HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-03-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 3344+ 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 1
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3344
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF 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 March, 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
1 as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
~ €3) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning I
I Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit "ND", dated November 8, 1989, and "PII", dated
October 30, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
FilldjnES:
1. There is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant adverse I impact on the environment.
, 2. The provision for school facilities is a necessary, positive use that serves to protect
and 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
confirmed by the respective school districts at time of development.
I1
0 Q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o I 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. The development of the school sites will confirm these locations and the
appropriate environmental review by the State and School District will occur at
that the.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of March, 1992, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm,
Holmes, Savary, Noble & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
XL
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CAFUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 3344 -2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESSLOCATION: 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 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 thirty (30) days of
date of issuance.
DATED: November 8, 1989
CASE NO: GPA/LU 89-3/LCPA 89-3
~~
Planning Director
APPLICANT: Carlsbad Unified School District
PUBLISH DATE: November 8, 1989
BH:af
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92OO9-bR59 0 (filch\ A?= i i e*
0 0
ENVIRONhuNTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORk - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. GPA/LU 89-3/LCPA 89-3
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 A
Carlsbad. CA 92009
(619) 729-9291
4, DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 13. 1989
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1989 School Location Plan tadds/deletes
school sites throuahout district)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the Cj conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may havc significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessme
appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklis identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the bas for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negatj
Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the city perceives no substanti
evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant eff€
on the environment. On the checklist, aNO'i will be checked to indicate, tk
determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substanti evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sianificant effect on t environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deer! insianificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headir ttYES-sig't and *tYES-insignl respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appes at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particul attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which woc otherwise be determined significant.
W a
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
;fILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 7:s 'YSnsig) NO
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property 'to geologic hazaxds?
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?
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?
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
11. Alter a significant archeological I pqleontological or historical site, X . structure or object?
-2-
W 0
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONHENT
ILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (si571 YES 1 ns 1s) NO
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? X
.5. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? X
.6. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
JILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sid YES NO (insig)
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area? x
-8. 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? X
20. Increase existing noise levels? X
11. Produce new light or glare? X
-3-
0
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
TILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
12. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
:3. Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
14. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
!5. Generate substantial additional traffic?
!6. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking?
!7. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
!8. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
!9. 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-
m
YES (sig) YES NO (insig)
.I x
X
” x
X
., n
X
X
X
X
X
X
0 0
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ,
YES (sig) YEEnsig) NO
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
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant 01:
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.
population to drop below self-sustaining
X
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.) X
35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- * dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (tlCumulatively 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.) X
36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X
' either directly or indirectly?
-5-
0 ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed General Plan Amendment adds and deletes future school sites from the existing General Plan map of the City of Carlsbad to accurately
reflect the adopted 1989 School Location Plan for Carlsbad Unified school District.
The City of Carlsbad has no jurisdiction authority over the siting or construction of public schools as this function is controlled by the school district and the State of California. However, the Land Use Element of the General plan identifies proposed school sites to be confirmed by the respective school districts at time of development. Due to noncompatible land uses, proximity to airport flight paths, the desire to minimize student interaction with. prime arterials, perceived environmental constraints, the
site specific nature of residential development, and economic factors,the Carlsbad Unified School District is presently better able to provide more
spec.ific locations for these proposed future school sites.
The development of the school sties will confirm these locations and the appropriate environmental review by the State and School District will occur
at that time.
While it is recognized that the General Plan Amendment is a significant
is a necessary, positive use that serves to protect and enhance the human environment, character and image of the City.
effect, it is not an adverse impact. The provision for school facilities
-6-
W e
NALYSIS 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) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and 9) no project alternative.
'a) Project is a General Plan Amendment. There is no phasing possible.
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. 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 are generally residential. Schools have to be sited to meet the residents needs. All schools in the Carlsbad Unified School District are
presently at capacity.
-7-
,+ 0
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
6n the basis of this initial evaluation:
x I find the propqsed 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 will not be a significant 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.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
./ ;. /& bj, k /
ij i bate -" s ign'a'ture
I ' I. _-
[I \/bj I(/ ,pq , *.& I I\ ,t 1 I I
I date Planning Disctor
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-8-
.* 0 e
i~~~~CANT CONCURRENCE: WITh AITIGATING 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
-9-