HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-07; City Council; 7211-3; Amendment to Land Use ElementCITY ^F CARLSBAD — AGENDA JLL
AB#_
MTQ 12/7/82
DEPT.
TITLE: AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
-64(E) - WERSCHING
HO.
ATTY
CITY
og
oo
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council
direct the Attorney's Office to prepare documents DENYING
GPA-64(E).
ITEM EXPLANATION
This is an appeal of a Planning Commission decision which was
made on November 3 denying both the negative declaration and the
applicant's request to change the Land Use Element of the General
Plan from Residential Low Medium Density (RLM) to Community
Commercial (C) for property located at the northeast corner of El
Camino Real and future College Boulevard.
Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending denial of the
proposal because the site cannot meet the city's arterial street
spacing policy on El Camino Real nor on College Boulevard and
because the proposal is premature until more definite area wide
circulation plans are determined. It is recommended that the
applicant initiate a more comprehensive study involving the
adjoining, affected property owners to determine possible access
and circulation patterns. For future information, please see the
attached Planning Commission staff report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration was issued by.the Land Use Planning
Manager but was not approved by the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission felt that road alignments for this area and .
associated environmental impacts should be addressed before any *•
decisions to change the land use for the area are considered.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Should the City Council wish to approve this General Plan
Amendment, it would be necessary for the Council to first approve
the Negative Declaration, finding that the project will not have
a significant impact on the environment and then, secondly,
direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare documents APPROVING
GPA-64(E).
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no direct fiscal impacts on the city from approval
of this amendment to the general plan.
EXHIBITS
1. Location Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026
3. Planning Commission Staff Report w/attachments.
4. Environmental Documents
LOCAT1OM MAP
RANCHO
APPLtCAMT WEIGHING
GPA-84(E)
CHy of
WbH No.
__'/e.
2
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM LOW-MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMUNITY-COMMERCIAL FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO
REAL AND FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT: WERSCHING
CASE NO.; GPA-64(E)
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the genera
plan designation for certain property located as shown on Exhibit
"A", dated October 12, 1982, attached and incorporated herein, have
been filed with the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified applications constitute a request for
amendment as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 27th day of
October, 1982, and on the 3rd day of November, 1982, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said
requests; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing, and considering
all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be
heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the
«
general plan amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of tt
City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That in view of the findings made and considering the applicab
law, the decision of the Planning Commission is to DENY
GPA-64(E), as shown on Exhibit "A", dated October 12, 1982.
Findings:
1) That an adverse traffic impact will result from approval of th
proposed redesignation.
17
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
i^
2) That approval could be detrimental to the City's Circulation
Element as the proposed project would not meet the City's
arterial spacing policies.
3) That the project as proposed could be detrimental to the
health and safety of the residents of Carlsbad and neighboring
communities .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plan-
ning Commission of
27th day of October
the following vote,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
>*\
'vVVu^vru^PmW^A
MICHAEL J."H®LZMlirL
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the
, 1982, and on the 3rd day of November, 1982, by
to wit:
Chairman Farrow, Commissioners Schlehuber,
Rombotis, Rawlins, Jose, and Friedstedt.
None .
Commissioner Marcus.
None.I
WJi^^**3~\$rj&b^^
VERNOft J. FARROW, JR.^ Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMOTION
K
j~\/~\
flJMjiA^2-^
ER,
LAND USB PLANNING MANAGER
PC RESO NO. 2026
IS
.2
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE
MAR 20, 1982.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 27, 1982
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Land Use Planning Office
SUBJECT: GPA-64(E) - WERSCHING - Request to amend the land use
element from low-medium density residential (RLM) to
community-commercial (C).
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting that the Land Use Element of the
General Plan be amended to redesignate two contiguous parcels of
property (17.5 acres and 2 acres) located at the northeast corner
of El Camino Real and future College Boulevard. The site is
presently designated low-medium density (RLM) residential (0-4
du's/acre). The request is for a community-commercial (C)
designation.
Presently, much of the property is in agriculture (that area
immediately south of present Sunny Creek Road). The remainder is
vacant. 'Surrounding land uses include low-medium density
residential uses to the north, east and west, and a combination
community-commercial/office/high density residential designation
to the south (vacant). Topographically, the site is not extreme.
It slopes mildly down from the south to a fairly wide valley
bottom (agriculture area) at the northern end of the site. Over
50% of the site is flat. Future College Boulevard will follow
the southern property line.'
II. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1. Is the proposed general plan designation of community-commer-
cial the most appropriate for the site?
2. Will the proposed change in land use have a detrimental
effect on the traffic flow for El Camino Real and College
Boulevard?
III. DISCUSSION
From purely a land use perspective, staff feels that the proposed
designation of community-commercial is appropriate for the site.
El Camino Real is designated a prime arterial in the circulation
element of the general plan. As such, daily traffic volumes are
expected to be very high. Extensive residential designations
shown on the Land Use Element of the General Plan on both sides
of this highway has alerted staff to the fact that additional
conveniently located commercial uses may be necessary to accom-
modate the vast residential areas in this vicinity. While
discouraging strip commercial development, the gerieral plan
indicates that sites
located at arterial intersections (such as at El Camino Real and
College Boulevard) are generally good locations to accommodate
neighborhood and community-commercial uses. This site also meets
the other general plan criteria necessary for community-commer-
cial use which includes adequate parcel size and a large enough
market area.
The subject site is relatively flat and of sufficient size to
accommodate commercial uses. Across future College Boulevard
from this site (southeast corner), the property is designated to
allow some community-commercial development (amount controlled by
specific plan). With the large and numerous residential
developments approved and projected (Calavera Hills, Carlsbad
Highlands, etc.) northerly along College Boulevard, staff feels
that the need exists for commercial development somewhere in this
area.
The site, however, is not a desirable commercial location with
regard to potential traffic impacts. The property is of
insufficient length (along future College Avenue) to meet the
City's intersection spacing policies. The City Engineer feels
that a high traffic generator (such as community-commercial)
would greatly impact the efficiency of the signalized
intersection at El Camino Real and College Boulevard. A
memorandum, dated October 6, 1982, from the City Engineer details
staff's opinion on this matter. This memo is attached to the end
of this staff report.
Should the applicant develop a design satisfying the staff that
these traffic problems can be mitigated, staff would recommend
approval of the project. Until an adequate circulation plan for
this whole area is established, approval is premature. Staff has
also began looking for more suitable sites for commercial devel-
opment in this area.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project
will not have a significant impact on the environment and,
therefore, issued a Negative Declaration on July 29, 1982.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission APPROVE the
Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager and
ADOPT Resolution No. 2026 DENYING GPA-64(E).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from City Engineer dated October 6, 1982
2. P.C. Resolution No. 2026
3. Location Map (Exhibit "A" dated October 12, 1982)
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Disclosure Form
6. Environmental Documents
PJK/ar
10/21/82 -2-
RECEIVEDOCTOBER 6, 1982
OCT 0 n
TO: PAUL KLUKAS, ASSISTANT PLANNER " U ^
FROM: Richard Allen, City Engineer CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planni ^ ^ T ment
SUBJECT: WERSHING PROPERTY (GPA-62E)
The proposed GPA from RL-M to General Commercial causes the Engineering Depart-
ment concern for two reasons:
1. Interruption of the flow of traffic:
El Camino Real is a prime arterial and as such is designed to move large volumes
of traffic through the City at high speeds. Estimates of the ultimate traffic
volume on this street are at least 38,000 vehicles per day. Both Circulation
Element of the General Plan and Engineering Design Standards require street
intersections on El Camino Real to be no closer than one-half mile and prohibit
access to the street from driveways.
College Boulevard is a major arterial with an estimated ultimate traffic volume
of at least 24,000 vehicles per day. Intersection spacing should be no less
than 1200 feet and driveway access is prohibited. Intersection spacing closer
than 1200 feet may be considered rf a "T" intersection is used. The property
on the east side of College Boulevard is already zoned for some commercial and,
due to geographical constraints may be required to have a street intersection
closer than 1200 feet from El Camino Real. If this turns out to be necessary,
it would be desirable to have the first intersection to the west about 1800 feet
or more from El Camino Real and have both of these intersections be "T's." A
signalized four-way intersection less than 1200 feet from El Camino Real will
reduce capacity and speed on the street, create operational problems and poten-
tially increase accidents.
Changing this property from residential to commercial will put enormous pressure
on the City to grant accesses onto the two arterials in violation of our standards,
Driveways on arterials and intersection spacing less than our standard reduce
the capacity of the street.
2. Increase in traffic volume:
Assuming this 18-acre parcel was fully developed to the maximum density permitted
by the RL-M designation, 760 trips would be generated by this site. If the site
were all office, approximately 5700 trips would be generated and if it were all
commercial, up to 15,000 trips might be generated depending on the exact type of
use. Therefore, the potential exists to increase traffic by as much as 20 times
if the general plan is changed.
Page -2-
WERSHING PROPERTY (GPA-62E)
October 6, 1982
.iThe potential increase is significant because with traffic projections from the
existing general plan, we are already estimating a failino level of service at
El Camino Real anr1 Palomar Airport Road. The intersection of College Boulevard
and El Camino Real is recommended for special design (extra lanes) in the
Circulation Element Study just completed due to the high volumes of left turns
anticipated. The increase in traffic at the corner site coupled with reduced
intersection spacing would have an adverse impact on the level of service of
this intersection.
Conclusion:
The Engineering Department recommends that the proposed general plan amendment
be denied.
RICHARD ALLEN
RHA:mmt
C: Dave Hauser
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: GPA-64(E)
APPLICANT: Wersching
.1
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request to change general plan designation from low-
medium density residential to cxanmunity-commercial
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Tract B of Rancho Agua Hedionda according to Map
No, 823 filed on November 16, 1896. APN; 209-060-32 & 37
Acres 19.2 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 2
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RLM
Density Allowed 0-4 du/ac Density Proposed N/A
Existing Zone A-1(8) Co. Proposed Zone None at this time
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
Site A-1(8) Co. Agriculture
North A-1(8) Co. Vacant
SouthA-1(8) Co. Vacant
East A-1(8) Co. Vacant
West E-1-A Co. Vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's N/A
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated March 29, 1982
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
X Negative Declaration, issued July 20, 1982
E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other,
If after the information you have submitted has been reviewed, it is determined
Lhat further information i" required, you will be so advi-sed.
APPLICANT: Jakob and Maria Wersching
AGENT:
MEMBERS;
Name (individual, partnership., joint venture, corporation, syndication)
^0772 Via La Cresta, Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90274
Business Address
(213) 377-87-3
Telephons Nuober
John P. Shook, of Shook, Bunkerly, Thompson and Anderson
Name . .
2276 Torrance Blvd., Torrance, Ca. 90274. .
Business Address • • .!'"'-
(213)" 320-9742 - . ' ' . ' " - ' -
Telephone Nunber
Hane -(individual, partner, joint:
venture, corporation, syndication)
Kcrae Address
Business Address
Teleohona Nusiber Telephone Number
Eoine- Address
Business Address
Teieohon* NuaJbsr Telephone iiurabar
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis-
closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and rcay be'
relied upon as being true and correct until amended.
^ Ar^e-nt^ C-..-p.er,_ Partnf
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
D Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
D Building Department
(714) 438-5525
D Engineering Department
(714) 438-5541
D Housing & Redevelopment Department
3096 Harding St.
(714)438-5611
yf Planning Department
(714)438-5591
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
€ity of Carlsbab
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION:
Future College Boulevard.
Northeast corner of El Camino Real and
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the land use element of the
General Plan to change the designation on the above described
property from low-medium density residential to community commercial.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an enviroranental 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, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad,
CA. 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit
comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of
date of issuance.
\
DATED: July 20, 1982
CASE NO: GPA-62 (E)
APPLICANT: Wersch ing
PUBLISH DATE: July 24, 1982
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Land Use Planning Manager
ND-4
5/81
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
D Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
n Building Department
(714) 438-5525
D Engineering Department
(714) 438-5541
Q Housing & Redevelopment Department
3096 Harding St. '
(714)438-5611
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Cttp of CarMmb
Planning Department
(714) 438-5591 PUBLIC NOTICE OF PREPARATION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
The Planning Department of the City of Carlsbad intends to prepare a
Negative Declaration for the following project:
Project Description: An amendment to the land use element of the
General Plan to change the designation on the below described
property from low-medium density residential to community commercial.
Project address/Location:
future College Boulevard.
Northeast corner of El Camino Real and
Anticipated significant impacts: None
We need to know your ideas about the effect this project might have
on the environment and your suggestions for ways the project could be
revised to reduce or avoid any significant environmental damage.
Your ideas will help us decide what issues to analyze in the environ-
mental review of this project.
Your comments on the environmental impact* of the proposed project may
be submitted in writing to the Planning Department, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA 92008, no later than July 21, 1982..
DATED: June 30, 1982
CASE NO: GPA-62(E)
MICHAEL J.
APPLICANT: Wersching Land Use Planning Manager
PUBLISH DATE: July 3, 1982 ND 3
5/81
Ft. $10.0.00
RECEIPT NO:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - Part I
(To be Completed by APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE: March 29. 1982
Applicant1 Jakob and Maria Wersching
Address of Applicant: 30772 Via La Cresta
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90274
Phone Number: (213) 377 8703
Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than Applicant):
John P. Shook, Attorney, 2276 Torrance Blvd.f Torrance, Ca. 90501
213 320-9742
.GENERAL INFORMATION;
Description of Project: Change approx. 19.5 acres from low medium density
residential to office and community commercial
Project Location/ Address: El Caraino Real a,nd Sunny Creek Road
Assessor Parcel Number: 209 _ 060 1 37 and 209-060-32
Zone of Subject Property: LOW medium densit
Proposed Use of Site: Office and community commercial
List all other applicable applications related to this project: none
ND 1
EIR1
2. Describe the activity area, including distinguishing
natural and mamivade characteristics? als9 provide precise
K~ *v fclSPS analysis,whan, appropriate. '•F1 Camino Real is a naturalboundry Between the industriar^odmercial Business Park to be developed
south of El Camino Real and the residential community to the north of
El Camino Real. The 19.5 acres will•provide £ laraer buffer zone between
the Industrial Commercial area.. Approx. 50 acres east of the subject
property are similary zoned, Community Commercial providing a buffer
zone between the industrial and the residential
' 3. -Describe energy conservation measures incorporated into
the design and/or operation of the project. (For a more
' ' specific discussion of" energy conservation requirements
see ' of the City's EIR Guidelines).
None in particular at this General Plan Amendment stage
If residential, include the number of units, schedule of
\init sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of
household size expected.
n/a
5. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood,
city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area,
. i. id loading facilities. . ;
Facilities are going to be neighborhood related office and
commerial, no specific design* available at present
6. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per
shift, and loading facilities.
n/a ' '• "
If .institutional, indicate the major function, estimated
employment per shift,, estimated occupancy, loading
facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the
project.
n/a . • •
I. ENVIRONMENTAL 'IMPACT ANALYSIS
Answer the following questions by placing a check in the
' appropriate space. (Discuss all -items checked yes. Attach
additional sheets as necessary)..
YES NO
1) Could the project significantly change present
'land uses in the vicinity of the activity? xx
2) Could the activity affect the use of a rec-
reational area, or area of important •
aesthetic value? - xx
3) Could the activity affect the functioning of
an established community or neighborhood? xx
4) Could the activity result in the displacement
• of community residents? . • xx
5) Could the activity increase the number of low
•and moderate cost housing units in the city? xx
6) Could the activity decrease the number of low
and modest cost housing units in the city? xx
7) Are any of the natural or man-made features
in the activity araa unique, that is, net'
found in other parts of the County, State,
or Nation? . ' xx
8) Could the activity significantly affect a
historical or archaeological site or its VVsettings? • - •
9) Could the activity significantly affect the
potential use, extraction, or conservation
of a scarce natural resource?
10) Does the activity area serve as a habitat,
food source nesting plr.ce, source'of water,
etc. for rare or endangered wildlife on fish xx
species?
11) Could the activity significantly affect fish,
wildlife or plant life? ; xx
•12) Are there any rare cr endangered, .plant
species in the activity area? . xx
13) Could the activity change existing features
of any of ' Lho city's lagoons, bays, or
tidelancls? xx
14) Could the activity change existing features of
any of the city's beaches? ' xx
15) Could the activity result in the -erosion or
elimination of agricultural lands? xx
16) Could the activity serve to encourage develop-
ment of presently undeveloped areas or intesify
development of already developed areas? ' • xx
17). Will the activity require a variance from
established environmental standards (air, water, '^_ _ xx
noise, etc)? '
18) Will the activity require certification, •
authorization or issuance of a permit by any
local, state cr federal environmental control
agency? "
19) Will the. activity require issuance of a
variance or conditional use permit by the city? _ xx
20) Will the activity involve the application, use,
or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? xx
21) . Will the activity involve construction of
facilities in a flood plain? . • ^x
22) Will the activity involve construction of
facilities ou a slope -of 25 percent or greater? '_ ; ; xx
23) Will the activity involve construction of" "VX"facilities in the area of an active fault? -
24) Could the activity result in the generation
. of significant amounts of noise? ' ______ X2L_
25) Coxild the activity result in the generation
of significant amounts of dust? X2__
26) Will the activity involve the burning of brush,
trees, or other materials? ________ xx
27) Could the activity result in a significant
change in the quality of any por-tion of the
region's air or water resources? (Should note,
surface, ground water, off-shore) . , ' ______ x____
28) Will the project substantially increase fuel
consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas,
etc.) ? xx
29) Will there be a significant change to existing
land form? xx
-4-
(a) indicate estimated grading to be done in
cubic yards n/^ ; - .'
(b) percentage of alteration to the present
land form n/a
(c) maximum height of cut or fill slopes
n/a ':
30) "Will the activity result in substantial increases
in the use of utilities, sewers, drains, or
streets?
31) Is the activity carried out as part of a larger
project or series of projects? "
• 5—
. 31
II. STATEMENT OF NON-SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions
in Section I but you think the activity will have no
significant environmental effects, indicate your reasons
below:
III. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF'TOE QUESTIONS IN SECTION I
(If additional space is needed for answering any questions
attach additional sheets as may be needed).
Signature
(Pefsbn 'completing reportJ
Jakob T/7erschi
Signature
n . c. , / / JOKH PT SHOOK March 29, 1982Date Signed / / ' •
-6-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC1" ASSESSMENT FORM - Part II
(To Be Completed By The . •
PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO.
I. BACKGROUND
i. APPLICANT:
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: -> 377 '
\IA LA
CA.
3. DATE CHECKLIST SUBMITTED:_
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
TEXFLAXATIONS 0? ALL AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS ARE TO BE WRITTEN UNDER
Section III - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION)
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth Will the proposal have signi-
ficant results in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, com-
paction or overcovcring of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or
modification of any \mique geologic
or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, cither on or off
the site? ____ V
f. Changes in deposition or ero-
sion of beach sands, or changes
in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the- '
ocean or any hay, inlet or lake? • • X,
ND 2
Yes Maybe No
2. Air: Will the proposal have signi-
resuits in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
c. Alteration of air movement,
mositure or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
3. Water: Will the proposal have sigi-
ficant results in:
a. Changes in currents, or the
course or direction of water move-
ments, in either marine or fresh
waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or
flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of sur-
face water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not
limited to temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction
or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of
ground waters, cither through
direct additions or-withdrawals,
or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
.h. Reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
-2-
'Yes Maybe No
Plant Life. Will the proposal have signi-
ficant results In:
a. Change in the diversity of
species, or numbers of any species
of plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora and
aquatic plants)? . _ _ X
b. Reduction of the numbers of
any unique, rare or endangered
species of plants? _ _ ^
c. Introduction of new species
of plants into an area, or in a
barrier to the normal replenish-
ment of existing species? _ _ X
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop? __ _ _____ X
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal have signi-
ficant results In:
a, Gianges in the diversity of
species, or numbers of any species
of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shell-
fish, benthic organisms, insects or
microf auna) ? • . _ _ _ X
b. Reduction of the numbers of
any unique, rare or endangered
species of animals? -
c. Introduction of new species
of animals into an area, or result
in a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing
fish or wildlife habitat? " , _ _ X
6, Noise. Will the proposal signi-
ficantly increase existing noise
levels? _ _ _ X
7- Light nnd Glare. Will the pro-
. posnl significantly produce new
light or glare? • '
8. L^nd Use. Will the proposal have
signli." leant rc.su] Is in the alteration
of the- present or planned land use of ,
an area? ~A>
Yes Maybe No
9. Natural Resources. Will the pro-
posal have significant results in: •
a. Increase in the rate of use
of any natural resources?
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource? X
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal
involve a significant risk of an
explosion or the release of haz-
ardous substances (including, but
not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the
event of an accident or upset
conditions? / ' X
11. Population. Will the proposal
slgniFicantly alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth
rate of the. human population of .
an area? /s
12. Housing. Will the proposal signi-
ficantly affect existing housing,
or create .a demand for additional
housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation.' Will
tnlPproposal have significant re-
sults in:
a. Generation of additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking
facilities, or demand for new
parking?
c. Impact upon existing trans-
portation systems?
d. Alterations to present
patterns of circulation or move-
ment of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterbomc,
rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards
to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
-4-
Yes Maybe No
14. Public Services. Will the pro-
posal have a significant effect
upon, or have significant results
in the need for new or altered
governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facili-
ties, including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of
fuel or energy?
b. Demand tipon existing sources
of energy, or require the develop-
ment of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal have
significant results in the need for
new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems? -
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e,. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17.. Himtinjleolth. Will the proposal
-have signij1,Tcnnt results in the
creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard [excluding
mental health)?
-5-37
• Yes Maybe No
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have
significant results in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic, vista or view
open to the public, or will the pro-
posal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open
to public view? X
19- Recreation. Will the proposal have
significant results in the impact
upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities? ^
20' Archep]ogjc al/Hi s tor ica1. Will the
proposal have significant results
in the alteration of a significant
archeological or historical site, ,
structure, object or building? ^
21. ANALYZE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJFCT SUCH AS:
a) PMASlfD DEYrEOPMiiNT Cl; THE PROJECT; b) ALTERNATE SITE
DESIGNS; c) ALTERNATE SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT; d) ALTERNATE
• USES EOR HIE SITE; e) DEVELOPMENT AT SOME FUTURE TINE RATHER
THAN NOW; Q ALTERNATE SITES FOR THE PROPOSED USE; g) NO
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE.
NO
.)
Yes . Maybe No
22. M-\NDATCRY FPIPINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) DOES TIC PROJECT I I/WE THE POTEN-
TIAL TO DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT, OR CURTAIL THE
DIVERSITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT?
b) DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTEN-
TIAL TO ACHIEVE SHORT-TERM, TO
THE DISADVANTAGE OF LONG-TERM,
ENVIRON"MENTAL GOALS? (A SHORT-
TERM IMPACT ON TIE ENVIRONMENT
is OXE vaiicn OCCURS IN A RE-
LATIVELY BRIEF, DEFINITIVE
PERIOD OF TIME MULE LONG-TERM
IMPACTS WILL ENDURE WELL INTO v
THE FUTURE.) -A
c) DOES THE PROJECT HAVE IMPACTS
WHICH ARE INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED,
BUT CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE?
(A PROJECT MAY IMPACT ON TWO
OR MORE SEPARATE RESOURCES
WHERE THE IMPACT ON EACH RE-
SOURCE IS RELATIVELY SMALL,
BUT V.I ERE THE EFFECT OF THE
TOTAL OF THOSE IMPACTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT IS SIGNIFICANT.)
d) DOES THE PROJECT HAVE ENVIRON-
MENTAL EFFECTS W-IICII WILL
.-CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE
EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINGS,
EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY?
III.-' DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUTION
IAWI> ose Qo ^ - &Gi*, of
AC.
1b
-7-
mgnLSSTON OF L-NVTRONN1ENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
is
ffU»J6 1W
ft*«
AJ A
-8-
IV. DETERMINATION. (TO BE COMPLETED BY TIE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a 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 conditional negative declaration will
will be .prepared.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required.
Date: fc
signature
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
-9-
MITIGATING MPASURHS ' (Ccmunuecl)
VI APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATIONG MEA-
SURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date: '
, Signature of Applicant
-10-