HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-08-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 28980 Q
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2898
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSB CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROHI
COUNCIL MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
ON-SHORE OIL AND GAS SUPPORT FACILITIES EXCEPT UPON THE C
CASE NO.: GPA 89-2/LCPA 89-1/ZCA 89-1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of August, !
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said
and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considl
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the ir
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, thc
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declarat
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Comn
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, thl Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative DI according to Exhibit "ND", dated June 7, 1989 and I'PII", datc 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the findings:
Findinqs:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidencl proposed amendments may have a significant impact on the envi
2. The proposed amendments will serve to provide a review process
enable site specific environmental review to take place.
3. The findings included as part of the proposed amendments requir consideration of adverse environmental impacts often associate(
facilities prior to granting approval of on-shore support fac
....
....
....
I/ 0 a
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regul ar meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day o
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
1
2
3
4
AYES: Chairman Hall , Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm,
McFadden, Holmes and Marcus.
5 11 NOES : None.
6
7
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
8
9
10
11 ATTEST:
MATTHEW HALL, Chai rman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMM I SS ION
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o 1
PLANNING DIRECTOR
1
1 1 1 1
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RES0 NO. 2898 -2-
of Carlsbz
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: City of Carlsbad
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An Amendment to the General Plan, Local Coastal P1; Zoning Ordinance to prohibit on-shore oil and gas support facilities excep the City Council making certain findings.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above des( project pursuant to the Guide1 ines for Implementation of the Cali. Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of th of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declal that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is I issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file P1 anning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file P1 anning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl sbad, Cal i forni a 92009. Con from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the P1
Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: June 7, 1989
CASE NO: GPA 89-2/ZC 89-11 LCPA 89- 1
'\ -j .. /$!,& C{ { i&!J.\ if.(/7, 1 i \{- ( . [l?
MICHAEL J. HOLZbl1LLER)"- P1 anning Director
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
PUBLISH DATE: June 7, 1989
DN:af
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 42
~____ "_ __ " _.. ". . .. . -_. " . .
0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
I. BACKGROUND
CASE NO. GPA 89-2/ZCA 89-
LCPA 89-1 DATE : MAY 26. 1989
1. APPLICANT : Citv of Carlsbad
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92009
(619) 438-1161
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: Mav 17, 1989
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
- YES MAY BE
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?
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
@ 0
YES MAY BE
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)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species
of plants?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the
species? normal replenishment of existing
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. Liaht 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-
0 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. PoDulation - 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. Transportation/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?
c. Impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
- YES MAY BE
-4-
0 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. Enerqv - 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
0 0
18.
19.
20.
21.
a)
b)
c)
d)
YES MAY BE
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?
Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon
the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontoloqical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant
archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building?
Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed proiect such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site desig c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the
e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
The project consists of proposed General Plan, Local Coastal P1z and Zoning Ordinance Amendments which would prohibit on-shore c and gas support facilities unless the City Council makes all the six proposed findings developed for such uses. Propo:
facilities would be subject to review through either a Plan] Industrial Permit or a Conditional Use Permit dependent upon 1 particular zone. Since there are no applications presenl pending for such facilities there is no reason to phase 1
applicability of the amendments.
The proposed project does not include a site design or des.
standards, therefore, alternative designs were not evaluated.
A specific construction project is not proposed as part of tl project. Because of this an alternate scale of development can:
be evaluated.
A site specific project is not a part of this project. A$ result alternate uses for a specific site could not be evaluat
-6-
0 Question 21 (continued). 0
e) Adoption of the proposed amendments at some future time would nc be beneficial as exploration and drilling for oil off tk Carlsbad Coast could occur in the near future should the federi government lease those tracts. The proposed amendments wi: prevent adverse environmental impacts associated with related 01 shore support facilities unless the City Council finds am01 other things that there are no feasible alternatives and that tl project t s benefits clearly outweigh the possible adverr environmental effects. In addition, the amendment provides means to review such proposals for those zones where it may :
permitted.
f) Alternative sites were not evaluated since a specific site is nl
proposed for development.
g) The no project alternative would result in the City not adopti policies directed at on-shore oil and gas support facilities a not providing a process within which such proposals can reviewed. Therefore, the no project alternative has environmental advantage.
- YES MAY BE
22. Mandatory findinss of siqnificance -
a. 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.
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.)
-7-
0 e
c. 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. )
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed amendments will reduce the potential for adverse envirc effects which can be caused by on-shore suport facilities. Such effects can include increased air pollution, water pollution, t noise, visual, scenic and aesthetic impacts.
11.1. Earth:
The proposed project, consisting of various code and plan amer
contemplates no grading.
11.3 Water:
The proposal will not impact existing drainage courses or change ab: rates.
11.4 Plant Life: 5. Animal Life:
No impact to plant or animal life will occur as the proposed amend: not include development of a particular site.
11.8 Land Use
The proposed amendments will prevent to the greatest extent poss alteration of the planned land use of areas designated for Heavy com
Limited Industrial, Industrial, and Planned Industrial Developmen, will be accomplished by prohibiting the establishment of on-shore
facilities except upon the Council making the proposed findings and a Planned Industrial Permit or Conditional Use Permit depending zone of the property.
-8-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTA G EVALUATION (Continued) @
11.9 Natural Resources
The proposal will assist in the preservation of natural resourc
support facilities. reducing the potential for adverse environmental impacts related to on
11.12 Housing
The proposed amendment will not create a demand for additional housinc prohibiting on-shore support facilities will not create job opport;
resulting in increasing the need for housing.
11.18 Aesthetics:
The amendments provide a review process for on-shore support faci which enables future environmental review to take place for visual in
11.19 Recreation
The proposed amendments will protect the quality and quant:
recreational opportunities by prohibiting on-shore oil and gas ! facilities unless specified conditions are found to exist. The process for such facilities will provide for consideration of imp2 recreation areas such as public beaches and related uses.
-9-
0 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 ( the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significa: effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect this case because the mitigation measures described on an attache 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.
573 ,/g7 An “/zey
’ Date signature
1 .* y . ! L- I p.; I GI: ,e / -/‘[:\[ LC 1, ut- . &q&c l , ”
Date Planning’ Diredtor
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-10-
.-
MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued) a e
VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEI
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
-11-