The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-06-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 3659r I/ 0 e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3659 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION OF GENERAL, PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 1994 TO BUILDOUT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. CASE NAME: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO: PCD/GPC 93-04 7 11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of May, 7 8 9 10 11 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 1 12 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submittec 13 and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission cons l4 factors relating to the Negative Declaration. 15 16 17 18 on the 1st day of June, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed 1 consider said request, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Ca as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 19 i 21 I 2o I B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according "ND", dated April 17, 1994, and "PIIt', dated April 13, 1994, attack and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FilldillB: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that tl Improvement Program may have a significant impact on the environmer 2. No development is proposed with the Capital Improvement Program, &I site-specific environmental impacts will result. .... 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 I e 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of thc Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of June, 19' following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Savary, Commissioners: Nielsen, Compas, Erwin & Monroy. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Noble. ABSTAIN: None. n ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMl W MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 3659 -2 - NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Citywide; City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, Stat1 of California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Review of the City of Carlsbad's 1992-Buildout Capitz Improvement Program for consistency with the City's Gener: Plan. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projec pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Ac and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of sai review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significar impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for thi action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannin Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from th public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Depart)T@tt withi 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Terri Woorcis in th Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4447. /j i DATED: APRIL 17, 1994 CASE NO: PCD/GPC 93-04 #My&&.l- d& " CASE NAME: 1992-BUILDOUT CIP c PUBLISH DATE: BLADE-CITIZEN NORTH APRIL 18, 1994 BLADE-CITIZEN SOUTH APRIL 17, 1994 2075 Las Palmas Drive' - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. PCD/G DATE: March 23, BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: 1992 - Buildout Capital ImDrovement Promam 2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad. CA 92009 (619) 438-1 161 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Review of the City of Carlsbad's 1992-Buildout Improvement Promam for consistency with the City's Gen ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City co Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a sigmficant effect on the envj The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checkl checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to PI Environmental impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NC checked to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any asp project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may quaMy for a Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can bc insimificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" and '7 respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fc DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to ( mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined signrficant. 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to 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? 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? Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? -2- 0 YES (sig) - - - - - - - - - - YES big) - - - - - - ” Nc - - - - - - - - - - - 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? YES (sig) - 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a banier to the migration or movement of animals? PIUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: - YES (sig) YES NO (insig) X - - X - X - - x - x YES NO (insis) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? - - x - - x -3 - a HUMANENVIRONMENT 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 YES sig) (hi@ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nc 1 A - - - 7 1 - 1 - 1 1 - 1 - 1 1 - 1 A - . A - ? - ? - 1 - 1 - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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? YES YES NO (sig) (insig) X - x - 'c " Lir x * X - - - -5- e 0 I' DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project is the determination of General Plan consistency for the 1992 to Buildout Improvement Program. The City of Carlsbad 1992-Buildout Capital Improvement Prom consists of approximately 248 individual projects (see attached project list) in the following cat civic projects; drainage projects; park projects; sewer projects; water projects; traffic signal 1 street projects; and, bridge projects. All capital projects with any future or current funding are i in the CIP. As the Carlsbad Municipal Water District merged with the City in 1990, all water 1 have been included in the CIP. The planning period for the CIP is from 1992 through buildout of the City. The CIP addre capital projects anticipated in the City through buildout. While the CIP identifies individual 1 and the generalized locations of those projects, detailed engineering and design work will ne€ completed for each individual project proposed under the CIP and each project proposed will individual environmental review. At this level of planning, a site specific determination of cannot be made; a detailed environmental analysis will be required for individual projects wil CIP. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. No unstable earth conditions or increased exposure of people to geologic hazards will resu the CIP does not involve individual project approval. Detailed site specific plans for component of the CIP will require environmental review. 2. The proposed CIP does not contemplate site specific grading as improvement plans have not developed at this stage in the planning process for individual projects of the CIP. 3. Each project suggested in the CIP will receive environmental review. Therefore, no site spe soils impacts will result from this project. 4. The potential for any specific project of the CIP to result in the deposition of beach san modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the Ocean or any bay, inlet or will be evaluated during individual environmental review for specific projects. 5. The proposed CIP does not include specific site design for individual'projects. Impacts to am1 air quality will be reviewed on an individual project basis where specific mitigation in kee: with the requirements of the City's Engineering Department can be imposed. 6. Analysis of an increased potential for air movement, odors, moisture, or temperature tc generated from any of the CIP projects will be assessed at the time specific project desigm considered. 7. The potential for any specific project of the CIP to modify any natural water course wil evaluated during environmental review for specific projects. 8. Impacts to the quality or quantity of surface water, ground water or public water supply wil analyzed upon submittal of detailed improvement plans and through individual environmental rev -6- 9. Increased usage or depletion of any natural resources will be evaluated during individl environmental review. 10. Construction of each project may produce an incremental increase in usage of energy and hc however, the impacts of this incremental increase will be reviewed on the specific project lei 11. The CIP contains only conceptual locations for proposed facilities. The existence of E archaeologically or historically sigmficant site will be evaluated with the individual proj environmental review when more detailed location and grading information is available. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12. Because the CIP does not involve site specific project review, individual projects will reqL environmental analysis to evaluate any impacts to plant and animal species including habitats 2 introduction of new species. 13. See #12 above. 14. The CIP contains only conceptual locations for proposed facilities. The reduction of acreage agricultural crops or prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance will be analy at the time of individual project environmental review. 15. See #12 above. 16. See #12 above. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 17. CIP projects are based on present and planned land uses in the City, therefore, no alteratiol proposed. If alternation should be necessary, such change would require individual environmer analysis. 18. The CIP is intended to ensure that public facilities, utilities, and public services are in place p: to or concurrent with need. As such, the CIP should not adversely impact public facilities i services. 19. The CIP identifies new and modified sewer systems needed in order to develop the Ciq buildout conditions. Such facilities are anticipated to be provided prior to or concurrent v need. 20. The potential increase in noise levels for construction of the improvements necessary for the and noise associated with the operation of the facilities will be evaluated through project 1f environmental review. 21. The potential for the creation of sigmficant adverse new light or glare will be evaluated tho1 project level environmental review. -7- 0 0 22. Because the CIP does not involve site specific project review, individual projects will re environmental analysis to evaluate any impacts involving risk of explosion or the relea hazardous substances. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. The CIP projects are,planned as a result of the City's Growth Management Program mcl Ge Plan. Therefore, the CIP projects should not substantially alter the planned density of the h population of an area. The CIP projects are planned as a result of the City's Growth Management Program and GE Plan. Therefore, the CIP projects should not substantially affect existing housing or cre demand of additional housing. Because the CIP does not involve site specific project review, individual projects will re environmental analysis to evaluate any impacts involving substantial additional traffic. Because the CIP does not involve site specific project review, individual projects will re environmental analysis to evaluate any impacts involving existing parking facilities or new pa demand. Because the CIP does not involve site specific project review, individual projects will re environmental analysis to evaluate any impacts involving Impacts to existing transport systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. Because the CIP does not involve site specific project review, individual projects will re environmental analysis to evaluate any impacts involving the alteration of waterborne, rail t traffic. Because the CIP does not involve site specific project review, individual projects will re environmental analysis to evaluate any impacts involving increased traffic hazards to n vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. Because the CIP does not involve site specific project review, individual projects will re1 environmental analysis to evaluate any impacts involving the interference with emerg response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Impacts to scenic vistas or the creation of aesthetically offensive public views will be consic: at the project level when detailed plans are available for review. Included in the CIP are City park projects. However, as the CIP does not involve site sp project review, individual projects will require environmental analysis to evaluate any im involving affects on the quantity of existing recreational opportunities. Site specific environmental issues related to the recommended improvements will be reviewe a project by project basis. This includes any long-term or cumulative effects as well as any d or indirect adverse effects on human beings. See #33 above. -8- 35. See #33 above. 36. See #33 above. -9- 0 0 . 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 proposed projects of the CIP will be phased based on need. b) No site specific designs are proposed with the CIP. Alternative designs will be consid( individual project level. c) The scale of improvements recommended by the CIP are based on the City's Genera Growth Management Plan. Alternate scales of development may not provide the requirements identified in the Growth Management Plan. The scale of improvemer considered at the individual project level. d) See "b above. e) The CIP proposes development which is to be phased throughout buildout of Development will be based upon the availability of financing and demand based c Management standards. e f) See "b" above. g) The no project alternative would conflict with the Carlsbad General Plan and,Growth M: Plan. f . 81- " * -1 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 Ni DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, be( environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunct previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is : Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a signrficant effect on the environment, ti not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attac 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 ENVIRONI IMPACT REPORT is required. L(li3 1411 &"34"i)asc/'"-- Date Signature 4?/! : Planning Direcgr TW:lh -11-