The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-05-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 36380 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3638 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO ADD SHORELINE PRESERVATION STRATEGY OBJECTIVES TO ALL SEGMENTS OF THE CARLSBAD LOCAL, COASTAL PROGRAM. CASE NAME: SHORELINE PRESERVATION STRATEGY CASE NO: LCPA 93-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of May, 1994, hol OBJECTIVES. a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and 10 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimon 11 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by st& 12 and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a I.3 factors relating to the Negative Declaration. 14 /I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissio 15 16 as follows: 17 18 19 20 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannin; Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaratio~ according to Exhibit "ND", dated February 10,1994, and "PII", dated Januq 27, 1994, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the followin; findings and subject to the following conditions: 21 // Finclinm: 22 23 24 have a significant impact on the environment. 2. There is no site-specific development proposed with this Local Coastal Ph 25 Amendment, therefore no site related impacts will occu. 26 .,... 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project ma 27 28 a 0 I/ PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planninl 1 II Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of May, 1994, by thc 2 3 11 following vote, to wit: 4 5 6 AYES: Chairperson Savary, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Noble Welshons, Erwin & Hall. NOES: None. 7 ABSENT: None. 8 ABSTAIN: None. 9 10 11 12 ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 13 14 - 15 MICHAEL J. HOLZM~LER PLANNING DIRECTOR 16 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 I1 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 3638 -2- 28 NEGATIVF, DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESSLOCATION: In the coastal areas within the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Incorporation of recently adopted SANDAG shoreline preservation strategy objectives into all segments of the City's Local Coastal Program. 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 Conditional 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 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4499. Planning Director DATED: FEBRUARY 10, 1994 CASE NO: LCPA 93-05 CASE NAME: SHORELINE PRESERVATION STRATEGY OBJEc?TvES PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 1994 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 (61 9) 438-1 161 ( 0 6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. LCPA 93-05 DATE: JANUARY 27, 1994 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: SHORELINE PRESERVATION STRATEGY OBJECTIVES 2. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 LAS PALMAS DM CARLSBAD, CA 92009 (619) 438-1161 4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: SEPTEMBER 9.1994 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: INCORPOMTlON OF RECENTLY ADOPTED SANDAG SHORELIP PRESERVATION STRATEGY OBJECTIVES INTO ALL SEGMEN': OF THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct i Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environmer The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. TI: checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be 'impacted by the propos' project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare i Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project ( any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will 1 checked to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of tl project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may quali@ for a Negatil Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemr insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings YES-sig" and YES-insi respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form undc DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussir mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 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? IO. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? -2- 0 YES YES NO big) (insig) - - - X - X - - - - X - - X - - - X - - - X - - - X - X - - - X - - - X - - - X e 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO big) (insig) 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 banier 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? - - - - - - X X - X 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? - - X 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? - - X - HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (si@ (insig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? - - X - 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? - - X - -3- 0 0 r"ANm0NMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES big) 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 sigruficant 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? - YES (insig) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4- NO X X X - X - X - X X - - X X X - X X - X - X - e 6 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES YES NO (six) (insix) 33. Does the project have the potential to subsrantially-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? - - - - - X X - X - - X - - -5- 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL E'VALUATTON The PrOpOSed LOC~ Coastd Program (LCP) Amendment would incorporate the shoreline preservation strategies, recently adopted by the San Diego Association of Governments, into the various segments of Carlsbad's LCP. The proposed amendment would revise the text to add certain policy statements, however no revisions to either the land use map or the implementing programs are proposed. Each shoreline preservation program that involves physical changes to the coastal environment will be reviewed on a project-by-project basis. Since this LCP Amendment does not condone any particular physical development, no site-specific adverse impacts to the environment will result. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: 1. No grading or earth moving is proposed with this purely administrative action and any specific shoreline preservation projects will undergo subsequent environmental review. No unstable earth conditions or increase in the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards will result. 2. Since no site-specific development is proposed with this amendment, no changes to the topography or unique physical features of the coastline is proposed and no adverse impacts will result. 3. While one of the shoreline preservation measures could include erosion control, no specific projects are proposed with this administrative action and any preservation project will be required to undergo subsequent environmental review. No adverse effects due to the erosion of soils, either on or off site, will occur due to this amendment. 4. The shoreline preservation strategies, once implemented, may affect the deposition of beach sands. However, no specific projects are being proposed at this time and all preservation projects will be reviewed for potential environmental impacts prior to approval or implementation. This amendment does not, in and of itself, result in any changes to the deposition of beach sands, or the modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet, or lake. 5. No substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality will occur as a result of this amendment since the project is purely administrative and any related development must undergo subsequent environmental review. 6. No substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature will result because of this amendment since no site-specific development is proposed. 7. The implementing programs of the shoreline preservation strategy may involve a change in the course of marine waters, however since none of the implementing programs have been detennined, then no site-specific effects will occur due to this amendment. 8. This purely administrative action does not propose any effects on the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or the public water supply since no site-specific development is involved. -6- e e 9. NO substantial increase in the usage of, or the depletion of, any natural resource, fuel, or energy will occur because this action does not propose any physical development or energy-usage programs. 10. see nine above. 11. Since no site-specific development is proposed with this Local Coastal Plan Amendment, no significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, or object will be altered due to this action. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12. No physical development is involved with the adoption of the preservation strategies, therefore the proposed administrative action will neither affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of species of plants or animals, nor will it introduce any new species of plants or animals into an area, nor will it result in a barxier to the normal replenishment of existing plant species or the migration or movement of animals. 13. see 12 above. 14. As no site-specific development is proposed with. this project, no reduction in the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or adverse affect to prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance will result. 15. See 12 above. 16. See 12 above. €"ANENVIRONMENT: 17. No alteration to any present or proposed land uses within the Coastal Zone is proposed with this amendment, therefore no adverse impacts to such will occur. 18. The proposed amendment does not condone any development, therefore the project will not substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fie, emergency or other public services. 19. No site-specific development is proposed with this amendment, therefore no increase or alteration of existing sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems are necessary. 20. Since no site-specific development is proposed with this action, no increase in existing noise levels or light and glare will result. 21. See 21 above. 22. The proposed LCP amendment will not condone any physical development and not involve any risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances. -7- 0 0 23. No development will result from the adoption of these shoreline preservation strategies therefore the proposal will not substantidy alter the density of the human population of the Coastal Zone, affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing. 24. See 23 above. 25. There will be no increase to traffic generation, impact to existing transportation systems, or alteration of present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods as a result of this purely administrative action since no site-specific development is proposed. 26. The project does not involve any physical improvements therefore no effects to existing parking facilities or the demand for parking supply will occur. 27. See 25 above. 28. Since the proposed action does not include any alteration of the physical environment, and does not include any language that restricts transportation, no alteration to waterborne, rail or air traffic will occur. 29. No physical development is proposed with this project. As a result, no increase in the traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclist or pedestrians will arise. 30. Since no physical development or improvements are proposed and no restrictions to transportation are included in the proposed amendment, no interference with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans will ensue due to this LCP amendment. 31. As the project is solely administrative in nature, it will not cause any obstruction of any scenic vista or the creation of an aesthetically offensive public view. 32. No physical alteration of the Coastal Zone is proposed with this action, therefore no effect on the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities will eventuate. 33. As detailed in the above responses, the proposed amendment does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife 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 endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 34. The shoreline preservation strategies will hopefully allow the development of environmentally sound protection devices that will spawn long-term environmental advantages, however no adverse environmental impacts, either now or at some later date, are expected from this purely administrative action. 35. Since no specific development proposals are included in the strategies, no evaluation of cumulative effects can be made, however each shoreline presemation/protection development will undergo subsequent environmental review to evaluate potential cumulative impacts. 36. No adverse impacts to human beings, either directly or indirectly will result because of this administrative action. -8- a 0 ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATrVES 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) No physical development is proposed with this LCP amendment therefore no phasing is possible. b) No site designs are proposed with this purely administrative action, therefore no alternates exist. c) The scale of development has yet to be ascertained, since this action is solely for the purpose of setting objectives. The magnitude of future shoreline preservation improvements is not yet determined. d) No sites have been identified, therefore no alternate uses or sites can be discussed. e) No development is proposed with this amendment, therefore all development associated with the proposed objectives and strategies will occur in some future time rather 'than now. 0 See "d" above. g) The project is an amendment that seeks to explore potential shoreline presentation strategic The no project alternative would ignore the existing shoreline erosion problem while A providing an environmental advantage. -9- 0 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 NEGATl DECLARATION will be prepared. .. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because 1 environmental effecrs of rhe proposed project have already been considered in conjunction w previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is requlr Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there \ 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 prepared. - I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. ;2””9 + . Date Signature- \-, ,-pp 4/ q- , Ji$&w&/ at Planning Direcdr LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) -10- 0 0 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 -11-