HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 4092,.
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
i
e e
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4092
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE
CODE AMENDMENT TO ADD CHAPTER 21.83 TO TITLE 21
OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING
VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 21 TO REGULATE SMALL
AND LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES AND CHILD
DAY CARE CENTERS.
CASE NAME: CHILD CARE ORDINANCE
CASE NO. : ZCA 93-01/LCPA 97-03
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of May 1997, an(
21st day of May 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider
request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testin
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff,
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fa(
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plan
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plan
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative accof
to Exhibit "ND" dated April 3, 1997, and "PII" dated March 3, 1997, attat
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and consid
Negative Declaration dated April 3, 1997, the environmental impacts therein ident
for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVA
the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commis
finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect 01
environment and thereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaratio
e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration dated April 3, 1
reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbs
3. That because no development is proposed as part of this zone code amendment,
because future project will be individually reviewed to evaluate environmental imp
no impacts are anticipated to geologic resources, water resources, air qui
transportatiodcirculation, biological resources, energy and mineral resources, haz
noise, public services, utilities and services, aesthetics, cultural'resources, or recreatic
4. That the proposed zone code amendment will incrementally contribute to improvin
quality and traffic circulation by creating the opportunity for child care facilities nea
home or work place thus potentially reducing the number of daily traffic trips of parer
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plan
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of May 1997, bJ
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Heinel
Monroy, Noble and Savary
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons
ABSTAm: None
~ I
18
19
20
21
ROBdT NIELSEN, Chairperson
22 ATTEST:
23
24
25 Planning Director
J" sb/ 4
,,d p 4"" .P
,/ /)* LL\, i ,.';-> " ""~"L: ~".,~:..~~~~:.,.~.~~:~.~.~~~~, ,I -+:.j'L.. . ' ,
i/
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
MICHAEL J. HOEMIE~R
26
27
28 PC RES0 NO. 4092 -2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
. Project AddressLocation: Citywide, in the City of Carlsbad
Project Description: Zone code amendment revising child care regulations and
presenting these as a new section of the Zoning Ordinance.
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 pn file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration 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 thirty (30) days
of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Adrienne Landers in the Planning
Department at (6 19) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 445 1.
DATED: APRIL 3,1997
CASE NO: ZCA 93-01LCPA 97-03
CASE NAME: CHILD CARE ORDINANCE
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 3,1997
rn&&-&&&jgo 1
MICHAEL J. mZM1L-R
PIanning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. * Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894
Y
-“ “4 r- e a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZCA 93-0ULCPA 97-03
DATE: March 3, 1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Child care Ordinance
2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: n/a
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: n/a
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A zone code amendment to add a new chapter to the zoning
ordinance and to amend chapters and sections of the zoning ordinance to address the provision of
small and large family daycare homes and child care centers.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning [XI Transportation/Circulation I 0 Public Services
Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources C7 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water [XI Hazards Cultural Resources
Air Quality 0 Noise Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
. *h e e DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
B I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
c] 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 NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
- t 2 /3//? 3 Planner Signature Date
-
l/9+ Date 1
2 Rev. 03/28/96
. *r e a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “NO Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but & potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
. *r a *
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
. *I I .I e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (Source 1,2,3)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (Source 1,2)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(Source 1,2,3,4)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (Source 1,2, 3,4)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (Source 1,2,3,4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source 2,3,4) 0 o
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0
or extension of major infrastructure)? (Source 2,4)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source 2,4) 0 0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source 1,2,4)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source 1,2,4)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source 1,2,4)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source 1,2,4)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Source 1,
1,2,4)
294) g) Subsidence of the land? (Source 1,2,4)
h) Expansive soils? (Source 1,2,4)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source 1,2,4)
0 0 0
cl 0 El
cl 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 17 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
rate and amount of surface runoff! (Source 1,2,4) 0 17
such as flooding? (Source 1,2,4) 0 0
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved 0 0
oxygen or turbidity)? (Source 1,2,4)
5
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 IXI
0 w
0 [XI o [XI
o [XI
w o w
0 IXI
0 w 0 w 0 [XI o w 0 w 0 [XI
0 [XI o w 0 El
0 w
0 w
0 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
. *I 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (Source 1,2,4)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (Source 1,2,4)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (Source 1,2,4)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(Source 1,2,4)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source 1,2,4)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source
1,2,4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 1, 3, Ixl
4) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source 1, 3,
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source 1,2,4)
4) 0 IXI
any change in climate? (Source 1,2,4) 0 0
0
VI. TRANSPORTATIONiCIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source 1,
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (Source 1,2,4)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(Source 1,2,4)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Source 1,4,6)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Source 1,2,4)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Source 1,2,4)
proposal result in:
234)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source 1,2,4)
0
0
0
IXI
0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
in impacts to:
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (Source 1,2,4)
(Source 1,2,4) 0 b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
6
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 El
!XI
!XI
0 El
IXI 0 !XI
0 0
w o w
0 0
0 Ixl
0 w w w
0 El
0 El
w
0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
. *L 0 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source 1, 2,
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1,2,4)
(Source 1,2,4)
4)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(Source 2,4)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source 2,4)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (Source 2, 4)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (Source 3,4)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (Source 2,3,4)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (Source 2,3,4)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (Source 2, 3,4)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (Source 2,3,4)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source 1,2,4)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source 1,
224)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (Source 2,4)
b) Police protection? (Source 2,4)
c) Schools? (Source 2,4)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (Source 2,4)
(Source 2,4)
XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source 2,4)
7
e
Potentially
Significant
Impact
cl
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
CI
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O w
0 0
0 0
0 0 '0
0 cl 0 0
0
0 0 0 0
0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0
0
cl
w
[XI
[XI
0 w
0 El
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 0
0 [XI
0 El
cl w 0 a
0 I7 Ix1 0 w 0 El
0 w
El
Rev. 03128/96
. *L 0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Communications systems? (Source 2,4)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2,4)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source 2,4)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source 2,4)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source 2,4)
facilities? (Source 2,4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0 0
0 0 0 0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0 0 0 0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (Source 1,
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (Source
c) Create light or glare? (Source 1,2,4)
294)
1,2,4)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 1,2,4)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 1,2,4)
c) Affect historical resources? (Source 1,2,4)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source 1,
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
294)
potential impact area? (Source 1,2,4)
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (Source 2,4)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source 2,4)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
8
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
cl
0
a
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
El
0
0 0 0
0
o
0
0
0
Rev. 031
No
Impact
!XI
[XI
[XI
[XI !XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI Ix1
[XI
[XI
El
[XI
[XI
‘2 819 6
-8 e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
0 0 0 IXI
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined fiom the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
. *- c 1 e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project includes a zone code amendment revising child care regulations in the City
and presenting these requirements as a new section of the Zoning Ordinance - Chapter 21.83 - of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The proposed zoning changes will have an impact on existing zoning regulations by creating a
comprehensive set of standards for the establishment of child care facilities in various zones
throughout the City. The adverse impacts of these changes are not significant.
The proposed zone code amendment updates the City’s zoning ordinance to be consistent with
State law concerning family child care facilities in residential dwellings. The maximum number
of children permitted in small family day care homes would be increased from 6 to 8; the
maximum number of children permitted in large family day care homes would be increased from
12 to 14. Such facilities would not be permitted in apartments, stacked flat condominiums, or
small-lot condominiums. This is not expected to have significant impact on reducing child care
availability in Carlsbad since no currently licensed, large family day care homes are in
apartments and it is likely that most apartments already restrict this type of use.
The proposed ordinance allows child care centers as a conditional use in residential and office
neighborhoods where there may be issues of land use compatibility. This process will allow the
imposition of conditions to ensure compatibility with surrounding developments while still
permitting child care in a neighborhood setting. The proposed ordinance also allows child care
in commercial zones as a permitted use which should make it easier to establish a child care
center in these zones and may result in more child care centers in these areas. This is a change
in zoning standards, but is not in conflict with existing zoning, since child care centers have been
found to be compatible with commercial development.
The proposed amendment will also allow child care centers as an ancillary use to existing or
proposed businesses located in the City’s industrial zones. Industrial land uses (with respect to
child care) are seen as having priority in the industrial zones with child care centers assuming the
responsibility for maintaining compatibility. Provisions have been included in the proposed
ordinance to minimize land use impacts to surrounding properties and to provide a safe
environment for children (see discussion under “Hazards”, page 13). The proposed regulations
will not create significant land use impacts.
POPULATION AND HOUSING:
The proposed zoning revisions will not result in a change in the location, distribution, density or
growth rate of the population in Carlsbad. The number of people in industrial, commercial and
residential zones would not be significantly influence by whether child care facilities are allowed
or not.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
, ’* I L 0 e
GEOPHYSICAL:
The proposed zone code amendment will have no significant effect on the earth’s topography or
soils. Child care facilities are most likely to be proposed in developed areas of the City on
previously-graded sites.
WATER OUALITY:
The proposed zone code amendments will have no significant adverse effect on water quality or
supply. The General Plan indicates that available water supplies are adequate for the buildout of
the City, including child care facilities.
AIR QUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1. Provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with
2. Measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and
3. Provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit
4. Conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and
5. Participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
Since the proposed zone code amendment is a regulatory document only and does not include
development proposals, no air quality mitigation measures are required at this time. Applicable
and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures will be incorporated into the design
of future child care facilities or will be included as conditions of future project approval.
development;
Transportation Demand Management;
services;
11 Rev. 03128196
.. 1 0 0
Please refer to “Hazards”, page 13, for discussion of potential hazards, including airborne
hazards, to children attending child care facilities located in industrial areas.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1. Provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with need;
2. Measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and
3. Provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes,
4. Conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and
5. Participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted.
The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City
streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. Since the
proposed zone code amendment is a regulatory document and does not propose development, no
mitigation measures are required at this time. The applicable and appropriate General Plan
circulation mitigation measures will be incorporate into the design of future child care facilities
or will be included as conditions of future project approvals.
Regional-related, circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
Since the proposed zone code amendment is a regulatory document only and does not include
development proposals, no traffic/circulation mitigation measures are required at this time.
Applicable and appropriate General Plan traffic mitigation measures will be incorporated into the
design of future child care facilities or will be included as conditions of future project approval.
Transportation Demand Management;
additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems;
12 Rev. 03128196
‘A .* I * * BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS:
As legislative actions, the proposed code changes will not affect plant or animal life land use and
will not impact the amount or location of development in Carlsbad. The proposed changes will
not include development in areas where there are rare or endangered species, or natural plant life.
ENERGY AND MINERAL:
The proposed changes will not increase the rate of use of any natural resources. Child care
centers are similar to other land uses in energy usage. The prohibition of acutely hazardous
materials near sensitive uses such as child care facilities also will not result in a significant
chance within the City’s industrial districts and the use of resources within those districts.
HAZARDS:
The proposed zone code amendment, as a legislative action, will not increase the risk of
explosion or release (physical or airborne) of hazardous materials and will not interfere with
emergency responses or evacuations. However, because the proposed amendment would allow
child care land uses within industrial areas, the environmental consequences of the legislative
action must be analyzed.
If child care facilities are located in planned industrial areas, children may be exposed to
accidental releases of acutely hazardous materials. Advances in the containment and handling of
hazardous materials have greatly reduced the chance of accidental release of these substances,
but have not totally eliminated risk. In the event of an accidental release, acutely hazardous
materials can pose a significant health risk to children on or near a release site.
Children are considered more sensitive to chemical exposures than healthy adults because
children have a higher respiratory rate per body weight than adults. Their metabolic mechanisms
that detoxify chemicals may not be as efficient as adults. Also, they have a shorter distance
between the point of inhalation and the point of absorption into the body thus placing chemicals
into the blood stream much faster than adults. To analyze these issues and examine potential
mitigation measures, the City had a study prepared by David J. Powers and Associates (July
1996) addressing the health and safety risks associated with locating child care in industrial
areas.
The study concluded that health and safety risks for child care facilities located in industrial areas
can be mitigated to a reasonable level after approval of a conditional use permit. Mitigation
measures recommended by either the study of staff and required as part of the industrial section
of the proposed ordinance will reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. In addition, each
future project will be required to perform additional environmental review which may further
mitigate impacts. Measures included as part of the proposed ordinance include preparation of a
Health Risk Analysis to identify locations of acutely hazardous materials above the threshold
planning quantities within 1,000 feet of the proposed child care center; submission of an
emergency evacuation plan; and disclosure of elevated risks to parents. The provider would also
be required to restrict use of the center to children of employees hired by the business on which
the child care facility is located and to submit a legal agreement to discontinue operations
immediately upon the discovery of the use of acutely hazardous materials above the threshold
planning quantities within the 1,000 foot buffer. The applicant would have 180 days to mitigate
13 Rev. 03/28/96
.* w c 0 * the impacts of the industrial property owner using these materials. If this could not be
accomplished within 180 days the CUP would be declared null and void. A conversion plan
would also be required to demonstrate that the child care center could be converted to office or
industrial uses should the child care center permanently have to discontinue operations.
With the implementation of these measures, the impact of locating child care facilities in
industrial areas will be reduced to a reasonable or insignificant level of risk.
NOISE:
The proposed zoning changes may encourage child care centers in some commercial zones and
noise levels may increase due to the outdoor play areas. This increase will not be significant
compared with other commercial uses in these zones. Design review will be required for new
centers to ensure that outdoor play areas are located away from residential uses and fencing is
provided.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
The proposed amendments will not result in the need for new or altered government services.
Public facilities will most likely already be in place or in cases of new development will be
required through the growth management plan to ensure that these are in place concurrent with
new development. The proposed changes are legislative in nature and will not directly create a
demand for public facilities.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES:
The proposed zone code amendments will not result in additional need for new water, sewage, or
transmission lines and systems. Child care facilities will most likely be developed in existing
buildings and, in such cases, will not require more services or utilities than is typically required
for other uses in residential and commercial areas. New development will be required to provide
necessary utilities and services concurrent to or prior to construction.
AESTHETICS:
The proposed regulatory changes will not have an impact on scenic vistas or create offensive-
looking structures. These changes are not likely to result in many new buildings or structures.
The budgets for child care centers are generally limited, so child care centers locate in existing
buildings and generally do not make major exterior modifications.
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
The proposed amendments will not have an affect on the City’s cultural resources. Child care
facilities, due to limited budgets, generally locate in existing usable buildings and would not be
demolishing the City’s historic buildings in order to construct new centers.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
*$ -,A e e RECREATION:
Proposed changes will not affect the quantity of quality of existing recreational facilities, because
they do not affect or reduce the amount of available open space. Child care facilities provide
necessary recreational areas on site as required by State law.
15 Rev. 03/28/96