The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-08-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 37821 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 e 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3782 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT, AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.04 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF SUBSECTION 21.04.048 TO DEFINE BIOLOGICAL HABITAT PRESERVE AND AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.42 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF SUBSECTION 21.42.010(15) TO REQUIRE THE PROCESSING OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BIOLOGICAL HABITAT PRESERVES TO ENSURE THAT BIOLOGICAL HABITAT PRESERVES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLANNING EFFORTS. CASE NAME: BIOLOGICAL HABITAT PRESERVES CASE NO: ZCA 95-02LCPA 95-08 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of Augu hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tc and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by : considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. ~ B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative De according to Exhibit “ND”, dated July 18, 1995 and “PII”, dated h, 1995, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the : findings: .*.. .... I 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 1 e 0 Findinm: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project n: a significant impact on the environment. 2. That because no development is proposed as part of this zone code amendmi because future projects will be individually reviewed to evaluate enviro: impacts, no impacts are anticipated to geologic resources, water resources, air transportation/circulation, biological resources, energy and mineral resources, I noise, public services, utilities and services, aesthetics, cultural resoul recreation. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Welshons; Commissioners Compas, Monroy, Nielsen, and Savary. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Noble. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: KIM ~ELSHONS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMh \ Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 3782 -2- I 0 City of a' Carlsbad AMENDED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESSLOCATION: Citywide City of Carlsbad, County of San Diegr State of California PROJECT DESCRIF'TION: An ordinance amending Title 2 1, Chapter 2 1.04 of th Carlsbad Municipal Code by the addition of Sectio 21.04.048 to define Biological Habitat Preserve an amending Title 2 1, Chapter 42 of the Carlsbad Municip; Code by the addition of Section 2 1.42.010(15) to requir the processing of a Conditional Use Permit for biologic; habitat preserves to ensure that biological habitat preservc are consistent with the City's General Plan, Growt Management Plan Local Coastal Program and Habit; Management Planning efforts, and to amend the City' Local Coastal Program (LCP) to ensure consistenc between the City's Zoning Ordinance (whic bctions as the implementing ordinance for th LCP) and the City's LCP. 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 Act an the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on th environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in tk Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannir Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the pub1 are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days ( date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Teresa Woods in the Plannir Department at (619) 438-1 161, extension 4447. DATED: JULY 18, 1995 CASE NO: ZCA 95-O2/LCPA 95-08 Planning Director CASE NAME: BIOLOGICAL HABITAT.PRESERVE MICHAEL J. H&M&LER PUBLISH DATE: JULY 18, 1995 Tw: 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1 16' e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. ZCA 95-02 DATE: MARCH 27. 1995 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: BIOLOGICAL HABITAT PRESERVE 2. APPLICANT City of Carlsbad 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Cd (619) 438-1 161, extension 4212 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An ordinance amending Title 21, Chapter 04 of the Carlsbad Munic by the addition of Section 21.04.048 to define Biological Habitat Preserve and amending Title 2 42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code by the addition of Section 21.42.010(15) to require the pro a Conditional Use Permit for biological habitat preserves to ensure that biological habitat pre consistent with the City's General Plan, Growth Management Plan and Habitat Managemenl efforts. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involvi one impact that is a "Potentially Signifhnt Impact", or "Potentially Sign%cant Impact Unless : Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Land Use and Planning - Transportation/Circulation - Public Services - Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Servicc - Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics - Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources - Air Quality - Noise - Recreation - Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 1/30/ 0 * - DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGAl DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wil be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have added to the project. A NEGA’llVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, anc ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I fmd that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one e 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2: been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, j effect is a “potentially si@lcant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FEPORT/MITIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it 1 analyze only the effects that remain to be addrd. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL 1 be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequ in earlier Em’s pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to the a EIR’S, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impo~ed upon the proposed project. ’meref0 Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. L*” 4-5-75 Planner Signature Date +]b/+ 5” Planning Directowihtdd Date 2 Rev. 1/3O/S e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Env Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Env: Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies aq biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with 2 to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative D or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration, 0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequat supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Imp answer is adequately supported if the referenced information soufces show that the impact sim does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained wl there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as gene standards. b “Less Than Significant Impact“ applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential im~ is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and polic: 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated“ applies where the incorporation of mitigat, measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Signific; Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigatj measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect significant. 0 Based on an “ETA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on environment, but a potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E; or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions mitigation measures that are unposed upon the proposed project, then no additional environmen document is required (Prior Compliance). 0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the projc or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an ElR if thc are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than si@lcant, and those mitigati measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropria “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigat Negative Declaration may be prepared. 3 Rev. 1/30/9. a 0 0 When “Potentially Sign5cant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepa an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicab standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Ovemdjng considerations” has be( made pursuant to that earlier EIR. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Sigmficant Impact” is checked, and including but not limit to the following ci.rcumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree mitigation measures that redwe the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overridi Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) propos mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-€? II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially si@lcant effect below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fo DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to c mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined. significant. 4 Rev. 1/30/9$ e 0 Issues (and support^ IIlfamatim sources): Potentially Significant w=t I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? - b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? - c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? - d) Affect agricultural resouTces or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? - e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? - IT. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? - b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? - m. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? - b) Seismic ground shaking? - POtentiaUy Sinificaot Unless LessThan Mitigation Significant Inccrpcrated hpct 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? - - - d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? - - - e) Landslides or mudflows? - - - 5 Rev. 1/30/95 a 0 Issues (and supparting lnfarmatian saurces): Potentially Significant Impact f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? - g) Subsidence of the land? - h) Expansive soils? - i) Unique geologic or physical features? - IV. WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? - b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? - c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? - d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? - e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? - f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? - g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? - h) Impacts to groundwater quality? - i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? - POtelltiaUy Silcant Unless Mitigation incorporated - - - - - - - - - - - - - LessThan Significant mpact - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 Rev. 1130195 e 0 Issues (and supeating Informaria saurces): V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: potentidly SigIlifii Potentially Unless LesThan SiDifii Mitigation Significant hwt incorpcrad impact I a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? - - - b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? - - - c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? - - - d) Create objectionable odors? - - - VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? - - - b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? - - - c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby Uses? - - - d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? - - - e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? - - - f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? - - - g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? - - - VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? - - - b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? - - - 7 Rev. 1/30/9! e Issues (and suppmitg ln€mtia sources): POtentiallY Significant impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? - d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? - e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? - VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? - b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? - c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region And the residents of the State? - E. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? - b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? - d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? - e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? - X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? - b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? - Potentially Sinificant Unless Mitigation Inoarparad - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 LessThan Significant Impact - _. - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 1/30/95 e 0 Issues (and Suppatiug Infmatim sourceS): potentidly Significant Puentially Unless LessThan Sinif.icant Mitigation Significant hpect Incorporated Impact I XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? - - - b) Police protection? - - c) Schools? - - d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? - - e) Other governmental services? - - MI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? - - b) Communications systems? - - c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? - - d) Sewer or septic tanks? - - e) Stom water drainage? - - f) Solid waste disposal? - - g) Local or regional water supplies? - - Xm. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? - - b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? - - c) Create light or glare? - - 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 1/3o/s 0 0 Potentially Significant Impect Issues (and Supporting Information sourceS): XN. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? - b) Disturb archaeological resources? - c) Affect historical resources? - d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would &ect unique ethnic cultural values? - e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? - XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? - XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to 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 endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major pericds of California history or prehistory? - b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other cwent projkcts, and the effects of probable future projects) - Potentially Siid-iiant UdeSS LessThan Mitigation Significant Inccaporad w.=t 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 Rev. 1/30/9 0 0 hes (and supparting Illfamatim sources): potentidy Significant potentially Unless LessThfm Sinificant Mitigation Significant impact Incarparad bP=t c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - - XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA proc or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. 15063(c)(3)@). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for revic b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within t of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, i whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incoq describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refmed from the earlier docut the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 11 Rev. 1/30/! 0 e . DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION L PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION This Zone Code Amendment (ZCA) will add new sections of code to: (1) define Biological Habim and, (2) require the processing of a Conditional Use Permit for biological habitat preserves, to el biological habitat preserves are consistent with the City’s General Plan, Growth Management Plan ax Management Planning efforts. The ZCA will confirm that property purchased for the purpose of habitat protection is located in such a manner as to be consistent with the City’s habitat managemen1 efforts, as well as consistent with the regional efforts of the Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan and the State of California’s Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). The ZCA will also e the designation of land for habitat preservation does not significantly impact the City’s ability to ac public facilities as outlined in the City’s Growth Management Plan. “his zone code amendment does not condone any physical development. l3ecause no development is as part of this zone code amendment, and because future projects will be individually reviewed tc environmental impacts, no impacts are anticipated to geologic resources, water resources, ai transportation/circulation, biological resources, energy and mineral resources, hazards, noise, public utilities and services systems, aesthetics, cultural resources, or recreation. IL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Non-Relevant Environmental Issues Due to the nature of this project, the following EIA Part II checklist categories are not relevant or a therefore, the “No Impact” column has been checked. I. Land Use Planning - a), b), c), d), e) II. Population and Housing - a), b), c) III. Geologic Problems - a), b), c), d), e), f), g), h), i) w. water - a), b), c), dl, e), f), g), h), i) V. Air Quality - a), b), c), d) VI. Transportation/Circulation - a), b), c), d), e), f), g) Vn. Biological Resources - a), b), c), d), e) VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources - a), b), c) IX. Hazards - a), b), c), d), e) X. Noise - a), b) 12 Rev. 1/30/5 ,. XI. Public Services - a), b), c), d), e) 0 MI. Utilities and SeMces Systems - a), b), c), d), e), f'), g) XUI. Aesthetics - a), b), c) XIV. Cultural Resources - a), b), c), d), e) XV. Recreation - a), b) 13 Rev. 1/30) 0 0 - LIST MmGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) NIA AnACH mGAnON MOMTORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) N/A 14 Rev. 1/3Oj 0 0 1 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REMEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASUI AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature TAWB . 15 Rev. 1/30/9