HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 54311
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. 5431
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW A
ZONE CHANGE FROM LlMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO
PLANNED COMMUNITY (P-C) AND FROM L-C TO
RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME PARK (RMHP) LOCATED AT
THE ROBERTSON RANCH PROPERTY IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 14.
CASE NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH ZONE CHANGE
CASE NO.: ZC 02-04
WHEREAS, Robertson Family Trust and Calavera Hills 11, LLC,
“Owners/Developers,” have filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding
property described as
Parcels 1, 2, and 3 of Boundary Adjustment No. 01-13 in the
City of Carlsbad as described in Certificate of Compliance
recorded November 28,2001
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of June, 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,
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
according to Exhibits “NOI” dated April 28, 2003, and “PII” dated April 18,
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:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration for ZC 02-04,
the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
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 18th day of June, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None 3 AKER, Chairperson
C-AD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5431 -2-
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: ZC 02-04
CASE NO: ROBERTSON RANCH ZONE CHANGE
PROJECTLOCATION: Robertson Ranch propertv east of El Camino Real and south of
Tamarack Avenue in the northeast quadrant of the citv.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone Change request from the existing interim holding zone of Limited
Control (LC) to Planned Community (PC) to allow the initiation of master planning efforts for
Robertson Ranch; and a Zone Change request from existing LC zoning to the Residential Mobile Home
Park zoning district (RMHP) for a 5.7- acre portion of the existing LC property. A copy of Zone
Change exhibit is available for review at the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad.
DETERMINATION: 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, the initial study (EL4 Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the
environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 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. (Negative Declaration applies only to the
effects that remained to be addressed).
0 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on
file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: September 16,2003, pursuant to City Council Resolution 2003-243
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOL~ILLE~!
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.car1sbad.ca.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC 02-04
DATE: April 18.2003
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Robertson Ranch Zone Change
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Eric Munoz 760.602.4608
4. PROJECT LOCATION: Robertson Ranch, east of El Camino Real
5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: McMillin Comuanies, 2727 Hoover Street,
National Citv. CA Brian Milich: 619.336.3138
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM
7. ZONING: LC TO PC AND LC TO RMHP
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): N/A
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Zone change request for the Robertson Ranch property which is currently in a holding zone
(Limited Control. LC zone). The request is to change the LC zoning to PC zoning (Planned
Community) which requires the master planning process per 21.38 of the zoning ordinance.
In addition, a 5.7 acre portion of the current LC property is proposed to be RMHP zoninp.
No development proposal is involved at this time; fbture development applications will be
submitted to initiate the master plan process for the PC zoned property; and to amend the
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park Permit on the RMHP zoned property. This zone change
will facilitate the relocation of the RCMHP’s RV storage area. Both future proiects for the
master plan (PC zone) and relocated RV storage site (RMHP zone) will undergo
environmental review at this time. No environmental impacts will result from this zone
change request. A copy of the proposed Zone Change exhibit is available for review at the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
Rev. 07/03/02
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 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils 0 Noise
0 Agricultural Resources Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 and Housing
0 Air Quality 0 HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services
0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation
0 Utilities & Service Systems u Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI
0
U
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 “potentially significant impact(s)” on the
environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 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 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
J
Planner Signature Date
3 Rev. 07/03/02
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 significantly adverse, 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
significantly adverse.
Based on an “EM-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse
effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant adverse 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.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to
prepare an EIR if the significant adverse 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 adverse effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant,
4 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not
limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse 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 adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a
“Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made
pursuant to an earlier Em, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to
less than significant; or (4) through the EM-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.
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect
vista?
Substantially damage scenic
including but not limited to,
on a scenic
resources,
trees, rock - outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
State scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light and
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1 997
prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.)
Would the project:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations.) Would the project :
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0 0
0 0
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incornorated
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 0 0 OB applicable air quality plan?
0 OBI b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
0
om c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
0
om d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
0 OBI e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0
substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
0 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
0
o b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
0 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited
to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
0
UIXI
8 Rev. Q7lQ3lO2
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
0
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
0
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensi t ive? 0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incomorated
Unless Impact
0 OIXI
0 OIXI
0
0
OIXI
om
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
0 Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in 5 15064.5?
0
Cause a substantial adverse change in the n n - - significance of an archeological- resource
pursuant to $15064.5?
0 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale
ontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
0
0 Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? 0
IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
om
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
1.
.. 11.
... 111.
iv.
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Be located on expansive soils, as defined in
Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1997), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
I7
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated 0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 I7
No Impact
[XI
[XI
IXI
IXI
IXI
[XI
0
0
0
OBI
OBI
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or environment?
For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or worlung in the
project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -
Would the project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
ground water table level (Le., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
17
0
0
0
0
0
o
I7
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
cl
0
0
cl
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
IXI
IXI
IXI
(XI
(XI
Ixl
(XI
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
17
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0
0 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner, which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
0 0 0 Ixl e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the flow rate or amount
(volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
0 0 0 IXI f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff!
0 0 IXI
IXI
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
17 h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood delineation map?
IXI i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
0 0 IXI j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
0
0
0
0
IXI k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
IXI
Ixl
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving
surface waters.
0 0 0 m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy
metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives,
synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding
substances and trash) into receiving surface
waters or other alteration of receiving surface
water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine,
fresh or wetland waters) during or following
construction?
0
0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) list?
0
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or
groundwater receiving water quality objectives
or degradation of beneficial uses?
0
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: 0 0 o
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
0
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
0 a) 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?
0 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan?
X. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance or
applicable standards of other agencies?
0
o b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundbourne vibration or
groundbourne noise levels?
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
impact
BI
BI
ISI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
0
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
0
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
0
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
0
X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
0
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 0
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 0
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered government
facilities, a need for new or physically altered
government facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incomorated
Unless Impact
0
0 OB
0 OB
0
0 OB
0
14 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the
project:
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial
in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
I7
0
0
0
I7
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
I7
0
0
o
0
0
0 0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
c3
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
[XI
IXI
IXI
IXI
15 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
f)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turn-outs, bicycle racks)?
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
XVLUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which would cause significant environmental
effects?
Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
[XI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
[XI
Kl
IXI
16 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incomorated
0
0
0
0
XVIII. 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:
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.
17 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS
No Impact. Since no development is proposed at this time, there will be no impacts to the aesthetic
qualities of the city or future trail areas. All future development proposals to implement the requested
zone changes shall undergo environmental review at that time.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. The requested zone change will involve areas of agricultural use in the City; however,
future development proposals and/or master planning efforts will be subject to CEQA compliance.
AIR QUALITY
No Impact.
designations that require future permits and environmental review will not affect air quality.
This General Plan Update will not impact the City’s air quality. Changing zoning
BIOLOGICAL and CULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact. Biological or Cultural resources will not be impacted since no development is proposed at
this time. Future development and/or master plan approvals shall undergo standard environmental
review.
GEOLOGY/SOILS
No Impact. Geologic instability or the creation of landslides will not result from adjusting zoning
designations, which will require environmental review with future implementing development proposals.
HAZARDSRIAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No Impact. This zone change request does not involve the use or movement of such materials.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
No Impact. No hydrologic or water quality issues or impacts exist since development is not proposed.
LAND USE PLANNING
No Impact. The proposed zone changes will not adversely impact any of the land use designations
within the City. The proposed zone change from LC to RMHP will allow for the future relocation of the
existing Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park RV storage area via an amendment to that existing RMHP
permit. The proposed zone change from LC to PC will allow for the master plan process to be initiated,
consistent with chapter 21.38 (Planned Community Zone) of the zoning ordinance. Either of the two
processes noted above will be required to comply with CEQA.
MINERAL RESOURCES
No Impact. Mineral resources will be unaffected by the proposed zone changes since no development is
proposed.
NOISE
18 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact. Changes to the subject zoning designations will not create a noise source nor impact
sensitive noise receptors since no development of is proposed at this time.
POPULATION/HOUSING/PUBLIC SERVICES
No Impact. Population, housing and public services will not be impacted since no development is
proposed. The PC zone will allow for the master plan process for Robertson Ranch to be initiated; the
zone changes do not propose changes to the existing residential General Plan designations, so there will
be no impacts to city’s population, housing or public services.
RECREATION
No Impact. The proposed zone changes will not impact recreational opportunities since no development
is proposed. Future development proposals to implement the requested zone changes shall comply with
any required recreational provisions.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
No Impact. Adjusting zoning designations does not constitute a development project that will generate
traffic for city street systems.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
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.
1. None.
19 Rev. 07/03/02