HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 51581
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. 5158
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO UPDATE
THE CITY’S FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
CITYWIDE.
CASE NAME: FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS REVISIONS
CASE NO.: ZCA 0 1 -04/LCPA 02-0 1
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by various owners, “Owner,” described as
Citywide
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of May 2003, 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 ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated May 14, 2002, and “PII” dated May 7, 2002,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
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
a.
b.
C.
d.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration ZCA 01-
04LCPA 02-01, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and
any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project;
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;
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EL4 Part I1 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 May, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
&& R, Chairperson
C~AD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLmILLkk
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5158 -2-
City of Carlsbad
0 D-0, -
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: Citywide
Project Description: A Zone Code Amendment and a Local Coastal Program
Amendment to update the City's Floodplain Management
Regulations (Chapter 21.110 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to
maintain consistency with the requirements of the National Flood
Insurance Program
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 file 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: MAY 14,2002
CASE NO: FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS REVISIONS
CASE NAME: ZCA 01-04LCPA 02-01
PUBLISH DATE: MAY 14,2002
1 MICHAEL J. HOLZ~LER
Planning Director
@ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZCA 01-04/LCPA02-01
DATE: May 7,2002
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Floodplain Regulations Revisions
2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faraday Avenue; Carlsbad,
CA 92008
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: a Zone Code Amendment and a Local Coastal Program
Amendment to update the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations (Chapter 21.1 10 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to maintain consistency with the requirements of the
National Flood Insurance Program
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 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral 0 Aesthetics
0 Water Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality Recreation
Resources
Hazards
Noise
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
P
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI
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 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 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,
5- 3-82,
51 Sb z-
Planning Director%3gnbdure Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
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 11”, 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).
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. 03/28/96
0 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.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
P-- I
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
LessThan No Significan Impact
t Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0 OH
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major mfrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
0
0
0 5.5-6)
housing? (#l:PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
0
0 OH
0 om
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (# 1 :Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
0 o 0
0
0
0 0 0
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
5.1-15)
0 0 om om om
0 om OH
0 0 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
0
o
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
11)
0 OH
0
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
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 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#1 :Pgs
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
(#1 :PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12)
VI. TIZANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or trafic congestion? (#l:Pgs
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#1 :Pgs
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22)
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in
impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
a)
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
17
0 I7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
I7
cl
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significan
t Impact
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6 Rev. 03/28/96
r
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
LessThan No
Significan Impact
t Impact
0
0
0
OIXI b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs 5.4-1
5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24)
OIXI
OIXI
OB 0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
proposal?
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
1 - 5.13-9)
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
0 0
0 OB
0 OB
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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing Sources of potential
healthhazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
5.10.1-5)
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15)
1 - 5.9-15)
0
0
0
0
OIXI
OIXI
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 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 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 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
7 Rev. 03/28/96
n /h
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated
XI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
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 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
Disturb archaeological resources? (#1 :Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses withm the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
10)
10)
1 - 5.8-10)
OB
OIXI OIXI OB OB
OIXI
OIXI OIXI
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
0 0 OB
o 0 OIXI
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
8 Rev. 03/28/96
fl
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
0 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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects whch will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
0
0
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation
Unless t Impact
Incorporated 0 OIXI
0
0 OIXI
9 Rev. 03/28/96
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. In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
Section 15063(c)(3)@).
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 from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONDCNVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project involves a Zone Code Amendment (ZCA) and a Local Coastal Program
Amendment (LCPA) to adopt revisions to the City's Floodplain Management Regulations
(Chapter 2 1.1 10 of the Municipal Code). The adoption of amended wording for the Municipal
Code (the ZCA) is necessary to bring the City's regulations into conformance with the latest
wording required by The National Flood Insurance Program (NFP). Adoption of an amended
floodplain management ordinance is a requirement for continued participation in the NFIP.
The LCPA is necessary to ensure continued consistency between the City's zoning regulations
and the Coastal Program regulations.
The City's current floodplain management regulations (contained in Chapter 21.110 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code) were adopted on October 11, 1988. During the 1999 Community
Assistance Visit, the DWR staff determined that the City's Floodplain Regulations needed to be
updated to meet the minimum NFIP requirements as specified in the Code of Federal Regulations
(Title 44, Sections 59, 60.3-60.6). The changes proposed are:
a) Update the definitions of "lowest floor" and "substantial improvement" for purposes
of Chapter 21.1 10 only;
b) Update the references to relevant studies and maps which are applicable to the
regulations contained in Chapter 21.1 10;
c) Update the requirements/obligations of the Floodplain Administrator (the Planning
Commission); and,
d) Update the wording related to floodplain variances in Chapter 21.1 10.
None of the proposed changes have the effect of loosening the restrictions or regulations
contained in the Floodplain regulations.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
No site-specific project is proposed as a part of this zone code amendment. The proposed zone
code amendment will not conflict with the City's General Plan, zoning regulations, or any
environmental plans or policies. No site-specific project is being proposed. Therefore, the
proposed amendment is also not incompatible with existing land uses, will not affect agricultural
resources, and will not affect any established community. Further, the project will not, in itself,
result in geologic problems, water impacts, air quality impacts, traffic/circulation impacts,
impacts to biological resources, impacts to energy and mineral resources, the creation of or
exposure of people to hazards, noise impacts, impacts to public services, impacts to utilities and
services systems, aesthetic impacts, impacts to cultural resources, or impacts to recreational
opportunities. As development projects are proposed for specific sites and reviewed, they will be
evaluated for potential environmental impacts.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
/-
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file 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
(MER 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
12 Rev. 03/28/96