The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-07-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 3053I e e 1 2 3 4 5 PLANNlNG COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3053 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO DECREASE THE NOTICE PERIOD TO REMOVE ANY CAMPAIGN SIGN THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE FROM FIVE DAYS TO TWO DAYS. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO.: ZCA 89-3 6 7 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to- consider said request, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of July, 1990 8 ll WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tl 9 10 arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and co written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to 11 Declaration. 12 13 15 recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND" d B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Comm 14 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. following findings: 1990, and "PII", dated May 24, 1990, attached hereto and made a part hereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissic l6 Findings: l" 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may havi l8 I1 impact on the environment. 19 II ... 20iI .*- 21 22 ... ... 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of July, 1990, by the following vot AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Holm€ Erwin, Marcus and Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. - " .. . ABSTAIN: None. - ~. .-. . . " _e"- - ". SHARON SCHRA", Chairperson 9 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: 3.0 /'?, . 7 / / ' >". 11 .(.' I/ :,I i : ; { ; ,. : --&-:- i ::: ,_- $ , . '' , d! 2. il k, :..p \, L . (1- ~>".~ ._,, ',[ i 4 *.*~- ,{ I (,> : .: / MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER; 12 / *C' ,r 1 , . ,' PLANNING DIRECTOR 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 3053 -2- 28 EXHIBI' NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Citywide PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to Section 21.41.160 of the Zoning Ordina decreasing the notice period to remove any campaign sign that does not conform to the Cads Municipal Code from five days to two days. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described pro pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said revie\ Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaradon with supportive documents is on fie in the Plan1 Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of f of issuance. %LtJ3,j '&&$L&L - '? DATED: May 31, 1990 I i MICHAEL J. HO~ILL CASE NO: ZCA 89-3 Planning Director APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH DATE: May 31, 1990 2075 Las Palmas Drive * Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 (619) 438, 0 0 EXH - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. ZCA 89-3 BACKGROUND DATE: MAY 24, 1. CASE NAME: CAMPAIGN SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRNE Carlsbad. CA 92009 (619) 438-1161 4. DATE EL4 FORM PART E SUBMITTED: N/A 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to Section 21.41.160 of the Zoni decreasing the notice period to remove any campaign not conform to the Carlsbad MuniciDal Code from fivl days. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the Cit Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on tht The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a c checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. .'- A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence rk or any of its aspects may cause a sigmficant effect on the environment. On the checklist checked to indicate this determination. .'- An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that an: project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify 1 Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects c, insimificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" a respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the en under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be give. mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. a PHYSICAL mmoNMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure 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- 0 YES YES (si@ (insig) - 0 0 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? 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? HUMAN FNVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? -3- YES YES (si@ (insig) YES YES (si@ (insig) 0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 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- a YES (sig) - - - YES (insig) - - - - 0 e 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, subsrantially 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 Nl Is@) (insig) - - -5- a 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMEN IAL EVALUATION The proposed Zone Code Amendment will not affect any physical, biological or human resour( as indicated in the checklist. 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> N/A b) N/A c> N/A d) N/A e) N/A f) WA g> N/A -6- 0 e 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 envirom NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmer not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. - t find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environmel ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 cl./ g&.+# 237 /yy/ + / ,"7 "P - Signature ,- ; :. 7 -'iL " ././,Llqi/ r .* i! (.'( ~ ~ . I.-. :-/tLlt .. "- I Date Planning Director -' 2 ;/; </:iL. i ! Date ,- ././,Llqi/ r .* i! (.'( - - . I.-. :-/tLlt .. "- Planning Director -' 2 LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (EF APPLICABLE] N/A ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) WA -7-