is recognized that CEQA review for these public facilities estimates is general and does not satisfy CEQA
!quirements for the specific project. The Zone 16 Local Facilities Management Plan requires complete CEQA
view prior to initialization of any public or private project discussed in the Local Facilities Management Plan.
-6-
a e
8ALysrs 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 will no1 efficiently or adequately address the need for public facilities,
b) The project is a public facility infomation and planning study.
c) The project is a public facility information and planning study.
d) Uses within the plan reflect the existing General Plan.
e) The plan considers phased development.
f) The project is a public facility information and planning study.
g) The no project alternative would not assure public facilities to meet demand and is
therefore the most detrimental.
-7-
w e
FETERIMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
L I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wil
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures descAbed on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
- I fhd the proposed project MAY have a signif'icant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT4
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I + B&<* Signature '
" .
Planning Direytor
IH:h
,IST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ITTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-8-
>,. .* w 0
PPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING 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
H:km
-9-