HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 4482..
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
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4482
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 RELATING TO INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR
DINING AREAS ON PROPERTY LOCATED CITYWIDE
OUTSIDE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND OUTSIDE
OF THE COMMERCIALNISITOR-SERVING OVERLAY
ZONE
CASE NAME: INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING
CASE NO.: ZCA 99-0 1 /LCPA 99-0 1
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared a Zone Code Amendm
Local Coastal Program Amendment pursuant to Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad hi
Code regarding property owned by various owners, “Owner”, described as
AREAS I1
Citywide outside of the Redevelopment area and outside of the
CommerciaWisitor-Sewing Overlay Zone.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction v
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of March 1
on the 21st day of April 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed b:
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tt
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the 1
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
.. 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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Dt
according to Exhibit "ND" dated February 5,1999, and "PII" dated Jan
1999, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following finc
Findinys:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analq
considered the Negative Declaration (ZCA 99-01/LCPA 99-01), the envirl
impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project. Based on the EIA Pal
comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial
the project will have a significant effect on the environment and
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration (ZCA 99-01/L
01) reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the
Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of April 199!
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L'Heure
Nielsen, Segall, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Trigas m: i' p, , :;/ .' / ' /;
COURTNEY . , Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
I PC RES0 NO. 4482 -2-
.I 0 0
- City of Carlsbac
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: Citywide outside of the Redevelopment Area
Project Description: Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment 1
modify the development regulations to allow incidental outdoc
dining areas subject to Administrative Permit with son
exemptions fiom parking requirements.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proje
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ar
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 tl
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in tl
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannin
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public ar
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of dat
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Departmer
at (760) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 447 1.
DATED: FEBRUARY 5,1999
CASE NO: ZCA 99-01/LCPA 99-01
CASE NAME: INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING AREAS I1
PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 5,1999 \
MICHML&AE+QL IM& '
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-089
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZCA 99-01/LCPA 994
DATE: January 20.19!
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Incidental Outdoor Dining Areas I1
2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas. Carlsbad. CA 92009
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment
modify the development regulations to allow incidental outdoor dining areas subject
Administrative Permit with some exemptions from parking requirements.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impat
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning W TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0
DETERMINATION.
e
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tl
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatic
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATI’t
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and E
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlil
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is require’
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl.
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environment
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voidc
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
/-
Date C
[hAd\*g.Ad& ” “41 145 Planning Direws Sigrfahre Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Ci
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followir
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum;
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negati
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that a
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea1
question. A “NO Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved.
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that t
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatit
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” tc
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and t
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce t
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significi
effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyz
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applical
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigat
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pr
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additio~
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
8 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requil
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier E
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence f
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing i
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, a]
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In tk
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate(
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includil
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, a1
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th,
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not redu
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is n
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significe
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end oft
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentil
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determin
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
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
0
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? ()
0
0
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? ()
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ()
e) Landslides or mudflows? ()
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
g) Subsidence of the land? ()
h) Expansive soils? ()
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ()
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ()
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 0 0
0
0
0
17
5
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 o [XI
0 0 IXI
0 o w
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
[XI
0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 El 0 IXI 0 [XI o w
0 [XI o w 0 IXI
0 [xi
0 IXI
0 E
0 1x
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
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 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
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
0
0 0
0
existing or projected air quality violation?
VI. TRANSPORTATIONiCIRCULATION. 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. farrn 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?
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
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 0
0
0
0 0
0 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
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 o
0
0
0 0
0 0
No
Impac
H
IXI
w IXI
[XI
IXI
IXI
[XI
IXI
[XI IXI
IXI IXI
IXI IXI
[XI
Ix
Ix
[x
[x
[x
6 Rev. 03/28/96
.. e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
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? ()
proposal?
Potentially Significant
Impact
0 0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
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
0
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 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 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
XILUTILITIES 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? ()
7
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Less Than No
Significant Imp2
Impact
[x 0 Ix
0 €z
0 [XI
0 w
0 w
0 w o w
o [XI 0 w
0 €3 o w o [XI w o w
0 w 0 [XI 0 IXI
O w 0 El w 0 El
Rev. 03/28/96
._ 0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ()
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? ()
c) Create light or glare? ()
0 0 0 0 0 0
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?
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o 0 o 0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impa
[x E K
[XI w
[XI IXI
[XI
[x]
E
w
w
[XI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
~. 0
XVII . EARLIER ANALYSES .
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEC
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negatj
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)@). In this case a discussion should identify 1
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availal - for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above check1
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursus
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatic
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated
refined fkom the earlier document and the extent to which they address sit
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
.. 0 e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project consists of a zone code amendment and local coastal program amendme
the result of which is to allow “incidental outdoor dining areas” (i.e., accessory outdoor eati
area extensions of limited size to existing or otherwise-approved restaurants) subject to i
approval of an administrative permit in areas of the City outside of the Redevelopment Arc
These incidental areas will be limited in size and will be exempted from parking requirements
some locations/circumstances. It is the intent of this amendment to provide an outdoor eati
opportunity for restaurant patrons to enjoy which is not currently available. It is anticipated tl.
these incidental outdoor dining areas will be utilized in place of the currently utilized indc
seating during clement weather. This amendment does not create a new use and does not chan
the locations in which restaurant uses are currently allowed in any way. The code amendmt
will revise the wording contained in the City’s Municipal Code in various chapters to allow t
proposed incidental use areas with approval of an administrative permit. The amendment vi
incidental outdoor dining areas up to a maximum of 20% of the number indoor seats 01
maximum of 20 seats whichever is more restrictive. Accordingly, a typical incidental outdc
dining area project, when considered individually, would have no environmental impact, and
fact is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301(e)(l) of the Califorr
Environmental Quality Act, which allows additions to existing structures (up to 50% of the flo
area of the structure or the addition of 2,500 square feet, whichever is less). Additionally, giv
the fact that this amendment will only apply to areas outside of the Redevelopment Area, and I:
all restaurants will be able to provide the outdoor area because of other constraints (e.,
inadequate space to accommodate the eating area, or inability to comply with specific desi,
requirements such as Americans with Disabilities Act clearance requirements or other standard
no significant adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated. Therefore, staff has concluded tl
there will be no impacts resulting from this amendment.
It should be noted that nothing in this amendment limits the nature or extent of environment
review required for any project which includes an incidental outdoor dining area. Such projec
will be subject to the normal environmental review process and, subsequently, to any mitigatic
requirements which may be required for such projects. As with any other allowed use, su(
projects will have to be evaluated on an individual basis for environmental impacts and,
necessary, application of appropriate mitigation measures.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
1. Land Use and Planning - The proposed code amendment will not conflict with ti
General Plan or zoning designations or any applicable environmental plans adopted by the Ci
as the incidental outdoor dining areas will, by definition, only be allowed as extensions t
existing or approved restaurant uses where such uses are already allowed. For the same reasc
the amendment will not be incompatible with existing or planned land uses in any area and wI
not impact agricultural uses or established communities.
10 Rev. 03128196
.. 0 0
2. Population and Housing - The proposed code amendment will not impact population
housing in that the amendment will only allow the outdoor dining areas as an extension
existing or approved restaurants. Therefore, they will not induce growth or displace existi
housing.
3. Geologic Problems - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone cc
amendment, no changes in topography resulting in unstable earth conditions, erosion of so:
ground shaking, landslides/mudflows, alteration of deposition patterns, or other geolo:
problems will occur. Again, the outdoor dining areas will only be allowed as minor extensio
of existing or approved restaurants.
4. Water - Again, no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendme:
Therefore, there will be no impact to water resources.
5. Air Oualitv - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendme:
there will be no impact to air quality.
6. TransportatiodCirculation - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zo
code amendment, there will be no impact to transportatiodcirculation.
7. Bioloeical Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone cot
amendment, there will be no impact to biological resources.
8. Enerev and Mineral Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of tk
zone code amendment, there will be no impact to energy and mineral resources.
9. Hazards - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendme]
there will be no exposure to hazards.
10. Noise - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, the
will be no exposure to 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 co(
amendment, there will be no impacts to public services.
12. Utilities and Services Systems - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of th
zone code amendment, there will be no impacts to utilities and services systems.
13. Aesthetics - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendmer
there will be no aesthetic impacts.
14. Cultural Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone cod
amendment, there will be no impacts to cultural resources.
15. Recreational - The proposed amendment will not increase the demand for parks or othc
recreational facilities and will not affect existing recreational opportunities because the propose
amendment will not induce growth in the City and will not reduce the number or amount of are;
currently planned for recreational uses.
11 Rev. 03128196