HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 48791
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4879
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO AMEND
THE GENERAL PLAN TO ESTABLISH A NEW POLICY
FRAMEWORK FOR COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTERS,
TO APPLY CITYWIDE.
CASE NAME: SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
CASE NO.: GPA 00-04
WHEREAS, The Planning Director, has filed a verified application with the City
of Carlsbad regarding property owned Citywide); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of December, 2000,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated August 23, 2000, and “PII” dated August 15,
2000, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
FindinEs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration SHOPPING
CENTER POLICIES (GPA 00-04), the environmental impacts therein
identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 4 I/
24
25
26
27
28
B. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad: and
D. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of December 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairp&on
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PC RBSO NO. 4879 -2-
city of Chsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Location:
Project Description:
The project is applicable citywide.
An amendment to the Local Coastal Program and the General Plan
Land Use Element that would modify policies guiding retail
development in the City. The proposed changes include:
. Requiring retail development to generally occur in discrete
shopping centers instead of as strip commercial;
= Eliminating the Neigbborhood and Community Commercial
land use designations and adding a new designation, “Local
Shopping Center,” and,
9 Revising the guidelines that describe the typical characteristics
of shopping centers
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 tile in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on tile in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Dennis Turner in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4609:
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
AUGUST 23,200O
GPA OO-04iLCPA 00-06
SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
AUGUST 23,200O
&ii MrcHk3L J. MLZMKLER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-6559 @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
Case No: GPAOO-04, LCPA 00-06
Date: August 15,200O
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Case Name: Shopping Center Policies
Applicant: Dennis Turner, Principal Planner, for City of Carlsbad
Address & Phone Number of Applicant: Planning Department, City of Carlsbad, 1635
Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008.73 14 (760) 602.4609
Date EIA Form Part I Submitted: N/A-City Project
Project Description: An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element text and the
Local Coastal Program that would establish a new policy framework for the location and
development of local shopping centers. Among other things, retail development
generally would be required to occur in discrete shopping centers instead of in
generalized retail districts or linear strip commercial patterns. The project proposes no
development. Additional, separate amendments to the General Plan, Local Coastal
Program, and the Zoning Ordinance will be necessary to fully implement the project,
Please see the “Discussion of Environmental Evaluation” section for additional
information.
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 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
q Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy / Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water q Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
q Air Quality q Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03128196
DETERMINATION -
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
•l
cl
0
0
0
I find that 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 MITIGATED
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.
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. A(n) environmental impact report or negative declaration is required, but it must analyze only
the effects that remain to be addressed.
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 environmental impact
report or negative declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier document, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has
been prepared.
-LkLL aITizLu%
Planner’s Signature Date
Date ej/1+
2 Rev. 03128196
- ENVIRONMENTAL Iki’ACTS
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.
. 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.
Note: See Discussion ofEnvironmental Evaluation section for explanations of the ‘(No Impact”
answers checked herein.
. “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.
. “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.
. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
. Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but 4 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).
. 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.
. 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. 03128196
. 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.
. 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 II 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, if any, appears at the
end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. If applicable,
particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts that would otherwise be
determined significant.
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources),
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
C)
4
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
Affect agricultural rw~urces or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
01 extension of major infrastructie)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
Cl
4
4
fl
8)
h)
i)
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupkre?
Seismic ground shaking?
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
Landslides or mudflows?
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
Subsidence of the land?
Expansive soils?
Unique geologic or physical features?
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
Cl
4
e)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen OI turbidity)?
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Impact
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Significant Impact
U”kSS U”kSS Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated
El H BEI
B q q rn cl.. q IXI
q q q [xI
0
q
q
q q
El
B
0 0 !z
q q IXI
q q 151
q
q
q
q
q
q cl IXI
q q El
q q El
q q El
q q [XI
5 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Informa%n Sources)
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?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
VI. TRANSPORTATIONKXRCULATION. Would the
4
b)
Cl
4
e)
cl
g)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus tllmouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wastetil and
inefficient manner?
Potentially potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
l”lpaCt UllkSS Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated q q UIXI
B q
q
q
El q
q
q
B
q q
q q
8 BEI q q IXI
El BH B BE!
q q lzl
q q (XI
B BEi
B Elk3
6 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Informa& Sources).
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?
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
4
b)
C)
4
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards?
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
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?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
4
b)
C)
4
e)
f-l
8)
XIII.
=I
b)
Cl
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or nahual gas?
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
Create light or glare?
Potentially ?;otentially Significant Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q q
Less Than
Significant
1”pXt
NO
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q q
El El q
q q IXI
q q El
q q [XI
q q 1xI
q q [XI
El BE! B BEI q q [XI
q B El q
B B
q El q
B B q q 8 q
7 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Inform&n Sources).
XIV.
=)
b)
Cl
4
e)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources?
Disturb archaeological resources?
Affect historical resources?
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
=I
b)
XVI.
=I
b)
Cl
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
Affect existing recreational opportunities?
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
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)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
B q q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
‘Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
B
El
,u
q
q
cl
q
q
Less nun
Significant
Impact
El q cl
q
q
q
q
q
cl
NO
ll”ptXt
Ei
[XI
Ia
!zl
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Project Description
An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element text only and Local Coastal Program that
would establish a new policy framework for the location and development of local shopping
centers. Briefly, the amendment would:
. Require retail development outside of the downtown Village area to occur generally in
discrete, well-planned shopping centers instead of generalized retail districts or linear
strip commercial patterns;
l Eliminate Neighborhood Commercial and Communiry Commercial as types of General
Plan land use designations and replace them with a new type of land use designation,
Local Shopping Center. The primary purpose of the new designation is to allow
8 Rev. 03128196
shopping centers-that provide neighborhood and, under special circumstances,
community-wide goods and services;
. Revise and update the General Plan guidelines that provide the typical characteristics of
different types of shopping center development in the City. In general, the revised
guidelines distinguish local centers from regional centers, noting their usual differences
in building and site size, types of tenants, and area and population served;
l Establish a policy that all areas of the City will have “coverage” by a local shopping
center and at the same time reduce the propensity for overcommercialization.
l Modify the Land Use Element’s goals, objectives, policies, and action programs for
commercial development to carry out the new policies.
The new policy framework will affect properties in the City’s coastal zones. However, no
changes are proposed to the Local Coastal Program text. Furthermore, the project proposes no
amendments to the land use maps of either the General Plan or Local Coastal Program.
Discussion Of Impacts To Environmental Factors
Staff has determined the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment
and has therefore prepared a negative declaration. No mitigation measures are required. To
summarize, the environmental analysis performed by staff resulted in this determination for the
following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The amendment proposes broad, policy level changes only; it is not associated with any
specific development project and does not propose any development;
The amendment does not directly or indirectly result in any significant physical,
biological, or human environmental impacts;
The amendment does not conflict with any of the goals, objectives, policies, or programs
of the General Plan or the Local Coastal Program, and,
The amendment does not conflict with or adversely affect any of the 14 environmental
factors (i.e., Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing) as listed in this
Environmental Impact Assessment Form and expanded on below.
The proposed revisions to the shopping center guidelines generally enlarge the characteristics of
shopping centers; for example, the current guidelines describe a typical neighborhood shopping
center site as 3-10 acres in size, with 30-100,000 square feet of building area, and service
population of up to 10,000. The proposed characteristics for the new Local Shopping Center
include an 8-20 acre site size, 60,000-150,000 square feet of building area, and a service
population of lO,OOO-40,000. Under the proposed amendment, new shopping centers may be
larger than if built under current General Plan policies. While this may increase environmental
impacts, particularly in the areas of traffic and circulation, air quality, and noise, the amendment
may also reduce impacts by causing, in comparison with current policies, commercial
development to be more concentrated and better planned. The potential for enhancement or
impact to the environment is largely variable and cannot be analyzed until specific sites are
considered, various studies are conducted, and, in some cases, actual development is proposed.
This review will commence when the proposed project is implemented through amendments to
the General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use maps. For further information, see the
section below on the evaluation of activities related to this General Plan Amendment.
A listing and discussion of the 14 environmental factors and the relationship of the project to
each follows.
9 Rev.03/28/96
Land Use and Planning - The project is an amendment to the General Plan text to revise land
use designations, guidelines, and policies affecting retail commercial development. To ensure
consistency, other separate changes to the Local Coastal Program Land Use and Zoning Maps
and text and map changes to the Zoning Ordinance (which implements the Local Coastal
Program) will be needed. These actions are outside the scope of the current project. As the
amendment proposes no development and is not site specific, questions regarding the
amendment’s impact to existing land uses, agricultural resources or operations, and the physical
arrangement of an established community are inapplicable. The project does not affect any
environmental policies or plans, including those of the Local Coastal Program.
Population and Housing - Since it does not propose any development or affect residential land
uses or densities, the amendment will not affect any population projections, induce substantial
growth, or displace any existing housing.
Geologic Problems - The project changes regulations that affect development on a citywide
basis. It does not relate to any particular development project or site or geologic condition.
There are no geologic problems associated with this amendment; such would be analyzed as part
of the environmental review of a proposed development project.
Water - The amendment affects citywide policies regarding shopping center development. As
no potential impacts or changes to standards or policies regarding water-related issues are
proposed, the proposal will not impact this category.
Air Quality - The proposal, in and of itself, will generate no development or land uses, nor does
it impact adopted city standards and policies relating to air quality. Accordingly, it will not
impact this concern.
Transportation/Circulation - The proposed amendment, in and of itself, will generate no
development or land uses, nor does it impact adopted city standards and policies relating to
transportation and circulation. It does include a guideline requiring the consideration of sound
transportation planning for shopping centers.
Biological Resources - Since no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies
affecting plant and animal resources are proposed, there will be no impacts to biological
resources.
Energy and Mineral Resources - As no site-specific project or changes to City standards or
policies relating to these resources are proposed, energy and mineral resources will not be
impacted.
Hazards - No site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies relating to natural and
man-made hazards or emergency plans are proposed. Therefore, the amendment will not impact
this subject.
Noise - The amendment, in and of itself, will not generate development or land uses, and it will
not impact adopted city standards and policies relating to noise; accordingly, it will not impact
this concern.
Public Services - Since no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies regarding
public services are proposed, there will be no impacts in this category.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
-
Utilities and Service Systems - Since no site-specific project or changes to City standards or
policies affecting utilities and service systems are proposed, there will be no impacts to such
systems.
Aesthetics - As no site-specific project or changes to existing City standards or policies relating
to views, aesthetics, or light and glare is proposed as part of the amendment, there will be no
impacts in this category. The amendment does propose new policies prohibiting the outdoor
storage of goods and products in shopping centers and requiring quality design.
Cultural Resources - As no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies relating
to these assets is proposed as part of the amendment, there will be no impacts to cultural
resources.
Recreational - As no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies regarding
recreational facilities or demand for the same are proposed, there will be no impact to
recreational uses, existing or proposed.
Evaluation of activities related to this General Plan Amendment
Once the city adopts the new policy framework proposed by this project, it intends to commence
on two principal actions to implement it. Neither of these actions is part of the subject project.
l Create a new zoning district to implement the new Local Shopping Center land use
classification. The new zone would establish allowed uses, development regulations, and
the processes that will apply to the development of sites subject to it. Creating this new
zone will be subject to a separate environmental review.
. Conduct detailed studies to determine where the new general plan designation and zone
should be applied. City staff anticipates that both will be applied to existing
neighborhood and community commercial shopping centers. In addition, this study may
find that some vacant sites currently designated for neighborhood or community
commercial may no longer be needed in the future, while other sites may need to be
added. A separate environmental review will be conducted for any needed changes to the
city’s zoning map or general plan map.
Additionally, amendments to the land use and zoning maps of the Local Coastal Program will be
necessary to ensure consistency with the City’s general plan map and zoning map. The new
policy framework does not affect any Local Coastal Program policies or other text.
The environmental impacts of these subsequent activities will be subject to separate
environmental review because they cannot be analyzed at this time. To determine the impacts,
the subject General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments must first be approved so the
policy framework by which the activities will be implemented is established. Furthermore,
evaluating impacts also will require knowing that properties will be affected by the project, and
this in turn requires studies to be prepared. While the City intends the amendment to primarily
apply to sites either developed with existing shopping centers or designated for such
development, it may apply to other properties, too. As was stated earlier, how and which
properties will be affected is dependent upon preparation of detailed and specific analyses of
individual properties, including trade area, traffic, and population studies to help determine
appropriate shopping center locations as described by the proposed amendment. All of the
properties potentially affected by this project and the environmental impacts associated with the
proposed changing of a property’s land use or zoning designation cannot be known until the
11 Rev. 03128/96
analyses are complete. G addition, some or many impacts may not be fully known until
development is proposed.
The related activities might produce impacts to the following environmental factors as found in
the checklist of this document: land use planning, geologic, biological resources, traffic, air
quality, noise, aesthetics, cultural resources, public services, and utility and service systems.
The City expects in many instances that negative declarations will be the appropriate
environmental documents since many of the properties involved will already be developed with
or designated for commercial uses. This determination will be made as appropriate.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the preparation of this environmental impact assessment
form. They are on tile in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday
Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760) 602-4600.
1. Citv of Carlsbad General Plan adopted September 6, 1994, City Council Resolution No.
94-246.
2. Citv of Carlsbad Local Coastal Promam approved by City Council on July 16, 1996
(Ordinances NS 364 and 365), and certified by the Coastal Commission on October 9,
1996.
12 Rev.03128/96