The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-01-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 39390 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3939 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AND USES GENERALLY CHAPTERS 21.95 AND 21.53 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE. CASE NAME: HILLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CASE NO: ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of December 199 15th day of January 1997, the 19th day of February 1997, the 4th day of June 1997, the day of June 1997, the 16th day of July 1997, the 20th day of August 1997, the 1st d October 1997, the 15th day of October 1997, and the 7th day of January 1998 hold a 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 stafi considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all 5 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. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Pla Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Decla according to Exhibit ‘WD” dated March 8,1996, and “PII” dated March 1, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinas: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and consj Negative Declaration ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-01, the environmental impacts tl identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to recommending appro the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Comm 0 0 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 finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect ( environment and thereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declarati 2. The initial study shows that this Zone Code Amendment/Local Coastal Pro Amendment will not result in any significant impacts on the environment be future development projects processed pursuant to this amended Hillside Ordil will be subject to project specific environmental review and the revised develor standards are comparable to the existing standards with respect to environn protection. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannin Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 7th day of January 1998, by the folk vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioner’s Compas, Heineman, Mo: Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 3939 -2- *. 0 City 0 of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Zone Code Amendment/Local Coastal Plan Amendment to be implemented Citywide. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the City’s Hillside Ordinance (Chapter 21.95 of the Municipal Code). and to the City’s Local Coastal Plan to (1) clarify ordinance provisions; (2) streamline the permitting process; and (3) revise shortcomings of the ordinance. 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 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 Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at (61 9) 438-1 161 , extension 4455. DATED: MARCH 8, 1996 v MICHAEL J. HOMILLER CASE NO: ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-01 Planning Director CASE NAME: HILLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 8, 1996 CD: kr 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894 -. 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. ZCA 96-04/LCPP DATE: 3-1-96 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Hillside Ordinance Amendment (ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01) 2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drive, C California 92009; (619) 438-1161 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITED: 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An Amendment to the Citv’s Hillside Development rem {Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) and it’s Local Coastal Plan to: (1) clarifv ordinance provisions, (2) streamline the Demitting process, and (3) revise shortcomings existing; ordinance. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, in at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation 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 Service ! - Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics - Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources - Air Quality - Noise - Recreation - Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 3/28/95 -. 0 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 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. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. &-" 3-W6 PTanner Signature Date 3/& b Planning Dikdor SiMature Date ' I CD:kr 2 Rev. 3/28/95 ., 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City condl Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect c environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the forr checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impac the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whet prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously apr EIR or Negative Declaration. a A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adeql supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. 1 Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the i~ simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be expl when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as a general standards. a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential i: is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and pa a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatic mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must descrit mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an eff significant. a Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect o environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an e EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avl or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including rev or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumst requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation me2 required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, thi additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). a When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to pr an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursu: applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerai has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. 0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence th project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 3/28/95 .. e 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitj measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the apprc “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mil Negative Declaration may be prepared. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including b limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been disc or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Stateml Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an ( EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, ( through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in redul 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 under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be gi discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 3/28/95 a. 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact , I1 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? () - - - 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)? () - - - 11. 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? () - - - - 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? () - - - - b) Seismic ground shaking? () - - - - c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 - - - - 5 Rev. 3/28/95 " e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? () e) Landslides or mudflows? () 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? () Potentially Significant Impact - - - - - - - - Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact In - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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? () - - - - 6 Rev. 3/28/95 e e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? () - V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: 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? 0 - 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? 0 - 0 - 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? () - Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact I1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 Rev. 3/28/95 *. 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Zm 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)? 0 - - - c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? () - - - d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? 0 - - - 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? () 7 1 - - - - 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? () - - - - I c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? () - - - - 3 8 Rev. 3/28/95 '. e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact 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? () - 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? () - Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 c) Schools? () - d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? () - e) Other governmental services? () - XI. 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) Storm water drainage? () - 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 3/28/95 -. e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact f) Solid waste disposal? () - g) Local or regional water supplies? () - XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? () - Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact I1 - - - - - - b) Have a demonstrable 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 would affect 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? 0 b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 Rev. 3/28/95 ” 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Ir 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 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 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 CE process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or nega declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the followinl attached sheets: a) Earlier,analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for revj b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable 1t standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporate describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the ear document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 11 Rev. 3/28/95 ” a e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project (ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01) is an amendment to the City’s Hillside Development reguk (Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) and it’s Local Coastal Plan. The existing Hi Development regulations were adopted in January, 1989 and this project constitutes the comprehensive review and proposed revision to the Hillside Development regulations sincc adoption. The objectives of ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01 include: A. Clarifying Specific Ordinance Provisions 1. That the primary intent and purpose of the ordinance is the protection of natural sll The existing ordinance does not distinguish between natural and manufactured sj with respect to ordinance application. Definitions for natural slopes and manufacl slopes have been added to the Hillside Ordinance. The development of manufacl slopes shall continue to be regulated by the ordinance but shall not require a Hi1 Development Permit. 2. The regrading of or encroachment into manufactured slopes of greater than gradient shall be subject to new manufactured slope development and design stand 3. That a Hillside Development Permit (HDP) is only required if the project propos develop a natural slope which has a gradient of 15% or greater and an elev; differential of greater than 15%. The existing ordinance indicates that an HD required if the property has a slope of 15% gradient or more and an elevation differe of greater than 15 feet, regardless of whether the identified slope area is propose( development. B. Streamlining the Hillside Development Review Process 1. The following types of projects shall no longer require a Hillside Development Pel However, these types of projects shall still be required to comply with the Hi1 Development and Design Standards of the Hillside Ordinance (Section 21.95.080) will be evaluated for compliance through the grading plan and building plan re1 processes. a. One single family dwelling unit on a residentially zoned lot; and b. The proposed regrading, slope alteration or other development encroachmer or into any manufactured slope or other graded area which has been gr; consistent with a previously authorized grading permit. C. Ordinance Revisions to Address Shortcomings 1. Adds new development standards for the development of manufactured slopes of gre than 40% gradient. 12 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 2. Adds specific building setbacks from top/edge of slopes of greater than 40% gradit follows: a. 10’ - 15’ setback for buildings up to 15’ tall; b. 15’ - 20’ setback for buildings taller than 15’. 3. Allows the development of up to 50’ tall manufactured slopes if slope gradient is less 50% (< 2:l) and slope is contour graded. 4. Similar to Circulation Element Roads, Collector Streets which are necessary to prc primary or secondary access to a property would be exempted from complying wit1 development prohibition of natural slopes greater than 40% gradient. In that this Zone Code Amendment is administrative in nature and is not associated with any spc development project, it will not directly or indirectly result in any significant environmental imp Any future development project processed pursuant to the amended Hillside Development regula shall be required to undergo project specific environmental review. I. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) The Hillside Development Ordinance is an overlay zone that includes hill development regulations that apply to all projects which propose development of nal slopes which have a gradient of 15% or greater and an elevation differential of grt than 15 feet. The proposed-amendments are consistent with the City’s General (Land Use Element and Open Space and Conservation Element) and would be applic; within all underlying zones of the City. b) The proposed zone code amendment would be consistent with all applic, environmental plans or policies adopted by other agencies including the Coastal Ove Zone of the City’s Local Coastal Program. c-e) In that no physical development is proposed, this zone code amendment will not re in any impacts to existing land uses, agricultural resources, operations and farmland an established community. 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING a-c) Since no physical development is proposed, this zone code amendment will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections, induce substan growth or displace existing housing. 111. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS a-i) Because no physical development is proposed, this zone code amendment will not re impacts involving: fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground fail1 liquefaction, seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard, landslides, mudflows, erosion, unsta soil conditions, subsidence of the land or expansive soils. All future developm 13 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 processed pursuant to these amended Hillside Development regulations shall be req to apply for a grading permit and or Hillside Development Permit. The applil standards and conditions associated with these permits will ensure that impacts assoc with unstable earth conditions, geologic hazards, soil erosion, and topographic ch; are adequately mitigated. IV. WATER a-i) This proposed zone code amendment is not associated with any development prc therefore the proposed amendment to the Hillside Development regulations wil result in: changes in the absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amou surface runoff, exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as floo discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality, changes i! amount of surface water in any water body, changes in currents or the course or direc of water movements, changes in the quantity of groundwaters, altered direction or of flow of groundwater, impacts to groundwater quality, or substantial reduction ir amount of groundwater available for public water supplies. Future projects proce pursuant to these amended Hillside Development regulations shall be require undergo environmental review and to adequately mitigate all identified water qu impacts. V. AIR QUALITY a-d) Since this amendment to the City‘s Hillside Ordinance is not associated with development project, no air quality impacts such as: a violation of an air quality stand exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants, alteration of air movement, moisturr temperature or change in climate or the creation of objectionable odors will o( Future projects processed pursuant to these amended Hillside Development regular shall be required to undergo environmental review and to adequately mitigatt identified air quality impacts. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION This proposed zone code amendment to the City’s Hillside Ordinance is not associ; a-g) with any development project and therefore will not result in traffic/circulation imF such as: increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion, traffic hazards, inadeq emergency access or access to nearby uses, insufficient parking, hazards or barrierf pedestrians or bicyclists, conflicts with adopted policies supporting alterna transportation, or rail, waterborne, or traffic impacts. Future projects processed pursl to these amended Hillside Development regulations shall be required to undc environmental review and to adequately mitigate all identified transportation/circula impacts. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-e) One of the primary purposes of the Hillside Ordinance is to assure that alteratior natural hillsides does not result in impacts to significant natural resource areas, wild habitats or native vegetation areas. Otherwise, since no specific development is propc 14 Rev. 3/28/95 -< 0 9 with this zone code amendment, there will be no impacts to: endangered, threaten( rare species or their habitats, locally designated species, locally designated na communities, wetland habitat or wildlife corridors. Future development projects procr pursuant to these amended hillside development regulations, shall be subjec environmental review and shall be required to adequately mitigate identified biolc resource impacts. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES a-c) This proposed zone code amendment to the City’s Hillside Ordinance is not in COI with adopted energy conservation plans. In that no development is proposed with zone code amendment, the proposal would not use non-renewable resources in a was and inefficient manner nor result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resc that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. Future pro. processed pursuant to these amended Hillside Development regulations shall be reqc to undergo environmental review and to adequately mitigate all identified impacl energy and mineral resources. IX. HAZARDS a-e) No development is proposed as part of this zone code amendment. Accordingly, Hillside Ordinance Amendment proposal would not result in: a risk of accide explosion or release of hazardous substances, possible interference with an emergr response plan or emergency evacuation plan, the creation of any health hazard, expo: of people to existing sources-of potential health hazards, or increase fire hazard in a with flammable brush, grass or trees. Future development projects processed pursua1 these amended regulations shall be required to mitigate all hazard impacts which identified through the environmental review process. X. NOISE a-b) Since no development is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, this prop would not result in increases in existing noise levels or the exposure of people to se7 noise levels. Future development projects processed pursuant to these amended hill development regulations, shall be subject to environmental review and shall be requ to adequately mitigate identified noise impacts. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES a-e) No development is proposed with this zone code amendment, therefore, no public ser impacts (i.e.; fire protection, police protection, schools, other governmental services the maintenance of public facilities, including roads) will occur. Future developn projects processed pursuant to these amended hillside development regulations, shal subject to environmental review and shall be required to adequately mitigate identi public service impacts. 15 Rev. 3/28/95 .. a. 0 0 XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS a%) In that no project development is proposed as part of this zone code amendmen impacts to utilities and service systems (i.e.; power, natural gas, communications syst water treatment or distribution facilities, sewer or septic tanks, storm water draiI solid waste disposal, or water supplies) will occur. Future development projects procc pursuant to these amended hillside development regulations, shall be subjec environmental review and shall be required to adequately mitigate identified utility service system impacts. XIII. AESTHETICS a-c) One of the primary objectives of the Hillside Ordinance is to preserve the aestl qualities of natural hillsides by assuring that hillside development retains, where poss the natural topographic landform. In that no development is proposed with this : code amendment, no scenic vistas or scenic highways will be impacted, anc demonstrable negative aesthetic effects or light and glare impacts will occur. Fu development projects processed pursuant to these amended hillside developn regulations, shall be subject to environmental review and shall be required to adequ; mitigate identified aesthetic impacts. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-e) This zone code amendment is not a development project and therefore will not im cultural resources (i.e.; paleontological, archaeological, historical). Future pro: processed pursuant to the amended Hillside Ordinance shall be required to undc environmental review and to adequately mitigate cultural resource impacts. XV. RECREATION a-b) Since no development is proposed with this zone code amendment, no impacts to exis neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities will occur. Fu development projects processed pursuant to these amended hillside developn regulations, shall be subject to environmental review and shall be required to adequa mitigate identified recreation impacts. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a-c) In that no physical development is proposed with this zone code amendment, this pro will not: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining le1 threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory, have impacts that are individu limited, but cumulatively considerable, or have environmental effects which will ca substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 16 Rev. 3/28/95