Loading...
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-