HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 89-01; City of Carlsbad Offshore Oil; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (14)Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth street, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 --916/445-0613 --
WTI. X QlQLETlOY Ay) ENVI#IIEYTAL WQIlEWT Fa.
t
1. Project Title
2. Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad 3. Contact Person: Don Neu
3a. Street Address: 2075 Las Palms Drive 3b. City: Carlsbad
3c. Colnty: San Dieso M. Zip: 92009 3e. Phone: 619-438-1161
PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: San Dieeo 4a. City/Cmity: Carlsbad
4b.(optional) Assessor's Parcel No. 4c. Section: Twp. Range
Sa. Cross streets: 5b. Nearest Comnunity:
6. Within 2 miles of: a. State Huy No.
7. DOCUMENT TYPE 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 10. DEVELWUENT TYPE
- CEQA 01 - General Plan Update 01 - Residential: Units Acres
on-shore Oil and Gas SuLWxJrt Facilities Plan 8 Code Amendments (GPA 89-2/ZCA 89-1/LCPA 89-1)
For Rural,
1-5 b. Airports Palomar c. Uaterways Pacific Oce
01 - MOP
02 - Early Cons
03 Neg Dec
Ob - Draft EIR
05 - Supplement/
(if so, prior SCH #
)
Subsequent EIR
06 - Notice of Intent
07 - Envir. Assessment/
02 - New Element
03 X General Plan Amendment
04 - Master Plan
05 - Annexation
06 - Specific Plan
07 - Redevelopment
08 - Rezone
09 - Land Division
Tract Map, etc.)
(Subdivision, Parcel Map.
10 - Use Permit
02 - Office: Sq. Ft.
Enployees Acres
03 - Shopping/Comwrcial: Sq. Ft.
Acres Enp 1 oyees
04 - Industrial: Sq. ft.
.. Acres Employees
05 - Seuer: MCO
06 - Uater: MGD
07 - Transportation: Type
08 - Mineral Extraction: Mineral
FCUSl
08 -Draft EIS 11 - Cancel Ag Preserve 09 - Power Generation: Wattage - OTHER 12 X Other Coastal Plan Tw:
09 - Information Only Amendment 8. ZCA 10 - Other:
10 - Final Docunent 9 TOTAL ACRES:
11 - Other:
11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT
01 X Aesthetic/Visual 08 - Gcologic/Seismic 15 - Seuer Capacity 22 - Uater Supply
02 - Agricultural Land 09 X Jobs/Housing Balance 16 - Soil Erosion 23 - Uetland/Riparian
03 - Air Quality 10 -Minerals 17 - Solid Uaste 24 Uildlife
04 - Archaeological/Historical/ 11 - Noise 18 - Toxic/Hazardous 25 - Growth Inducing
05 - Coastal 13 - Schools 20 X Vegetation 27- Cwlative Effects
06 - Fire Hazard 14 - Septic Systems 21 - Uater Quality 28 - Other
07 - FLooding/Drainage
12 FUNDING (approx.) Federal J State J Total t
13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
facilities unless certain findings are made and use permits are granted.
15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE: La Date: G-r-87
NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification mmbers for all new projects.
project (e.g. from a (Notice of Preparation or previous draft docLnrent) please fill it in.
ZW 6-Sw
Paleontological 12 - Public Services 19 - Traffic/Circulation 26 - Incompatible Land Use
General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and Zoning Ordinance Amendnents to prohibit on-shore oil and gas suppo
If a SCH Nunber already exists for a
e.
REVIEWING AGENCIES
Resources Agency CTRPA (Cal TRPA)
Air Resources Board TRPA (Tahoe RPA)
Conservation Bay Conservation & Dev't Comm
X Fish and Game Parks and Recreation
X Coastal Commission Office of Historic Preservation
P Caltrans District - Native American Heritage Comm
Caltrans - Planning State Lands Comm
Caltrans - Aeronautics X Public Utilities Comm
- Cal ifornia Highway Patrol Energy Corn .
Boating and Waterways Food and Agriculture
- Forestry Health Services
State Water Resoruces Control - Statewide Heal th P1 anni ng (hospital s)
Board - Headquarters Housing and Community Dev't
Regional Water Qual i ty Control Corrections
Board, Reg i on General Services
Division of Water Rights (SWRCB) Office of Local Assistance
Division of Water Quality (SWRCB)
Department of Water Resources Office of Appropriate Tech. (OPR)
Recl amat i on Board Local Government Unit (OPR)
Pub1 i c Works Board
Sol id Waste Management Board - Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Col orado River Board Other
FOR SCH USE ONLY
Catal og Number Date Received at SCH
Date Review Starts Proponent
Date to Agencies Consultant
Date to SCH Contact Phone
Clearance Date. Address
Notes:
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 Guide1 ines for Implementation of the Cal ifornia 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 P1 anni ng Department.
A copy of the Negative Declar,ation 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
MICHAEL J. HOLZhILLER)" Planning Director
___-_ -- - - - ._ - - - . -. . - . .
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. GPA 89-2/ZCA 89-1/
DATE : MAY 26, 1989 LCPA 89-1
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad. CA 92009
(619) 438-1161
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: May 17, 1989
11. ENVIRONMRN TAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
- YES MAY BE - NO
1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Unstable earth conditions
or in changes in geologic
substructures?
Disruptions, displacements,
compaction or overcovering
of the soil?
Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features?
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?
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?
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
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?
X
X
X
X
X
X
-2-
4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:
- YES MAY BE - NO
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?
agricultural crop? d. Reduction in acreage of any
5. 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?
6.
7.
8.
Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels?
Lisht 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?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-3-
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?
- YES MAYBE - NO
X
X
10. Risk of Ux>set - 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
11. Population - Will the proposal signif-
or upset conditions? X
icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area? X
12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif-
icantly affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing? X
13. TransDortation/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. Alterations 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?
X
X
V A
X
X
X
-4-
- NO MAYBE
14. Public Services - Will the proposal have 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? V A
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
x f. Other governmental services?
15. Eneray - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X
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? X
b. Communications systems? X
c. Water? .* A
v d. Sewer or septic tanks? A
e. Storm water drainage? X
X f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X
-5-
- YES MAY BE - NO
18.
19.
20.
21.
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
Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontoloqical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant
archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or
Analyze viable alternatives to the ProDosed Droiect such as:
public view? X
recreational opportunities? X
building? X
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, 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.
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.
The proposed project does not include a site design or design standards, therefore, alternative designs were not evaluated.
A specific construction project is not proposed as part of this project. Because of this an alternate scale of development cannot
be evaluated.
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.
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.
g)
- YES MAYBE - NO
22. Mandatory findinas of sianificance -'
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.)
X
X
-7-
c. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (*ICumulatively con-
siderableII 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.) x
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
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.
11.1. Earth:
The proposed project, consisting of various code and plan amendments,
contemplates no grading.
11.3 Water:
The proposal will not impact existing drainage courses or change absorption rates.
11.4 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.
11.8 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 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
11.9 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.
11.12 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.
11.18 Aesthetics:
The amendments provide a review process for on-shore support facilities which enables future environmental review to take place for visual impacts.
11.19 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 Completed By The 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. Declaration will be proposed.
A Conditional Negative
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
'Date Signature
.$-/3 I/s.l
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-
AB# q93y
MTGD 3-21-89
DEPT. CA
CITY Am
CITY MG~
TITLE: CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION OF
INTENTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AND TITLE 21 OF THE CMC PROHIBITING ON-SHORE OIL AND GAS FACILITIES
If the Council concurs, your action is to adopt Resolution N0.%9*9/
expressing an intention to amend the general plan, local coastal plan and zoning ordinances to prohibit on-shore oil and gas facilities except upon making certain findings.
ITEM E XPLANATION
Many coastal cities and counties throughout California have adopted
general plan amendments, local coastal plan amendments and zoning
ordinances to prohibit on-shore oil and gas facilities for off- shore oil exploration and drilling. These measures either prohibit
such facilities permanently or for a limited time while studies are
undertaken. Absolute prohibitions have been followed by suits in the federal courts brought by the Western Oil and Gas Association and the National Ocean Industries Association alleging such measures are unconstitutional, in violation of the due process, equal protection or commerce clauses, and that they are preempted
by the federal Outer Continental Shelf Lands or the Coastal Zone
Management Acts. San Diego County, the City of San Diego and the
City of Oceanside were sued in the case entitled Western Oil and
Gas Association. National Ocean Industries Association v. Sonoma Countv. et a1 (1988) U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CV 87-5190. The district court held that their ordinances representing an absolute prohibition of on-shore oil and gas facilities violated the commerce clause but refused to
rule on the issue of due process on those ordinances subject to a
voter referendum. We believe the district court's opinion will be
upheld on appeal.
We believe that by amending the general plan, local coastal plan
and zoning ordinances in a manner as proposed in the attached documents provides certain administrative remedies which must be exhausted prior to resorting to the courts for judicial relief. When the pending litigation is resolved answering the question of whether or not local absolute prohibitions on on-shore facilities are legally permissible, the Council may wish to consider the matter further. While it is impossible to guarantee that litigation will not follow as a result of adoption of the proposed
amendment, our recommendation is based on the fact that legal principles require a party to exhaust all administrative remedies available to it or to present a case ripe for review prior to seeking any sort of judicial relief. Our office will update you
as to the outcome of the above referenced litigation. Copies of
proposed language amending the general plan and zoning ordinance
are attached for your review.
Agenda Bill No. 54 3Y
Page 2
The federal government proposes to lease off-shore tracts off the
Carlsbad coast in 1990 and 1991. It is recommended that, although
Lease Sale No. 95 has apparently been postponed, our local
amendment process proceed in ancitipation of federal decisions to
resume these actions. The proposed general plan, local coastal plan and zoning ordinance amendments require noticed public hearings before the Planning Commission, City Council and the Coastal Commission. Sufficient time exists for this process to be
completed prior to any actual lease sales.
If Council concurs, your action is adopt the attached resolution
of intention to set the matter for public hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT
The suggested action will require staff time for processing and the
actual costs of notice and publication.
EXHIBITS
Resolution No. 89 -71 Draft general plan and zoning ordinance and resolution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY
OB CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TEE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF TEE GENERAL PLAN
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California
resolves as follows:
The land use element of the general plan is amended by
the amendment of Section V, D, 14 to add a paragraph to read as
follows :
"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. le
And further resolves that the appropriate sections in the
applicable local coastal program segments be similarly amended in
order to carry out the intent of this prohibition.
1
1
1
4
1 c
E
7
E
5
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of thc
City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the
1988, by the following vote, to wit:
day of
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
1c
11
12
c
0 1I
1!
2(
2:
2;
2:
21
2
2
2
2
ORDINANCE NO.
AH ORDINANCE OF TEE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY
THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT ON-
SEORE OIL FACILITIES EXCEPT IN THE C-M, M AND
P-M BONES UPON CERTAIN FINDING8 AND
OP CARLBBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 21, OF
CONDITIONS.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad does ordain as
follows :
SECTION I: Title 21, Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of Section 21.42.010 to
add subsection 21.42.010(15) read as follows:
“(15) In the C-M, M and P-M zones, on-shore 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 are prohibited except upon findings by the City Council that:
(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; and (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. Such facilities shall require a planned industrial permit pursuant to Chapter 21.34 and conditional use permit pursuant tc
Chapter 21 50 .
SECTION 11: That Title Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsb’ad
Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.53.250 tc
read as follows:
“21.53.250 On-shore oil and cras facilities. In all
zones except C-M, M and P-M on-shore oil and gas facilities
including, but not limited to, processing plants, refineries,
storage facilities, transfer stations, pipelines, warehouses,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Q U m
gd 14
=OSB
uv3:
Be83
15
16 t$W
$g z 17 >a 5 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
offices, tanker terminals, helicopter pads and the like arc
prohibited. ))
SECTION 111: That Title 21, Chapter 21.30 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of subsection
21.30.010(29) to read as follows:
"(29) On-shore oil and gas facilities subject to the
provisions of Section 21.42.010(15).11
SECTION IV: That Title 21, Chapter 21.32 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended by the addition of subsection
21.32.010(35) to read as follows:
"(35) On-shore oil and gas facilities subject to the provisions of Section 21.42.010(15).**
SECTION V: That Title 21, Chapter 21.34 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended by the addition of subsection
21.34.020(11) to read as follows:
11(11) On-shore oil and gas facilities subject to the provisions of Section 21.42.010(15).11
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty
days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least
once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after its
adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council on the day of , 1988,
and thereafter
2
.I --
PASSED AND ADOPTED a$ a regular meeting of the Citl
I Council of the City of Carlsbad on the
1988, by the following vote, to wit:
day of
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR., City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
SHORE OIL AND GAS SUPPORT FACILITIES.
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Interior has
pr posed 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,
OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT ON-
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 from 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,
1
2
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
WHEREAS, the outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ( IWCSLA~~
(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 ("CZMAn) (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
P
4
c c
e
7
E
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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.
2.
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That it is the intention of the City Council to amenc
its general plan, local coastal plan and zoning ordinances tc
prohibit on-shore oil and gas facilities including, but not limitec
to, processing plants, refineries, storage facilities, transfe.
stations, pipelines, warehouses, offices, tanker terminals
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 thc
neighborhood, community or City.
(b) Approval of the proposed project will not posc
a potential threat of damage or injuries to nearby residents.
(c) The benefits of the proposed project clear11
outweigh the possible adverse environmental effects.
(d) There are no feasible alternatives to thc
proposed project .
(e) The location and approval of the on-shorc
facilities at the particular location clearly outweigh an!
3
1€
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
potential harm to public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort
and general welfare of persons residing or working in thc
neighborhood or community and will not be detrimental or injurioui
to property in the neighborhood, community or to the genera;
welfare of the City, and
(f) The proposed project is permitted within the
underlying zone.
3. The City Council directs the Planning Director tc
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 Ca’rlsbad on the 21st day of March
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Lewis
ANN J. KULCHIN, May 1: Pro-Tern
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
4