HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 48531
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. 4853
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO AMEND
THE GENERAL PLAN, THE ZONING REGULATIONS, AND
THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO ESTABLISH A NEW
C-F “COMMUNITY FACILITIES” ZONE AND TO AMEND
THE GENERAL PLAN TO CLARIFY EXISTING WORDING
REGARDING ALLOWED DENSITY.
CASE NAME: COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
CASE NO.: GPA 99-OllZCA 99-02lLCPA 99-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of November 2000,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was continued to the 6th day of December
2000, and to the 3rd day of January 2001, and to the 7th day of February, 2001, at said
public hearing, having heard and considered 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 28, 2000, and “PII” dated March 22,
2000, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinps:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration COMMUNITY
FACILITIES ZONE - GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02, 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
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 7th day of February 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
6
CARLSBAD PLANNING C:gISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL .I. HtiZtiLER
Planning Director
PC RBSO NO. 4853 -2-
city of Cakbad
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Citywide in the City of Carlsbad
Creation of a new General Plan land use designation and a new
zoning district to require some already-allowed uses in master
plans and residential specific plans as community facilities uses
and clarification of existing General Plan wording regarding
allowed density.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative 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 Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4621.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
AUGUST 28,200O
GPA 99.OllZCA 99.02lLCPA 99-02
COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
AUGUST 28,200O
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 802-8559
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02
DATE: March 22.2000
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
CASE NAME: Communitv Facilities Zone
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad, Planning Deoartment
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faradav Avenue, Carlsbad, CA
92009 (7601602-4600
4.
5.
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Creation of a new General Plan land use de&nation and a new
Zoning district to reauire some alreadv-allowed uses in master olans and residential specific
plans as communitv facilities uses and clarification of existing General Plan wording regarding
allowed den&.
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.
q Land Use and Planning IXI Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
q Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources IJ Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
0 Water q Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Noise q Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03128196
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[XI
q
q
q
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 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. An EIR 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 pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
“a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
%7)-LV
Date
Planning Director)SI&gnatue Date s’z-“‘O
2 Rev. 03128196
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.
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.
“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 &I 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 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.
Rev. 03/28196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
4
b)
Cl
4
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#I:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-I 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-I 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
4
b)
Cl
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-I -
5.5-6)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#I:Pgs 5.5-l 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
Cl
4
e)
f-l
g)
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Seismicgroundshaking?(#l:Pgs5.1-1 -5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l 5.1.15)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l -
5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (#I:Pgs
5.1-l 5.1-15)
Subsidence oftbe land? (#I:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l
5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#I:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5.,2-l 1)
q
0
0
cl
0
cl
0
q
0
B
cl
0 17
0
H
0
0
0
5 Rev. 03128196
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
.-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g)
h)
0
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#I:Pgs 5.2-l 5.,2-l 1)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5..2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#I:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water suppl&? (#I:Pgs
5.2-I - 5.,2-l 1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
C)
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
I - 5.3-12)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
5.3-12)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#I:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TR4NSPORTATIONlCIRCULATION. Would the
4
b)
8)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pes 5.7-I - 5.7.22)
insuffcient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#I:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#I:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
4
b)
Cl
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24)
6
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
cl
q
q
q
Rev. 03128196
NO
IlTlpaCt
IXI
El
El
El
IXI
IXI
[XI
!zl
El
IXI
tzl
q
El
IXI
IXI
IXI
El
El
El
IXI
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VIII.
a)
b)
C)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparia” and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 5.12.1-5 &5.13-l 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable reso”rces in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 5.13-9)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l 5.12.1-S
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
b)
C)
d)
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -5.10.1-S)
Possible interference with a” emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l
5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing sowces of potential
healthhazards?(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -5.10.1-5)
Increase tire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass,ortrees?(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l :Pgs 5.9-l 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels’? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-l 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-l - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l
5.12.8-7)
XII. UTILITIES 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-l - 5.13-9)
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
cl
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
III
0
cl
0
0
q
0
0
0
cl
cl
0
0
H
El
cl
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
q
No
Impact
7 Rev. 03/28/96
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
Cl
4
e)
cl
9)
XIII.
4
b)
C)
XIV.
4
b)
Cl
4
e)
Communications systems’? ( )
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-l - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-I - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1-5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l -5.11-S)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-l - 5.11-S)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-i 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
b)
XVI.
a)
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-l 5.12.8-7)
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
UIllW
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
El
El
B
0
q
0
0
0
El
q
q
cl
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than NO
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact UllkSS Impact
Mitigation
Inco&rated
on 0~
0
9 Rev. 03128196
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
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:
4 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.
cl Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project consists of a General Plan amendment and a zone code amendment to
require reservation of sites for “community facilities” uses in all new master plan developments
and residential specific plan developments and a clarification of existing General Plan wording
regarding allowed density.
The proposed General Plan amendment would add some discussion of the nature of community
facilities uses and set out the required size of such sites. The proposed zone code amendment
includes 1) changes to the existing P-C Zone to add the wording requiring reservation of a site(s)
for community facilities uses; and, 2) creation of a new “C-F” (Community Facilities) zone to
identify the uses which will be considered community facilities and to establish development
standards for the zone. The uses which will be allowed to satisfy the community facilities
requirement are all currently-allowed uses. No new uses are being identified with the proposed
amendments. The effect of the new regulations will be only to require that some uses be
anticipated in new master plans and residential specific plans. During the processing of master
plan and residential specific plan development applications, staff has previously negotiated the
reservation of sites for uses considered beneficial to serve the proposed new development. These
have usually included child day care facilities and places of worship, among other uses. Staff is
now proposing to codify this reservation of sites into a requirement.
The second part of the amendment would clarify existing General Plan wording regarding
density in some exceptional cases. There are some sites in the City which have consistent
General Plan and zoning designations, but which would be allowed a slightly higher yield by
their zoning than would be allowed by the General Plan. The General Plan anticipated these
situations and includes specific wording which gives the City Council authority to allow density
of up to 25% above the top of the otherwise allowed range subject to certain findings. However,
the adopted wording is confusing. The proposed amendment would correct this confusion by
revising the wording in the General Plan. (No zone code amendment is necessary.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. NON-RELEVANT ITEMS
I. Land Use and Planning
The proposed amendments will have the effect of requiring that new residential master and
specific plan communities provide sites for community facilities such as places of worship and
day care centers. All of the uses to be required are uses which are already allowed in the City,
and have historically been included in master plans and specific plans through project
negotiation. Therefore, codification of this requirement is not in conflict with any applicable
General Plan, zoning, or environmental regulations. In fact, codification of this requirement is
being done to implement wording already in the adopted General Plan which directs this action.
The creation of this requirement, and the development standards for the community facilities
uses, will not affect agricultural uses or disrupt any established communities, and will not be
incompatible with any existing land uses. The requirement for community facilities would apply
only to new master plans and residential specific plans. The second part of the amendment (the
clarification of existing wording) will not result in any changes to the General Plan policies or
11 Rev. 03128196
zoning regulations or to how those policies and regulations have been implemented historically.
Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any potentially significant impacts to land use
and planning.
II. Pouulation and Housing
The proposed project will not result in any potentially significant impacts to population or
housing in the city. No development is being proposed, and the inclusion of community
facilities uses within communities by requirement, rather than by chance, would not be expected
to result in any growth beyond that already anticipated by the City’s General Plan. The second
part of the amendment (the clarification of existing wording) will not result in any changes to the
General Plan policies or zoning regulations or to how those policies and regulations have been
implemented historically.
III. Geologic Problems
The proposed amendments are not specific to any site, but could apply citywide. Also, no
development is being proposed, and no sites are being identified for specific uses through these
amendments. Also, the proposed amendments will not change any regulations, policies,
standards, or guidelines already in place which affect geologic conditions or the
prevention/handling of geologic problems. The ultimate placement of any future uses will be
reviewed and considered at the time a master plan or specific plan application is submitted, just
as it is under the current regulations. The proposed project would only ensure that, among the
uses proposed by the developer, a day care site and possibly another community facilities use site
would be reserved for a particular time period. Detailed analysis of site conditions and possible
development impacts will be evaluated at the time a project application is submitted. Therefore,
the proposed project will not result in any potentially significant geological impacts.
IV. m
The proposed amendments are not specific to any site, but could apply citywide. Also, no
development is being proposed, and no sites are being identified for specific uses through these
amendments. Also, the proposed amendments will not change any regulations, policies,
standards, or guidelines already in place which affect or address water conditions or the
prevention/handling of problems related to water bodies, absorption rates, hazards, discharge,
turbidity, or the availability of water. The ultimate placement of any future uses will be reviewed
and considered at the time a master plan or specific plan application is submitted, just as it is
under the current regulations. The proposed project would only ensure that, among the uses
proposed by the developer, a day care site and possibly another community facilities use site
would be reserved for a particular time period. Detailed analysis of site conditions and possible
development impacts will be evaluated at the time a project application is submitted. Therefore,
the proposed project will not result in any potentially significant water impacts.
VI. TransnortatiotKirculation
The proposed project is not specific to any site and could apply any place within the City.
However, no development is proposed through this project. Provision of community facilities
within master plans and residential specific plans might reasonably be expected to reduce any
traffic/circulation impacts resulting horn those developments by ensuring that some necessary
services are located in close proximity to the residential development reducing the number and/or
distance of vehicle trips. However, any master plan or specific plan application will be analyzed
in detail for potential transportation/circulation impacts when an application is submitted. In
addition, the proposed project will not alter in any way the City regulations, policies, standards,
and guidelines already in place which require provision of adequate and timely circulation
facilities. By requiring that community facilities uses be placed within master planned
12 Rev. 03/28/96
-- -
communities, the total number of trips generated in a given area may even be reduced.
Therefore, the proposed project will not have any potentially significant
transportation/circulation impacts.
VII. Biological Resources
The proposed amendments are not specific to any site. They could apply any place in the City.
Any master plan or specific plan application will be analyzed in detail for potential impacts to
biological resources. However, the code amendments proposed currently (the “project”) will not
have any impact on biological resources.
VIII. Energv and Mineral Resources
The proposed amendments are not site-specific and could apply anywhere in the City. The
proposed project will not create any new uses (i.e., uses not currently allowed in the City), and
no development is proposed through this project. Any development proposed in the future will
be analyzed in detail for potential impacts to energy and mineral resources.
IX. Hazards
The proposed project is not specific to any site and could apply any place within the City.
However, no development is proposed through this project. In addition, the project will not
create any new uses (i.e., uses not currently allowed in the City). The uses which would be
allowed to satisfy the community facilities use requirement (e.g., places of worship, child dare
care facilities, etc.) are uses which typically do not present any risk of explosion, release of
hazardous substances, etc. However, any development proposed in the future will be analyzed in
detail for potential hazard impacts. Therefore, the proposed project does not result in any
potentially significant hazards impacts.
X. Noise
The proposed amendments are not specific to any site. They could apply any place in the City.
Any master plan or specific plan application will be analyzed in detail for potential noise
impacts. In addition, the proposed Code amendments specifically address the need for
consideration of compatibility of the community facilities uses. Compatibility concerns would
include, among other things, noise impacts to neighboring uses. However, the code amendments
proposed currently (the “project”) will not have any noise impacts.
XI. Public Services
No development is proposed through this project. Under the City’s adopted growth management
regulations, all development in the City is required to provide all necessary public facilities and
services concurrent with development. This requirement would not be altered by the proposed
project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts to
public services.
XII. Utilities and Services Systems
No development is proposed through this project. Under the City’s adopted growth management
regulations, all development in the City is required to provide all necessary public facilities and
services concurrent with development. This requirement would not be altered by the proposed
project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts to
public utilities and services systems.
XIII. Aesthetics
The proposed amendments are not specific to any site. They could apply any place in the City.
Any master plan or specific plan application will be analyzed in detail for potential aesthetic
13 Rev. 03/28/96
impacts. In addition, the proposed Code amendments specifically address the need for
consideration of compatibility of the community facilities uses. Compatibility concerns would
include, among other things, aesthetic impacts of any proposed uses. However, the code
amendments proposed currently (the “project”) will not have any aesthetic impacts.
XIV. Cultural Resources
The proposed amendments are not specific to any site. They could apply any place in the City.
Any master plan or specific plan application will be analyzed in detail for potential impacts to
cultural resources. However, the code amendments proposed currently (the “project”) will not
have any impact on cultural resources.
XV. Recreational
The proposed amendments will only require that future residential master plans and specific
plans provide sites for needed community facilities. Provision of recreational sites and/or
facilities is already a requirement of development in the City, and the currently required amounts
and types of such uses would not be altered in any way by the additional requirement for
community facilities. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in impacts to recreational
demand or opportunities.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DISCUSSION
V. Air Ouality
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of 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 particulate%
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 build-out
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 build-out, 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 development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
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 projects covered
by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This
14 Rev. 03128196
-
document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. TransoortationKirculation
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Phxn. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 ml1 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 build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) 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. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out 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 projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning
Department.
15 Rev.03/28196
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on tile in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93.Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
16 Rev. 03128196
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
17 Rev.03128196