HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 4038... /I II) 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
33
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4038
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, CHAPTERS
21.04, 21.26, 21.27, 21.28, 21.29, 21.30, 21.32, AND 21.34 OF
THE CAICSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW AND
REGULATE INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING AREAS
ASSOCIATED WITH RESTAURANTS CITYWIDE OUTSIDE
OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
CASE NAME: INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING AREAS
CASE NO.: ZCA 96-101 LCPA 96-10
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Developer”, has filed a verified applic
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by various property owners, “Ov
described as Citywide, (“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of May 1997, 1
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staf
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all f
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Pla
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
LA II
23 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the P12
according to Exhibit “ND” dated November 2,1996, and “PII” dated Octob 24
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Deck
25 /I 1996, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following finding
26
27 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may 1
Findings:
significant impact on the environment.
28
I1 * e
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
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzec
considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified fi
project and any comments thereon prior to recommending approval of the p:
Based on the EIA Part-I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finc
there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect o
environment and thereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declarat
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the indept
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pk
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of May 1997, 1
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioner Compas, Heineman, Mc
Noble, Savary, and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
,”/+?. ,... ”.”“
..d <e*” j“ /,*<>../*
p””N JL“ c /-7) [I >L.?,,.& - “@~””“~ .._”
L/
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. MZMIIXER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4038 -2-
e
0 0
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: Citywide - Outside of the Redevelopment Area
Project Description: Zone Code Amendment, Municipal Code Amendment and Local
Coastal Program Amendment to modify the development standards
to allow incidental outdoor dining areas subject to an
Administrative Permit with exemptions fiom parking requirements
and some waterhewer fees.
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 fiom 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 Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department
at (6 19) 438- 1 16 1, extension 447 1.
DATED: NOVEMBER 2,1996
CASE NO: ZCA 96-10/LCPA 96-1OMCA 96-04
CASE NAME: INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING AREAS
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 2,1996
0
a
..
MICHAEL J. HOUMILYER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894
a 0
t
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZCA 96-1 OLCPA 96- 10/MCA 96-04
DATE: October 27, 1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas
2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas, Carlsbad, CA 92009
4. DATE ETA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: da
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone Code Amendment, Municipal Code Amendment, and Local
Coastal Program Amendment to modifv the development standards to allow incidental outdoor
dining areas subject to Administrative Permit with exemptions from parking requirements and
some waterhewer fees.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[x1 Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems [7 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
[7 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[XI I find that 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 NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
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 all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier , including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
- /a “38- 96
Planher Signature 1 Date
.
I olsr l9b
Planning DirectowSignat&e Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
a If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
I Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): ( )
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?
0 d) Affect agricultural resources 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)? ( )
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) 0 o
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? ( ) 0
0 0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a>
b)
c)
dl
e)
0
g)
h)
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? ( )
Seismic ground shaking? ( )
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( )
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
Landslides or mudflows? ( )
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( )
Subsidence of the land? ( )
Expansive soils? ( )
~~
0
0 0 0 CI
0 0 0
soil 0 0
0 0
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? ( ) 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
LessThan No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
cl [XI
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
[XI w
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
0 [XI
0 w
0 [XI
0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ( )
f) Changes 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? ( )
0
0
0
0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) o
0
0
any change in climate? ( ) 0
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
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( )
0 0
0
0 CI
0
0
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) 0
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)? ( )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( )
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
0
0
0 0
0
cl
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
6
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 IXI
0 IXI
o w 0 w 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 w 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 0
cl
IXI w
IXI
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 Ix1 0 [XI
cl [XI
0 Ixi
Rev. 03/28/96
e e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) 0
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? ( )
o
0
IX. 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
hazards? ( )
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ( )
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( )
0
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) 0 0
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? ( )
0 0 0 0 0
XII.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
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( )
facilities? ( )
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 o
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 cl 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
No
Impact
[XI IXI
[XI
Ixl
[XI w
[XI w
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI w
[XI w
[XI w
[XI
[XI Ix?
7 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ( )
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? ( )
c) Create light or glare? ( )
XIV. 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
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( )
potential impact area? ( )
XV.RECREATIONAL. 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 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?
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 current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XVII . EARLIER ANALYSES .
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
CI
0
0
0
a
0 0 0
[XI
[XI
[XI
0 [XI O w w 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
[XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
8 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state 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
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
i e a
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project consists of a zone code amendment, municipal code amendment and local
coastal program amendment the result of which is to allow “incidental outdoor dining areas”
(i.e., accessory outdoor eating area extensions of limited size to existing or approved restaurants)
subject to the approval of an administrative permit in areas of the City outside of
Redevelopment. These incidental areas will be limited in size and will be exempted from
parking requirements and from payment of some waterhewer fees under certain circumstances.
It is the intent of this amendment to provide an outdoor eating opportunity for restaurant patrons
to enjoy which is not currently available. It is anticipated that these incidental outdoor eating
areas will be utilized in place of the currently utilized indoor seating during clement weather.
This amendment does not create a new use and does not change the locations in which restaurant
uses are currently allowed in any way. The code amendment will revise the wording contained
in the City Municipal Code, including the Definitions section (Chapter 21.04) and the Parking
section (Chapter 21.44), to allow the proposed incidental use area with approval of an
administrative permit. The amendment will allow incidental outdoor eating areas up to a
maximum of 20% of the number of indoor seats or a maximum of 16 seats whichever is more
restrictive. Accordingly, a typical incidental outdoor eating area project, when considered
individually, would have no environmental impact, and in fact is exempt from environmental
review pursuant to Section 15301(e)(l) of the California Environmental Quality Act, which
allows additions to existing structures (up to 50% of the floor area of the structure or the addition
of 2,500 square feet, whichever is less). Additionally, given the fact that this amendment will
only apply to areas outside of the Redevelopment area, and all restaurants will not be able to
provide the outdoor area because of other constraints (e.g., inadequate space to accommodate the
eating area, or inability to comply with specific design requirements such as A.D.A. clearance
requirements or other standards), no significant adverse cumulative: impacts are anticipated.
Therefore, staff has concluded that there will be no impacts resulting from this amendment.
A. Non-Relevant Items
1. Land Use and Planning - The proposed code amendment will not conflict with the
General Plan or zoning designations or any applicable environmental plans adopted by the City
as the incidental outdoor dining areas will, by definition, only be allowed as extensions of
existing and/or approved restaurant uses where such uses are a1read;y allowed. For the same
reason the amendments will not be incompatible with existing or planned land uses in any area
and will be not impact agricultural uses or established communities.
2. Population and Housing - The proposed code amendments will not impact population or
housing in that the amendments will only allow the outdoor dining areas as an extension of
existing or approved restaurants. Therefore, they will not induce growth or displace existing
housing.
3. Geologic Problems - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, no changes in topography resulting in unstable earth conditions, erosion of soils,
ground shaking, landslides/mudflows, alteration of deposition patterns, or other geologic
problems will occur. Again, the outdoor dining areas will only be allowed as minor extensions
of existing or approved restaurants.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
I 0 a’
4. Water - Again, no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment.
Therefore, there will be no impact to water resources.
5. Air Quality - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment,
there will be no impact to air quality.
6. TransportatiodCircdation - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone
code amendment, there will be no impact to transportatiodcirculation.
7. Biological Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, there will be no impact to biological resources.
8, Energy and Mineral Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this
zone code amendment, there will be no impact to energy or mineral res.ources.
9. Hazards - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of th.is zone code amendment,
there will be no exposure to hazards.
10. Noise - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, there
will be no noise impacts and no exposure to unacceptable levels of noise.
11. Public Services - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, there will be no impacts to public services.
12. Utilities and Services Systems - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this
zone code amendment, there will be no impacts to utilities and service systems.
13. Aesthetics - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment,
there will be no aesthetic impacts.
14. Cultural Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, there will be no impact to cultural resources.
15. Recreational - The proposed amendment will not increase the demand for parks or other
recreational facilities and will not affect existing recreational opportunities because the proposed
amendment will not induce growth in the city and the proposed amendment will not reduce the
number or amount of areas currently planned for recreational uses.
11 Rev. 03/28/96