The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-05-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 3244c I! e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3244 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAFUSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON, NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, EAST OF INTERSTATE 5, AND WEST OF MACARIO CANYON. APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES CASE NO.: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 13 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of May, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and lo /I WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 11 12 testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. I.3 submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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 May 2, 1991, and "PII", dated April 19, 1991, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: - 1. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 13 will not cause any significanl environmental impacts. The plan is a public facilities planning document thai implements the existing General Plan. The plan makes generalized projections as to the demand for and supply of public facilities, and outlines the provision oj adequate public facilities concurrent with estimated demands. The plan recognizes that CEQA review will be required prior to mitigation of any public or privatc project that is generally discussed in the plan. A Negative Declaration has beer issued on May 2, 1991 and recommended for approval by the Planninj Commission on May 6, 1992. 28 /j 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of May, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairman Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Noble, Welshons, Savary & Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 8 /I ABSTAIN: None. 9 10 11 12 13 ATTEST: %L TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 14 15 16 17 18 19 I 20 81 22 23 24 25 26 27 44 \. MICHAEL J. HOLZMILMR PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 3244 -2- 28 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South of Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, West of Macario Canyon, East of Paseo' Del Norte and North of Palomar Airport Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 13 which guarantees the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with devleopment to adopted performance standards. 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 af date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4468. DATED: MAY 2,1991 CASE NO: LFMP 13 Planning Director APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES PUBLISH DATE: MAY 2,1991 BH:vd .. 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161 I L I. e ENvlRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART XI (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO. LFMP 13 DATE: APRIL 19. 1991 1. CASE NAME: Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 13 2. APPLICANT: Hofman Planninn Associates 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2386 Faradav Avenue. Suite 120. Carlsk CA ' 92008. (619) 438-1465 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITED: April 17.1991 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facilities Management Plan which marantees the adeauaq public facilities concurrent with develoDment to adopted Derformance standards. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environm The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checl 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project provides the City with idormation to ise as the basis for deading whether to prepare an Environme Impact ,Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the projec any of its aspects may cause a Significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO will be chec to indicate this determination, * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of project may cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may que for a Negz Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be dee insidcant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the. headings "YES-sig" and "YES-ir respecdvely. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form u DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discm mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DtREaY OR INDIRECTLY 1, Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposuie 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- e YES YES NO (si@ (insig) X - - " X - - x - - X - - - - - X - X - - - X - - - 'X - - - x - - - - - x X - - - 0 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES (si& 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? - 7 - HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR ENDIRECTLR YES (sig) 17. ' . Alter the present or planned land use 18. Substantially affed public utilities, of an area? schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? - - -3- .. YES NO cis) X - - X - - X - - X 7 x 7 - YES NO 0 X - - X - - 0 ,J"ANENvIRoNMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECIZY: 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 YES eis, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -4- YES (ill&@ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO X X X - - - X - X - X X - - X - X X - - X - X - X - X - e 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDUUXTLE YES YES NO (sip) (insig) 33. Does the project have the potentid to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially 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. reduce the habitat of a fish or wild= - X - 34. Does the project have the potentid to achieve short-term, to the dis- * advantage of long-texm, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, defitive perid 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? ("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 curreit projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) - - - X 36. Does the project have enviromentd effects which wilI cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or inMy? - - X - -5- 0 e XSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. The Local Facilities Managenrent Plan for Zone 13 is a facilities planning document. The intent of the pla Is to establish parameters and thresholds that assure public facilities are available when needed as determine by the City's adopted performance standards, The land uses analyzed are taken from the adopted Gener; Plan, Locations and costs of facility improvements are estimates for information purposes only. [t is recognized that CEQA review for these public facilities estimates in general does not satisfy CEQ requirements for the specific project. The zone 13 Local Facilities Management Plan requires complete CEQ review prior to initialization of any public or private project discussed in the Local Facilities Management Pla -6- e 0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNAl'"ES TO THE PROPOSED PROJEm 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, g) no project alternative. 0 alternate sites for the proposed, and a) The project is a public facility information and planning study. Phased planning will not efficiently 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 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 mc detrimental. -7- ~ e.. 0 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 NEGATN DECLARATION will be prepared. e I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because tl environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction wi previously certified environmental documents and no additional en&onnxmtal review is require Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant efiect on the environment, there w 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 ENVLRONMENTI IMPACT REPORT is required. q- 23-91 B&* Date Signature " Planning Dire& LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPWCABLEl ATTACH MITIGATtO?i MONITORING PROGRAM (IF ~p~~~ -a-