HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-08-02; Planning Commission; ; GPA/LU 89-02|LCPA 89-01|ZCA 89-01 - CITY OF CARLSBADDATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I.
August 2, 1989
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
-·,
AIICATION COMPLETE DATE:
May 17, 1989
GPA/LU 89-2/LCPA 89-1/ZCA 89-1 . ..-1 CITY OF CARLSBAD -An Amendment to
the .General Plan, Local Coastal Plan and Zoning Code to prohibit
on-shore oil and gas support facilities except upon the City Council
making certain findings.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 2898
APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2899, 2900, and 2901, approving GPA/LU 89-
2, LCPA 89-1, and ZCA 89-1 based on the findings contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, all six
segments of the Local Coastal Plan, and the Zoning Code were initiated by the
City Council on March 21, 1989. The Council on that date adopted a resolution
declaring its intent to consider amending the above documents to prohibit on-
shore oil and gas support facilities unless they are found to be compatible with
the plans, policies and ordinances of the City. Council also directed the
Planning Director to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for public
hearing and recommendation to the Council. On-shore oil and gas support
facilities include, but are not limited to processing plants, refineries, storage
facilities, transfer stations, pipelines, warehouses, offices, tanker terminals
and helicopter pads. The amendments include six proposed findings that must be
made by the Council in order for such facilities to be permitted. Generally the
findings deal with compatibility with the neighborhood, the potential threat of
damage or injuries to nearby residents, possible adverse environmental effects,
and whether the project is permitted in the underlying zone.
The proposed Zoning Code Amendment would prohibit on-shore oil and gas facilities
in all zones except C-M (Heavy-Commercial-Limited Industrial), M (Industrial),
and P-M (Planned Industrial). In those zones such facilities would require a
planned industrial permit pursuant to Chapter 21.34 and a conditional use permit
pursuant to Chapter 21.50.
The proposed amendment to all six segments of the Local Coastal Plan was made
available for a six-week public review period. That review period started on
May 24, 1989 and ended July 5, 1989. An oversized public notice of the proposed
amendment was published in the Blade Tribune. Six letters have been received
all in support of the proposed amendments.
61v
..
CITY OF CARLSBAD • GPA/LU 89-2/LCPA 89-1/ZCA 89-1
August 2, 1989
PAGE 2
III. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1. Does the proposed amendment provide adequate pol icy justification for
prohibiting on-shore oil and gas support facilities?
2. Does the proposed amendment include findings which address the locational
concerns associated with on-shore oil and gas support facilities?
3. Will the proposed zone code amendment provide adequate controls for the
siting and review of such facilities should they be proposed?
DISCUSSION
A. General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Plan Amendment
The proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Local
Coastal Plans would prohibit on-shore oil and gas support facilities except upon
the City Council finding that all of the proposed six findings are true. The
amendment includes policy language stating why such facilities are prohibited
such as that they present adverse environmental impacts which may include
catastrophic environmental damage to the marine ecosystem. In addition, further
adverse environmental impacts as increased air pollution, water pollution, noise,
traffic, visual, scenic and aesthetic impacts may occur as the result of such
facilities.
The City Attorney is recommending that the amendment not absolutely prohibit on-
shore facilities as litigation is pending on whether it is legally permissible
to do so. The proposed amendment provides certain administrative remedies which
must be exhausted prior to resorting to the courts for judicial relief. This
includes the City Council making all of the proposed six findings. The language
for the amendment to each of the six local coastal plans is identical to that
proposed for the General Plan.
B. Zone Code Amendment
As stated previously, the proposed Zone Code Amendment would prohibit on-shore
oil and gas facilities in all zones except C-M, Mand P-M. In those zones a
conditional use permit would be required. The findings required to be made to
grant a conditional use permit are found at Section 21.42.020 of the Zoning Code.
In addition five findings are proposed specifically for on-shore support
facilities. By limiting the potential location for such uses to the three zoning
districts specified there is less likelihood for land use conflicts to occur.
The findings required to be made to site such facilities require the evaluation
of potential environmental, land use, and health and safety impacts of proposed
facilities. Being able to make all of the required findings for a specific site
will be difficult. This will serve to discourage such facilities and assure that
all of the potential impacts associated with such uses are evaluated should they
be proposed.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GPA/LU 89-2/LCPA 89-1/ZCA 89-1
August 2, 1989
PAGE 3
SUMMARY
The proposed amendments do not completely prohibit on-shore support facilities.
This is a result of pending 1 it i gat ion on whether or not 1 oca 1 absolute
prohibitions against on-shore facilities are legally permissible. The proposed
amendments provide policy direction and a regulatory means of restricting to the
greatest extent possible, the areas in which these facilities may locate given
the current legal parameters. All proposed on-shore oil and gas support
facilities would require the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in addition
to making the proposed findings. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend APPROVAL of the amendments to the City Council.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the proposed amendments will not have
a significant impact on the environment and, therefore, has issued a Negative
Declaration on June 7, 1989.
ATTACHMENTS
I. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2898
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2899
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2900
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2901
5. Comments Received
6. Local Coastal Program segments boundary map
DN:lh
July 6, 1989
ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA---OFFICE OF THE GOVE.
, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
l\lr. Don Neu
Ci ly of Carlsbad
2075 Las Pal111tis Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
,Jul\/ 7, I !IH~
Subject: On-Shore Oil & Gas Support Facilities Plan & Code Amendments/ SCH# 89060719
Dear Mr. Neu:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental docwnent to
selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and
none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowlejges that you
have complied with the State Clearinghouse review require~epts for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the C~lifornia Envlrorunenlal Quality
A.ct.
Please call Garrett Ashley at 916/445-0613 if you have any q11estions
regarding the environmental review process. W~en contacting the
Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight---digit State Clearinghouse
number so that we may respond promptly.
Sincerely,
~-~~
fuvid C. Nunenkamp
Chief
Office of Permit Assistance
-
Cit~ of
-
Carlsbad
PbtHHIH t:Je at-tt11eht
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: City of Carlsbad
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An Amendment to the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan and
Zoning Ordinance to prohibit on-shore oil and gas support facilities except upon
the City Council making certain findings.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City
of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration
that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby
issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaratiqn with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments
from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning
Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: June 7, 1989
CASE NO: GPA 89-2/ZC 89-1/
LCPA 89-1
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
PUBLISH DATE: June 7, 1989
DN:af
'l1llL;. (
MICHAEL
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161
--ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM -PART II
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. GPA 89-2/ZCA 89-1/
LCPA 89-1
DATE: MAY 26, 1989
I . BACKGROUND
1.
2.
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad CA 92009
(619) 438-1161
3 • DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: May 17, 1989
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written
under Section III -Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
1. Earth -Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Unstable earth conditions
or in changes in geologic
substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements,
compaction or overcovering
of the soil?
c. Ch~nge in topography or ground
surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering of
modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or
off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel or a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
MAYBE
X
X
X
X
X
X
2. Air -Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
c. Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
3. Water -Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements,
in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patters, 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 surface
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, either 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-
MAYBE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4. Plant Life -Will the proposal
have significant results in:
5.
6.
7.
8.
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
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 replenishment of existing
species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop?
Animal Life -Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including reptiles,
fish and shellfish, benthic organisms,
insects or microfauna)?
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?
Noise -Will the proposal significantly
increase existing noise levels?
Light and Glare -Will the proposal sig-
nificantly produce new light or glare?
Land Use -Will the proposal have
significant results in the alteration of
the present or planned land use of an
area?
-3-
YES MAYBE NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9. Natural Resources -Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset -Does the proposal
involve a significant risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
11. Population -Will the proposal signif-
icantly alter the location, distribu-
tion, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
12. Housing -Will the proposal signif-
icantly affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation -Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular
movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d. Alter~tions to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
-4-
MAYBE NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14. Public Services -Will the proposal have
15.
a significant effect upon, or have signif-
icant 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 facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
Energy -Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development
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.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
17.
Power or natural gas?
Communications systems?
Water?
sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health -Will the proposal have
significant results in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health
hazard (excluding mental health)?
-5-
MAYBE NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MAYBE NO
18. Aesthetics -Will the proposal have
significant results in the obstruction
of any scenic vista or view open to the
public, or will the proposal result in
creation of an aesthetically offensive
public view?
19. Recreation -Will the proposal have
significant results in the impact upon
the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. Archeological/Historical/Paleontological
-Will the proposal have significant
results in the alteration of a significant
archeological, paleontological or
historical site, structure, object or
building?
21. Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed project such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs,
X
X
X
c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter-
nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
a) The project consists of proposed General Plan, Local Coastal Plan,
and Zoning Ordinance Amendments which would prohibit on-shore oil
and gas support facilities unless the City Council makes all of
the six proposed findings developed for such uses. Proposed
facilities would be subject to review through either a Planned
Industrial Permit or a Conditional Use Permit dependent upon the
particular zone. Since there are no applications presently
pending for such facilities there is no reason to phase the
applicability of the amendments.
b) The proposed project does not include a site design or design
standards, therefore, alternative designs were not evaluated.
c) A specific construction project is not proposed as part of this
project. Because of this an alternate scale of development cannot
be evaluated.
d) A site specific project is not a part of this project. As a
result alternate uses for a specific site could not be evaluated.
-6-
Question 21 (Continued). -•
e) Adoption of the proposed amendments at some future time would not
be beneficial as exploration and drilling for oil off the
Carlsbad Coast could occur in the near future should the federal
government lease those tracts. The proposed amendments will
prevent adverse environmental impacts associated with related on-
shore support facilities unless the City Council finds among
other things that there are no feasible alternatives and that the
project's benefits clearly outweigh the possible adverse
environmental effects. In addition, the amendment provides a
means to review such proposals for those zones where it may be
permitted.
f) Alternative sites were not evaluated since a specific site is not
proposed for development.
g) The no project alternative would result in the City not adopting
policies directed at on-shore oil and gas support facilities and
not providing a process within which such proposals can be
reviewed. Therefore, the no project alternative has no
environmental advantage.
MAYBE NO
22. Mandatory findings of significance -
a. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory.
b. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
-7-
X
X
c. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively con-
siderable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual 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.)
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
X
X
The proposed amendments will reduce the potential for adverse environmental
effects which can be caused by on-shore suport facilities. Such adverse
effects can include increased air pollution, water pollution, traffic,
noise, visual, scenic and aesthetic impacts.
II.1. Earth:
The proposed project, consisting of various code and plan amendments,
contemplates no grading.
II. 3 Water:
The proposal will not impact existing drainage courses or change absorption
rates.
II.4 Plant Life; 5. Animal Life:
No impact to plant or animal life will occur as the proposed amendments do
not include development of a particular site.
II. 8 Land Use
The proposed amendments will prevent to the greatest extent possible the
alteration of the planned land use of areas designated for Heavy commercial-
Limited Industrial, Industrial, and Planned Industrial Development. This
will be accomplished by prohibiting the establishment of on-shore support
facilities except upon the Council making the proposed findings and granting
a Planned Industrial Permit or Conditional Use Permit depending upon the
zone of the property.
Rev. 12/88
-8-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENT.EVALUATION (Continued) -
II.9 Natural Resources
The proposal will assist in the preservation of natural resources by
reducing the potential for adverse environmental impacts related to on-shore
support facilities.
II.12 Housing
The proposed amendment will not create a demand for additional housing since
prohibiting on-shore support facilities will not create job opportunities
resulting in increasing the need for housing.
II.18 Aesthetics:
The amendments provide a review process for on-shore support facilities
which enables future environmental review to take place for visual impacts.
II.19 Recreation
The proposed amendments will protect the quality and quantity of
recreational opportunities by prohibiting on-shore oil and gas support
facilities unless specified conditions are found to exist. The review
process for such facilities will provide for consideration of impacts to
recreation areas such as public beaches and related uses.
-9-
IV. DETERMINATION (To Be.ompleted By The Planning !artment)
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 be proposed.
___ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
7 'Date Signature
Date
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-10-
-MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued)
VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
-11-
EXHIBIT "A"
DATED AUGUST 2, 1989
MELLO I SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
SECTION ACTION
2. Standard Pacific (p. 3) Add Policy 6: Onshore
Oil and Gas Support
Facilities.
3. Occidential Land, Inc. (p. 8) Add Policy 5: Onshore
Oil and Gas Support
Facilities.
4. Rancho La Costa (Hunt Properties) (p. 18) Add Policy 7: Onshore
Oil and Gas Support
Facilities.
Proposed Policy: ON-SHORE OIL AND GAS SUPPORT FACILITIES
Since the location and maintenance of on-shore oil and gas support facilities
including, but not limited to, processing plants, refineries, storage facilities,
transfer stations, pipelines, warehouses, offices, tanker facilities, helicopter
pads and other support facilities present adverse environmental impacts which
may include catastrophic environmental damage to the marine ecosystem along
Carlsbad's coastline and such further adverse environmental impacts as increased
air pollution, water pollution, noise, traffic, visual, scenic and aesthetic
adverse impacts, such on-shore facilities are prohibited except upon a finding
by the City Council that all of the following are true:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(f)
Approval of the proposed project and facilities will pose no danger
to life and property to residents of the neighborhood, community or
City.
Approval of the proposed project will not pose a potential threat
of damage or injuries to nearby residents.
The benefits of the proposed project clearly outweigh the possible
adverse environmental effects.
There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed_project.
The location and approval of the on-shore facilities at the
particular location clearly outweigh any potential harm to public
health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood or community and will
not be detrimental or injurious to property in the neighborhood,
community or to the general welfare of the City, and
The proposed project is permitted within the underlying zone.
-EXHIBIT 11 811
DATED AUGUST 2, 1989
MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
SECTION
9. Exhibits
Create new Section 9
ACTION
Change to Section 10.
Exhibits.
Title new Section 9.
Onshore Oil and Gas
Support Facilities
and establish
Pol icy 9-1.
Proposed Policy 9-1 ONSHORE OIL AND GAS SUPPORT FACILITIES PROHIBITED
Since the location and maintenance of on-shore oil and gas support facilities
including, but not limited to, processing plants, refineries, storage facilities,
transfer stations, pipelines, warehouses, offices, tanker facilities, helicopter
pads and other support facilities present adverse environmental impacts which
may include catastrophic environmental damage to the marine ecosystem along
Carlsbad's coastline and such further adverse environmental impacts as increased
air pollution, water pollution, noise, traffic, visual, scenic and aesthetic
adverse impacts, such on-shore facilities are prohibited except upon a finding
by the City Council that all of the following are true:
(a) Approval of the proposed project and facilities will pose no danger
to life and property to residents of the neighborhood, community or
City.
(b) Approval of the proposed project will not pose a potential threat
of damage or injuries to nearby residents.
(c) The benefits of the proposed project clearly outweigh the possible
adverse environmental effects.
(d) There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed project.
(e) The location and approval of the on-shore facilities at the
particular location clearly outweigh any potential harm to public
hea 1th, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood or community and will
not be detrimental or injurious to property in the neighborhood,
community or to the general welfare of the City, and
(f) The proposed project is permitted within the underlying zone.
SECTION
AGUA HEDIONDA SEGMENT OF THE
LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
III. Land Use Plan, Section 1. (p. 17)
Policy 1.ll
EXHIBIT "C"
DATED AUGUST 2, 1989
ACTION
Add po 1 icy 1. ll
Since the location and maintenance of on-shore oil and gas support facilities
including, but not limited to, processing plants, refineries, storage facilities,
transfer stations, pipelines, warehouses, offices, tanker facilities, helicopter
pads and other support facilities present adverse environmental impacts which
may include catastrophic environmental damage to the marine ecosystem along
Carlsbad's coastline and such further adverse environmental impacts as increased
air pollution, water pollution, noise, traffic, visual, scenic and aesthetic
adverse impacts, such on-shore facilities are prohibited except upon a finding
by the City Council that all of the following are true:
(a) Approval of the proposed project and f°acilities will pose no danger
to life and property to residents of the neighborhood, community or
City.
(b) Approval of the proposed project will not pose a potential threat
of damage or injuries to nearby residents.
(c) The benefits of the proposed project clearly outweigh the possible
adverse environmental effects.
(d) There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed project.
(e) The location and approval of the on-shore facilities at the
particular location clearly outweigh any potential harm to public
health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood or community and will
not be detrimental or injurious to property in the neighborhood,
community or to the general welfare of the City, and
(f) The proposed project is permitted within the underlying zone.
SECTION
EAST BATIOUITOS LAGOON/HUNT PROPERTIES
SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
EXHIBIT "D"
DATED AUGUST 2, 1989
ACTION
a. Land Uses Permitted Pursuant to a
Master Plan (Page 1)
Add the proposed amend-
ment listed below prior
to the sentence which
reads "Specifically,
the uses shall be as
follows:"
Proposed Amendment:
Since the location and maintenance of on-shore oil and gas support facilities
including, but not limited to, processing plants, refineries, storage facilities,
transfer stations, pipelines, warehouses, offices, tanker facilities, helicopter
pads and other support facilities present adverse environmental impacts which
may include catastrophic envi ronmenta 1 damage to the marine ecosystem a 1 ong
Carlsbad's coastline and such further adverse environmental impacts as increased
air pollution, water pollution, noise, traffic, visual, scenic and aesthetic
adverse impacts, such on-shore facilities are prohibited except upon a finding
by the City Council that all of the following are true:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
( f)
Approval of the proposed project and facilities will pose no danger
to life and property to residents of the neighborhood, community or
City.
Approval of the proposed project will not pose a potential threat
of damage or injuries to nearby residents.
The benefits of the proposed project clearly outweigh the possible
adverse environmental effects.
There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed project.
The location and approval of the on-shore facilities at the
particular location clearly outweigh any potential harm to public
heal th, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and genera 1 we 1 fare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood or community and will
not be detrimental or injurious to property in the neighborhood,
community or to the general welfare of the City, and
The proposed project is permitted within the underlying zone.
SECTION
Land Use (p. 5)
WEST BATIOUITOS LAGOON/SAMMIS PROPERTIES
SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
EXHIBIT "E"
DATED AUGUST 2, 1989
ACTION
Add Section R.
Onshore Oil and Gas
support facilities
Proposed Section R. Onshore Oil and Gas Support Facilities
Since the location and maintenance of on-shore oil and gas support facilities
including, but not limited to, processing plants, refineries, storage facilities,
transfer stations, pipelines, warehouses, offices, tanker facilities, helicopter
pads and other support facilities present adverse environmental impacts which
may include catastrophic environmental damage to the marine ecosystem along
Carlsbad's coastline and such further adverse environmental impacts as increased
air pollution, water pollution, noise, traffic, visual, scenic and aesthetic
adverse impacts, such on-shore facilities are prohibited except upon a finding
by the City Council that all of the following are true:
(a) Approval of the proposed project and facilities will pose no danger
to life and property to residents of the neighborhood, community or
City.
(b) Approval of the proposed project will not pose a potential threat
of damage or injuries to nearby residents.
(c) The benefits of the proposed project clearly outweigh the possible
adverse environmental effects.
(d) There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed project.
(e) The location and approval of the on-shore facilities at the
particular location clearly outweigh any potential harm to public
health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood or community and will
not be detrimental or injurious to property in the neighborhood,
community or to the general welfare of the City, and
(f) The proposed project is permitted within the underlying zone.
EXHIBIT "F"
DATED AUGUST 2, 1989
THE VILLAGE DESIGN MANUAL (REDEVELOPMENT AREA)
SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
SECTION
V. Design Guidelines for the Village
Redevelopment Area (p. 3)
ACTION
Add a new paragraph
following paragraph
three. Onshore oil
and gas support
facilities
prohibited.
Since the location and maintenance of on-shore oil and gas support facilities
including, but not limited to, processing plants, refineries, storage facilities,
transfer stations, pipelines, warehouses, offices, tanker facilities, helicopter
pads and other support facilities present adverse environmental impacts which
may include catastrophic environmental damage to the marine ecosystem along
Carlsbad's coastline and such further adverse environmental impacts as increased
air pollution, water pollution, noise, traffic, visual, scenic and aesthetic
adverse impacts, such on-shore facilities are prohibited except upon a finding
by the City Council that all of the following are true:
(a) Approval of the proposed project and facilities will pose no danger
to life and property to residents of the neighborhood, community or
City.
(b) Approval of the proposed project will not pose a potential threat
of damage or injuries to nearby residents.
(c) The benefits of the proposed project clearly outweigh the possible
adverse environmental effects.
(d) There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed project.
(e) The location and approval of the on-shore facilities at the
particular location clearly outweigh any potential harm to public
hea 1th, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood or community and will
not be detrimental or injurious to property in the neighborhood,
community or to the general welfare of the City, and
(f) The proposed project is permitted within the underlying zone.
' :
i I
i ZRa1 /JJ1. /~ /
I I I I I I
I
i
I ~ ~ .a Ji? tiif tn1ru ~
•t§ /J7f ~ /~ 1M ~A&L
~ ~ ~au ~ /4~.
fMJfH, d am ..,,tJ~ ~
~ ~ Jb.& t/S MJci t#lf c:,~
lfcUW., 1/Jd -117 ~ M~ jkl4-
.&1, ()d ~j)/tfYlatiOA.J c1J ~ AfMtn tlJt:mf, •
a;Mtiu?i .
lJ/l(t()L t1~ df/Hld &M at
t211d HJ//~ if1cm ftU fi?~
/ I I
•
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad·
2075 Las Palmas Drive
1855 S.h View Drive
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
June 30, 1989
Carlsbad, CAlifornia 92009-4859
.{:•
Re: On-shore oil and gas facilities in Carlsbad
As residents and property owners in Carlsbad,
we would like to voice our support for the
adoption of any changes in the general plan,
local coastal plan and zoning ordinances that
will protect this area from off-shore oil
drilling.
It is our hope that military, city and county
governmental bodies, the real estate and
business community and residents of the ,.,reas
that will be damaged by these proposed leases
will band together to prevent what is clearly
not in the best interest of our tourist and
agricultural business, economy arid uppeal as
a community in which to live.
'jlQ_ ~~ T.~
erely, (2 ~ n
Qd Diane L, Beard
• ,t ••I
June 1, 1989
Mr. Donald Neu, Planning Commissioner
City of Carlsbad --Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
To Whom It May Concern:
We wish to go on record RS beinR vehemently opposed tn Rny
oil drilling/exploration off the Carlsbad coast.
The records will show that, because there is always room for
human error, we do not wish to be exposed to any threat of
explosions, spillage, leakage or any other hazards that may
arise from such activity.
Furthermore, we oppose the construction of any on-shore oil
and gas facilities in Carlsbad, as might also be contemplated.
Inasmuch as the cities of Oceanside and San Diego have already
taken steps to forbid such oil/gas-related activity, we feel
that Carlsbad MUST take similar action.
We oppose Lease Sale 95! ! !
Sincerely,
{!~~Ke~~~-./
Dominic F. Colombo Constance V. Colombo
1856 Eastpointe Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Wm. & Andrea Sachs
4612 Driftwood Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92008
POOR
QUALITY
ORIGINAL S
UJI Spill
deaths t~
23,000-
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -
Dead animals are piling up in
refrigerated trailers on the coast
as officials collect evidence of
the vast damage caused by the
oil spilled from the tanker Exxon
Valdez.
The carcasses of 22,818
migratory birds, 733 sea otters
and 51 birds of prey, most of
them bald eagles, had been col-
lected, tagged and stored by
Tuesday at four coastal cities.
"It's a morbid milestone we
have reached this week; more •
than two months after the oil
spill from the Exxon Valdez, we
are still counting its victims,"
said Walter Stieglitz, Alaska
regional director of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
The gooey fingers of the spill
have drifted more than 500 miles
from Prince William Sound
across the Gulf of Alaska and
beyond Kodiak Island. About 11
million gallons of oil spilled from
gashes in the Exxon Valdez when
it ran aground March 24.
More than 70 species of birds
have been affected, the wildlife
service said. About 60 percent of
the dead birds are murres, an
upright seabird with tuxedo-like
markings.
When)
A Little
The school year may be
mer give your child a heac
S.K.I.L.L.S. (Specia
gram especially designed
with language difficulties.
The S.K.l.L.L.S. pro
arts and crafts, games, am
base. Recreational ti
into our program.
. In a
experi1
schoo
when
Spill l.:011tinue~ •
Its DevastaAg
Toll on Wildlife
From United Press International
ANCHORAGE, Alaska-The
Exxon oil spill has continued to kill
animals and devour pristine wat<'rs
off southNn Alaska, nnd officials
tracking the oil said Wednesday it
has covered 9,600 square miles.
The animal death toll also has
continued to mount. Workers have
collected 22,868 dead, oily birds and
743 sea otters, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service reported. That
represents a fraction of the wildlife
killed by the oil, and regional
director Walter Stieglitz said:
"We're still counting its victims."
More than $155 million has been
spent by Exxon and the state and
federal governments on cleanup
since March 24, when the Exxon
Valdez ran aground and spilled
about 11 million gallons of oil into
waters south of the Valdez oil
terminal.
Alaska Gov. Steve Cowper ap-
pointed a task force Wednesday to
investigate the spill and recom-
mend ways to prevent future spills.
A new 5-cent tax on each barrel of
oil from Alaska will finance the
panel, which is made up of five
Alaska residents, a formc-r science
adviser to three presidC'nts and an
<'11 vironmental sciC'nt isl.
Oil tracker Marshal Kend?.iorek
of the Department of F,nvironmen-
tal Conservation has mapped the .
spill, and his documents show that
9,600 square mite's of southern
Alaska coastal waters have been
affecte<l. by the oil. That makes the
country's largest oil spill as big in
size as the state of Vermont, he
said.
Oil has spread for eight weeks
and has been tracked down Sheli-
kof Strait to Wide Bay, 475 miles
from where the Exxon Valdez ran
aground, Kendziorek said.
7
,._ r--'-. ,-..s.,, 0
'Vf'
·-.. 81=?~£
·::::.:.:.:,.:::.:.:.: .... ··
LCP SEGMENT
~Ilill MELLO I
/ MELLO II
LOCAL
l r-:; -./ LL
AU CARLSB ,
AM (LCP, C~STAL rnoGSREGMENTS
., LJ /\Ry tv\/\I-U U UN
[LJ EDIONDA ON/HUNT
f:0JAGUA H OS LAGO /SAMMIS l~':'l A T I Q U IT A G O O N
~EAST ~ATIQUITOS L
r-,.._~ WEST ENT AREA l..."\J DEVEi OPM □ RE _
City of Carlsbad
WfWE IT-DON'T SAY IT.
Date /'10.v 2l/
To Lihro.ry {naio (La umo)) CTft Clerk) /Jev. Services~ □ Reply Wanted
From /Jlannit1,J {)epar+men± -<?on Neu □No Reply Necessary
.
Please ma.ke aua.ila/:Jle -fur jJulillc review -1+,e q+f-qJ,e:)
Loco.I ~s-1-cd /JrD<Jf""Cln1 (LCP) Qmef'\clmen--f-s,
1he-review pericxi will o--P-Rciq lly end CJuly ~ /989,
f-lowever 1 ple.qse_ &ve un-H} 5:ep-f-e.,rn6er 11 Jq 87 ..So -+h::t+ +he
docurnen¾ o.re QVct1 f<A.ble Un'H I CQ.Jnci / hci.s -1-o.ken qe,.,-h'on
I
AIGNER FORM NO. 55-032 PRINTED IN U5A
SECTION
•
AGUA HEDIONDA SEGMENT OF THE
LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
III. Land Use Plan, Section 1. (p. 17)
Policy I.II
ACTION
Add policy 1.11
Onshore oil and gas support facilities, because of their potential to adversely
impact Carlsbad's sensitive coastal resources shall be prohibited unless found
to be in conformance with Chapter 3, Article 7 of the Public Resources Code
(Sections 30261-30263). Further such facilities will only be permitted upon the
City Council and Coastal Commission making the findings specified by the Zoning
Ordinance which include consistency of the proposed use with the underlying zone.
•
MELLO I SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
SECTION
2. Standard Pacific (p. 3)
3. Occidential Land, Inc. (p. 8)
4. Rancho La Costa (Hunt Properties) (p. 18)
Proposed Policy
ACTION
Add Policy 6: Onshore
Oil and Gas Support
Facilities.
Add Policy 5: Onshore
Oil and Gas Support
Facilities.
Add Policy 7: Onshore
Oil and Gas Support
Facilities.
Onshore oil and gas support facilities, because of their potential to adversely
impact Carlsbad's sensitive coastal resources shall be prohibited unless found
to be in conformance with Chapter 3, Article 7 of the Public Resources Code
(Sections 30261-30263). Further such facilities will only be permitted upon the
City Council and Coastal Commission making the findings specified by the Zoning
Ordinance which include consistency of the proposed use with the underlying zone.
MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
SECTION
9. Exhibits
Create new Section 9
ACTION
Change to Section 10.
Exhibits.
Title new Section 9.
Onshore Oil and Gas
Support Facilities
and establish
Policy 9-1.
Proposed Policy 9-1 ONSHORE OIL AND GAS SUPPORT FACILITIES PROHIBITED
Onshore oil and gas support facilities, because of their potential to adversely
impact Carlsbad's sensitive coastal resources shall be prohibited unless found
to be in conformance with Chapter 3, Article 7 of the Public Resources Code
(Sections 30261-30263). Further such facilities will only be permitted upon the
City Council and Coastal Commission making the findings specified by the Zoning
Ordinance which include consistency of the proposed use with the underlying zone.
EAST BATIOUITOS LAGOON/HUNT PROPERTIES
SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
SECTION
a. Land Uses Permitted Pursuant to a
Master Plan (Page 1)
Proposed Amendment:
ACTION
Add the proposed amend-
ment listed below prior
to the sentence which
reads "Specifically,
the uses shall be as
follows:"
Onshore oil and gas support facilities, because of their potential to adversely
impact Carlsbad's sensitive coastal resources shall be prohibited unless found
to be in conformance with Chapter 3, Article 7 of the Public Resources Code
(Sections 30261-30263). Further such facilities will only be permitted upon the
City Council and Coastal Commission making the findings specified by the Zoning
. Ordinance which include consistency of the proposed use with the underlying zone.
SECTION
Land Use (p. 5)
WEST BATIOUITOS LAGOON/SAMMIS PROPERTIES
SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
ACTION
Add Section R.
Onshore Oil and Gas
support facilities
Proposed Section R. Onshore Oil and Gas Support Facilities
Onshore oil and gas support facilities, because of their potential to adversely
impact Carlsbad's sensitive coastal resources shall be prohibited unless found
to be in conformance with Chapter 3, Article 7 of the Public Resources Code
(Sections 30261-30263). Further such facilities will only be permitted upon the
City Council and Coastal Commission making the findings specified by the Zoning
Ordinance which include consistency of the proposed use with the underlying zone.
•
THE VILLAGE DESIGN MANUAL (REDEVELOPMENT AREA)
SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
SECTION
V. Design Guidelines for the Village
Redevelopment Area (p. 3)
ACTION
Add a new paragraph
following paragraph
three. Onshore oil
and gas support
facilities
prohibited.
Onshore oil and gas support facilities, including, but not limited to, processing
plants, refineries, storage facilities, transfer stations, pipelines, warehouses,
offices, tanker terminals, helicopter pads and the like are prohibited on
property subject to the Village Area Redevelopment Plan. Such facilities are
incompatible with the goals of the Redevelopment Plan ard because there is a
strong likelihood that serious adverse effects will result from such facilities
they are hereby prohibited.
•
PROPOSED ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
Onshore oil and gas support facilities, because of their potential to adversely
impact Carlsbad's sensitive coastal resources shall be prohibited unless found
to be in conformance with Chapter 3, Article 7 of the Public Resources Code
(Sections 30261-30263). Further onshore oil and gas facilities including, but
not limited to, processing plants, refineries, storage facilities, transfer
stations, pipelines, warehouses, offices, tanker terminals, helicopter pads and
the like, will be permitted only if through review of a Conditional Use Permit
application the City Council finds that all of the following are true:
DN:af
(a) Approval of the proposed project and facilities will pose no danger
to life and property to residents of the neighborhood, community or
City;
(b) approval of the proposed project will not pose a potential threat
of damage or injuries to nearby residents;
(c) the benefits of the proposed project clearly outweigh the possible
adverse environmental effects;
(d) there are no feasible alternatives to the proposed project;
(e) the location and approval of the onshore facilities at the particular
location clearly outweigh any potential harm to public health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood or community and will not
be detrimental or injurious to property in the neighborhood,
community or to the general welfare of the City; and
(f) the proposed project is permitted within the underlying zone.
April 28, 1989
TO:
FROM:
Planning Department
Att: Gary Wayne
City Attorney
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO AMEND GENERAL PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT OFF SHORE OIL DRILLING SUPPORT
FACILITIES City Council Resolution No.
As you requested in our telephone conversation of Thursday, April
27, 1989, attached to this memorandum please find a copy of the
above referenced resolution. As we further discussed please
prepare the appropriate language amending the six local coastal
plans using the language of the resolution of intention as a
guideline and schedule the necessary public hearings to complete
the amendment process.
I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.
rmh
attachment
~
RONALD R. BALL
Assistant city Attorney
co 0 0 N O>
UJ <(
::J -z z UJ a: >o
<( ~
;:]; ~ ul L)
0 c:i 0 <(
N CJ ~ <f)
...J a: <(
L)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 I I
12
13
141
15 I
16
17
I 18 ;'
191!
20/
21
22
23
I
24 I
I
25: I
26 I
271' ,,
1:
28 Ii I '
RESOLUTION NO. 89-91 .
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AND TITLE 21
OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT ON-
SHORE OIL AND GAS SUPPORT FACILITIES.
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Interior has
proposed to add 17 North County parcels to lease sale number 95
which includes 76,735 sea bottom acres north of Encinitas including
the sea bottom off Carlsbad's coastline; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned regarding the
adverse environmental impacts from the location and maintenance of
on-shore oil and gas support facilities including, but not limited
to, processing plants, refineries, storage facilities, transfer
stations, pipelines, warehouses, offices, tanker terminals,
helicopter pads and the like along Carlsbad's coastline; and,
WHEREAS, such adverse environmental impacts may include
catastrophic environmental damage to the marine ecosystem resulting
from a failure of those facilities; and,
WHEREAS, further adverse environmental impacts may
include increased air pollution, water pollution, traffic, noise,
visual, scenic and aesthetic impacts; and,
WHEREAS, there is a strong likelihood that serious
adverse effects will result f~om on-shore processing, storage, or
related service facilities supporting off-shore oil and gas
development authorized by the federal and state governments; and,
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65358 permits the
legislative body of.the City to change or add to all or part of its
adopted general plan when it deems it to be in the public interest;
and,
..,
0 <(
ID co (/) 0 _J 0
f!; ~ N a,
. () w <( 0 lJ_:::, z ~ a as a:
0 >--> 0 ->--<( lJ_
ID U ~ ~
lJ_ ' _J () >-->--w . z w 8 0
W ~ N <( () 0 -CD ~ ~ '.'.l > a: <( <(
>--()
!:::
()
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
81
g/
10 I
11
12
13
14 i I 15
16
171
1'
1s Ii
I
19!
20 Ii
21 /i .,
221
23 I
' I
241
25 I
26
27
28
•
WHEREAS' the outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ( "OCSLA II)
(43 U.S.C. Section 1331 et seq.) specifically reserve rights for
states and their political subdivisions to express concern over
their coastal environments; and,
WHEREAS, OCSLA declares the rights and responsibilities
of all states and the local governments to preserve and protect
their marine, human, and coastal environments through such means
as regulation of land and of related development and activity; and,
WHEREAS, in adopting OCSLA, Congress did not intend to
occupy the field of regulation of the coastal areas of the states;
and,
WHEREAS, the Coastal Zone Management Act ( "CZMA") ( 16
u.s.c.section 1453 et seq.) requires coastal states' programs to
be submitted and approved by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce; and,
WHEREAS, California has a coastal program now in effect
which has been approved by the Secretary of Commerce under the
CZMA; and,
WHEREAS, that program is embodied in the California
Coastal Act of 1986 (California Public Resources Code Section 30000
et seq.); and,
WHEREAS, the federal government's approval of the
California program presumes that the program gives attention to the
national interests articulated in the Act but also reserves to the
city the right to enact a local coastal program recognizing valid
local concerns; and,
WHEREAS, oil and gas support facilities could be built
off-shore albeit at greater expense than locating these same
2
\
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 /
12 /
co 13 I 0 0 N (j) I
w < 14 I :::J -zZ w cc > 0 15 < ~
:::E ;;j_ ul (.)
0 0 16 O< N CD ~ (/)
..J 17 cc < (.)
I· 18 I'
/l
19 i! I
20 I
I
21 ll
22 I
I I
23 I
I
24 I
25
26
27
28
facilities on-shore; and,
WHEREAS, off-shore oil has a higher sulphur content tha
oil produced on-shore; and,
WHEREAS, such facilities are inconsistent with th
redevelopment plan, village design manual and the local coasta
plan for the redevelopment area,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
California, finds as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That it is the intention of the city Council to amen
its general plan, local coastal plan and zoning ordinances t
prohibit on-shore oil and gas facilities including, but not limite
to, processing plants, refineries, storage facilities,
stations, pipelines, warehouses, offices, tanker
helicopter pads and the like, except upon findings by the Counci
that all of the following are true:
(a) Approval of the proposed project and facilitie
will pose no danger to life and property to residents of th
neighborhood, community or City.
(b) Approval of the proposed project will not pos
a potential threat of damage or injuries to nearby residents.
(c) The benefits of the proposed project clearl
outweigh the possible adverse environmental effects.
(d) There are no feasible alternatives to th
proposed project.
(e) The location and approval of the on-shor
facilities at the particular location clearly outweigh an
3
0 <(
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~ ~ 13 ....J 0 ~ ~ ~
-(.) UJ <( 14 l O LL ::J Z ~ 0 i'.5 a:
0 >-> 0
-.... <( ~ 15
Ill U ~ ;j_
LL • ---' (.) .... >-UJ -i:5 ~ 8 ~ 16
(.)0:NCIJ z O ~ C/J
>~ ~ 17 <( <(
>-(.)
'::: u 18
19 !!
potential harm to public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort,
and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood or community and will not be detrimental or injurious
to property in the neighborhood, community or to the general
welfare of the city, and
( f) The proposed project is permitted within the
underlying zone.
3. The City Council directs the Planning Director to
conduct the necessary studies, notices, and reports and bring the
matter without undue delay before the Planning Commission for
public hearing and recommendation to the Council
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the
city council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
I 20 ! CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
i I 21 j ATTEST:
22 i
23
24 •
25 ! !
26 I
271
1
28 j:
I I
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, city Clerk
(SEAL)
4