Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 2735II 0 0 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10: I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2735 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AQUACULTURE OPERATION ON THE OUTER AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON CASE NO.: CUP 87-15 APPLICANT: CRABS PLUS, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of June, 1988, 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 "NDIl and sPII", dated February 10, 1988, and February 4, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinqs : 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial . evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project. 3. The Negative Declaration was sent to the State Clearinghouse. Comments from responsible agencies have been incorporated into the conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2736 approving CUP 87-15. ... 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 0 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of June, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : Chairperson McFadden, Commissioners: Hall, Marcus, Schramm and Schlehuber. i NOES : None. ABSENT: Commissioner Holmes. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST : A *ANNE MCFADDEN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION k MICHAEL J. HOLZMIL PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 2735 -2- EXHIBIT "ND" 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1 161 aitp of Carlsbab NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The southwest end of the outer Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A .6 acre aquacultural operation (crustaceans and bi-valves) that will use existing San Diego Gas and Electric dock facilities. 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 ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: February 10, 1988 CASE NO: CUP 87-15 Planning Director APPLICANT: Crabs Plus, Inc. PUBLISH DATE: February 10, 1988 Ln~llul I I II e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMEm FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CUP 87-15 DATE : February 4, 1988 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: Crabs Plus. Inc. David Whitehall 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 8950 Villa La Jolla Drive #1200, La Jolla, CA 92037 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: 11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) YES MAY BE - NO 1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X X x X X X 0 2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? -2- 0 - YES MAY BE NO - X X X X X X X X .7 A X X 0 0 YES .- - 4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the diversity of species, ,or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? unique, rare or endangered species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? 7. Lisht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -3- MAY BE NO - X X X X X X X X X X e 0 9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. PoPulation - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. TransDortation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? - YES MAY BE - NO X X X X X X X c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X -4- e 0 YES - 14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Enersv - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? -5- MAY BE - NO X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X a 0 - YES MAY BE NO - 18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? X 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Archeolosical/Historical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? X 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the ProDosed 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 g) no project alternative. 1) Project cannot be phased. )) No significantly better site designs appear viable. :) Scale of the project could not get much smaller. A larger scale project would most likely have more environmental impacts. I) Other applicable uses, such as open space, would have slightly less environmental impact. !) Timing of the project has little impact on environmental resources. ') The site is one of the last and best environmentally prepared aquaculture areas. I) No project would have slightly less environmental impacts. -6- 0 a YES MAY BE - NO 22. Mandatory findinss of sisnificance - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity ' in the environment? X b. 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 c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X 11. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION he project will aquaculture species currently found along the Pacific oast. The species will be contained and not released into the nvironment. Water quality will be maintained by the County Water Quality ontrol Board. Traffic generation is two trucks and two cars entering nd departing the project site once daily. Visually only the four ehicles, less than 10 small mooring buoys and two 10 feet by 10 feet ooring barges, will be introduced to the project site. Much of this quipment is screened from public view. -7- I* 0 IV. 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 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 th environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re 2-q- a 23 Date V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) 71. APPLICANT 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 -8-