Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-08-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 54491 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. 5449 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO AMEND TITLE 21 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING VARIOUS PROCEDURES AFFECTING THE REVIEW AND PROCESSING OF LAND USE APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING: (1) REVISING AND STANDARDIZING VARIANCE FINDINGS AND THE APPEAL PROCESS FOR MANY LAND USE PROJECTS; (2) REVISING AND CLARIFYING SOME REVIEW PROCEDURES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; (3) REPLACING AND REPEALING OUTDATED OR SUPERSEDED NAMES AND TITLES; (4) REPEALING DENSITY PROVISIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN; AND, (5) ADDING A DEFINITION FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND INCORPORATING A CITY POLICY ON THE SAME. CASE NAME: VARIOUS CODE CHANGES CASE NO.: ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 WHEREAS, the Planning Director, has prepared an amendmerit to Title 1 ofthe Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) amending various standards related to the review and processing of land use applications proposed throughout the City; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of August, 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. 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) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration, Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated April 25,2003, and “PII” dated April 18, 2003, 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 the Various Code Changes (ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09), 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 I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PC RES0 NO. 5449 -2- 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 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of August 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, White, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Segall ABSTAIN: None CARLS ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HO-MIL~R Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5449 -3- - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: VARIOUS CODE CHANGES PROJECT LOCATION: CITYWIDE CASE NO: ZCA 00-02LCPA 00-09MCA 03-0 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of text changes to the Zoning Ordinance and, to a lesser extent, other titles of the City’s Municipal Code. The changes affect the review and processing of administrative and discretionary actions for many types of land use proposals. A Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessary because the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance of the Local Coastal Program. The project proposes no physical development. The proposed changes can be summarized and highlighted as follows: Revise procedures for the noticing of continued hearings and the review of some applications, including subdivisions with panhandle lots and incomplete applications. Revise and standardize the appeal process for most types of land use decisions. Clarifj, standards relating to allowed protrusions above building height limits. Replace outdated titles, such as “land use planning manager” with “planning director” Update the names of zones to reflect currently adopted zones. Revising variance findings to be consistent with the California Government Code. Delete density provisions that are inconsistent with the General Plan. Adding a definition for “wireless communication facilities” (i.e., cellular antenna facilities and the like) and incorporating by reference a City policy on the same. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. PROPOSED 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 (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration 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 the date of this notice (see deadline date below). The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvaVadoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Scott Donne11 in the Planning Department at (760) 602-461 8. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS: MAY 25,2003 PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 25,2003 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003 NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: lesser extent, other titles of the VARIOUS CODE CHANGES Not applicable ZCA 00-02LCPA 00-09MCA 03-0 1 The project revises portions of the text of the Zoning Ordinance and, to a City’s Municipal Code. A Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessary because the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance of the Local Coastal Program. Proposed changes would (1) revise and standardize variance findings and the appeal process for many land use projects, (2) revise and clarify some review procedures and development standards, (3) replace and delete outdated or superseded names and titles, (4) delete density provisions inconsistent with the General Plan, and (5) add a definition for wireless communication facilities and incorporate a city policy on the same. The project proposes no development and does not affect any property or section of the City in particular. 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 (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: Ixl 0 0 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). 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: October 14.2003, uursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2003-264 ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HO~~MILI~~ 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: MCA 03-01/ZCAOO-O2/LCPA 00-09 DATE: April 11.2003 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: VARIOUS CODE CHANGES LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad. CA 92008 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Scott Donne11 - (760) 602-461 8 PROJECT LOCATION: N/A - The Droiect applies to properties throuvhout Carlsbad PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,. CA 92008 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A ZONING: N/A OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED @e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission PROJECT DESCRIPTIONENVIRONMENTAL, SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The uroiect consists of a variety of text changes, some “housecleaning” in nature, to the Zoning Ordinance. and. to a lesser extent, other titles of the City’s Municipal Code. The changes affect the review and processing of administrative and discretionary actions for many twes of land use proposals. A Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessary because the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance of the Local Coastal Promam. The proiect woposes no physical development and, since it affects remlations applicable to properties citywide, there is no specific project site with a specific environmental setting or surrounding land uses. The changes uroDosed to the Zoning Ordinance can be summarized and highlighted as follows: a. Revise procedures for the noticing of continued hearings and the review of some applications, including subdivisions with panhandle lots and incomplete applications. b. Revise and standardize the appeal process for most twes of land use decisions. C. Clarifv standards relating to allowed protrusions above building height limits. d. Replace outdated titles, such as replacing “land use planning manager” yith “planning director” e. Uudate the names of zones to reflect currently adouted zones. f. Revise variance findings to be consistent with the California Government Code. g* Delete density provisions that are inconsistent with the General Plan. h. Add a definition for “wireless communication facilities” (i.e.. cellular antenna facilities and the like) and incomorate by reference a City Council policy on the same. 1 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 0 Hazardshlazardous Materials 0 pOPulatiOn and Housing 0 Air Quality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Public Services 0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 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 0 0 0 I find that the proposed project COULD 7 3T have a significant effect on the environment, an la 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. Planner Signature Date ‘ d0h3 Date 3 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS State California Environmental Quality Act (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 llke 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 “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but fl 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, 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. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 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 EIR (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EM-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 ISSUES (and SuDporting Information Sources) I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) c) 11. 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- 1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) c) 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: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant No Impact Impact om om om 6 Rev. 07/03/02 ISSUES (and Supportinp Information Sources) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutqnt 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)? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI [XI IXI IXI IXI IXI El IXI (XI (XI 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 0 0 IXI a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 8 15064.5? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ixl IXI VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 0 IXI i. 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. (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) liquefaction? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) ii. Strong seismic ground shakmg? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) d) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) c) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 8 Rev. 07/03/02 ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) e) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) VII. 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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 working in the project area? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 9 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI [XI Kl IXI IXI IXI Ixi [XI [XI [XI Rev. 07/03/02 ISSUES (and SuDportine Information Sources) 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 @e., 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)? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Impacts to groundwater quality? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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! (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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 (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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)? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) n-lap? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI Ixl IXI Ix1 IXI IXI IXI [XI IXI IXI IXI IXI 10 Rev. 07/03/02 ISSUES (and Sumortine Information Sources) n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) IX. c) X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact o 17 o 0 0 0 No Impact IXI IXI (XI IXI IXI (XI 0 0 UIXI 0 0 OIXI 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: 0 om 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 0 17 I7 IXI IXI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above 0 0 OH levels existing without the project? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 11 Rev. 07/03/02 ISSUES (and Sunporting Information Sources) For a project located withm an airport land or, where such a plan has not been adopted, use plan within 2 -J 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) XI. 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)? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES 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: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) XIV. RECREATION a) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI IXI IXI Ixl IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI KI IXI 12 Rev. 07/03/02 ISSUES (and Sumortinr Information Sources) b) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFC - 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 vehlcle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Result in inadequate emergency access? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Result in insufficient parking capacity? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum- outs, bicycle racks)? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) 13 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No [mpact IXI IXI IXI IXI Ix1 IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI Ixl Rev. 07/03/02 ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) e) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) f) XVII. 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively 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?) (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 ‘0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 No Impact Ixl IXI Ixl Ixl la [XI 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. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact (a, b, c, and d) - The project neither proposes any new development, standard, or procedure nor changes any existing standard or procedure in a way that would have an adverse affect on a scenic vista or resource, on visual character, or on any view. Land use applications processed in accord with the proposed requirements and procedures will be subject to environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at which time aesthetic impacts can be assessed. The project may make a positive contribution toward visual quality by proposing to incorporate by reference into the Zoning Ordinance the existing City Council policy on wireless communication facilities (which include structures such as cellular towers and antennas). As a result, effectiveness and awareness of this policy, which includes location and appearance guidelines, would increase. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact (a, b, and c) - The project’s text amendments propose no development nor do they affect any existing standard or propose any new standard that would (1) convert farmland to a non-agricultural use; (2) conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract; or (3) involve other changes in the existing environment that would result in conversion of farmland to a non-farm use. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. None of the project’s text changes involves or affects standards for implementation of an air quality plan. Carlsbad is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (MCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings onNovember 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to 15 Rev. 07/03/02 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. Development projects relate to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that a project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the UQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. As previously mentioned, the project involves text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code and Local Coastal Program and proposes no development of any property. Furthermore, the project does not propose any change that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan. The City will evaluate future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the proposed amendments for consistency with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the UQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan because it will not in any way conflict with or obstructs its implementation. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to Carlsbad is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The proposed amendments, which consist of general processing and review requirement changes for land use projects, propose no physical development or air quality planning or standard changes. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any air quality impacts. 4 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? No Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The project’s amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, and Local Coastal Program do not propose or affect any standard that would result in a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. Additionally, these amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any property in Carlsbad. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any air quality impacts. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site, nor does it propose or affect any standards relating to air quality or pollution. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any air quality impacts. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The project does not propose or affect any standard relating to air quality. The City will evaluate future development projects subject to the proposed text revisions through the CEQA process to determine if the project would create objectionable odors that would affect a large number of people. 16 Rev. 07/03/02 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 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? 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? 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? d) 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? No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project does not propose or affect any standard that would result in an adverse effect on any sensitive habitat or species, or interfere with any native or migratory wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery site. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any biological resource impacts. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact (e & f) - The project does not propose nor affect any standard that would result in a conflict with local policies and ordinances that protect biological resources or the provisions of any habitat conservation plan. 8) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? No Impact - The project’s text amendments do not include a proposal for any physical development of any site, and none of the amendments affects or proposes any standard that would result in an adverse impact to any environmentally sensitive tributary area. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any potential impacts. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 0 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to $15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. Additionally, the project does not propose any new standard or affect any existing standard that would result in a disturbance of any human remains or an adverse impact to any historical, archeological, or paleontological resource. Since Carlsbad contains cultural resources near its lagoons, future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with amendments proposed by the project will be subject to CEQA review and the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. 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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? No impact (i - iv.) The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project also does not affect or propose any standard relating to geology and soils. Though no particular site analysis is possible, general information about earthquake and landslide impacts to Carlsbad is known. There are no Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active of potentially active faults within the City. However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. Landslides are also a potential threat in parts of the City. All development proposals in Carlsbad are subject to site-specific environmental review pursuant to CEQA, which results in the application of requirements such as the Uniform Building Code earthquake construction standards and soil remediation that when necessary ensure potential adverse effects are not significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. In addition, the project does not affect or propose any standard regarding the control of soil erosion or topsoil loss. Any future development subject to the project’s revised processing requirements and review procedures will be subject to mher environmental review according to CEQA and the City’s Engineering standards, and done on a site specific basis. c) 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? d) 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? e) 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? No Impact (c, d & e) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review and the City’s Engineering standards on a site-specific basis. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 18 Rev. 07/03/02 d) 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? No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site or a change or adoption of any standard that would result in exposure to hazardous materials. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine the extent and, if necessary, mitigation of hazardous materials. e) 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 working in the project area? f) 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? No Impact (e & f) - The project’s proposed amendments do not affect nor propose any standard relating to the safety of people working near an airport. The individual CEQA review of land use proposals within the influence area of the McClellan-Palomar Airport will include evaluation of potential safety hazards based on the airport’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) 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? No Impact (g & h) - The project neither affects nor proposes any standard relating to an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan or a standard that might expose people to a significant wildfire risk. The City will evaluate risks associated with development projects in wildland-urban interface areas upon the submittal of the individual project. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) 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)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? 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? 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? 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? 8) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) -The project does not affect or propose any standard that would have an adverse effect on water quality, groundwater, stormwater drainage, capacity, or patterns, or erosion or flooding. Future 19 Rev. 07/03/02 development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the project’s text amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any potential hydrology and water quality impacts 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? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact (h & i) - Project amendments propose no development and do not affect or propose any standard that would result in placing a building or structure with a flood hazard area. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any potential impacts. 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? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact (j & k) - Project amendments propose no development and do not affect or propose any standard that would expose people to flooding risks, including flooding caused by dam breaks or tsunamis. Any future development subject to the proposed changes will be subject to further CEQA review on a site-specific basis. 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 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)? n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? P) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? No Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project does not propose any development nor affect or propose any standard that would result in increased erosion or pollutant discharges into any surface waters, a change to receiving water quality, or an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any potential impacts. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site nor does it affect any standard that would result in the division of an established community. Any future development subject to the project’s text amendments will be subject to hrther environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. 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? No Impact - Proposed changes do not propose or affect any standard that would conflict with any City land use plan, policy, or regulation. Conversely, the revisions eliminate existing conflicts and improve awareness of city standards by (1) deleting density provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that conflict with General Plan density ranges 20 Rev. 07/03/02 and Growth Management control points, and; (2) incorporating by reference into the Zoning Ordinance a city policy on wireless communication facilities. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact - The project does not affect any particular site in the site and it proposes no development. Additionally, proposed text amendments neither affect nor propose any standard that would conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Instead, any potential conflicts with the conservation plans will be determined as part of the individual environmental review that land use proposals undergo. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: 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? 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? No Impact (a & b) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site and it does not propose or affect any standard that would result in the loss of a mineral considered important or valuable on a local, regional, or state level. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendments will be subject to mher environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. It also does not affect or propose any standard that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels or groundbourne vibrations, or increase noise levels. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendments will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. 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? 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? f) No Impact (e & f) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site, and it does not affect or propose any standard that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels associated with an airport. Land use proposals processed in accord with the proposed requirements and procedures will be subject to individual environmental review. As necessary, required compliance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport will ensure that future development avoids exposure to excessive airport noise levels. 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)? 21 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact (a) - The project does not include a component to develop land or infrastructure or make land available or more feasible for development. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendments will be subject to CEQA review on a site-specific basis. All future development within Carlsbad must comply with the City’s growth projections contained in the Growth Management Program. Because the City has planned all public facilities (roads, infrastructure, etc) to accommodate the growth anticipated in the Growth Management Program, no substantial new roads or infrastructure will be necessary. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact (b & c) - The project proposes not development nor does it propose or affect any standard that would result in the displacement of any existing housing or people. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendments will be subject to CEQA review on a site-specific basis. 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: i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? V. Other public facilities? No Impact (a.i to a.v.) - The project does not affect or propose any standard that would result in adverse impacts to the maintenance of acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public service. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendments will be subject to CEQA review on a site- specific basis. RECREATION a) 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? b) 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? No Impact (a & b) - The project proposes no development, and it does not affect existing recreational facilities in any way. Moreover, it does not include any recreation component or generate the need for the same. A performance standard for parks is part of the City’s Growth Management Program. Future development that is processed according to the project’s text amendments will be required to comply with this performance standard, which ensures future development will not adversely impact any park facilities. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site, and it does not affect or propose any standard that might cause an increase in traffic. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 A performance standard for traffic is part of the City’s Growth Management Program. Future development that is processed according to the project’s text amendments will be required to comply with this performance standard, which ensures future development will not exceed the traffic load and capacity of the city’s street system. In addition, future development will also undergo CEQA review on a site-specific basis. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact - SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two hghway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Rancho Santa Fe Road El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road SR 78 1-5 LOS Buildout ADT* Existing ADT* - 15-32 “A-c” 28-43 21-50 “A-C“ 32-65 10-52 ‘‘A-B’’ 29-77 120 T’ 144 183-198 “D” 2 19-249 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. This project proposes no physical development of a property. Further, it does not propose to change or add a standard that would affect levels of service as established by the CMP. The City will assess a development proposal processed in accord with the text amendments for compliance with CMP standards as part of its environmental review. c) 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? No Impact - The project does not include any aviation components. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact (d, e, f) - The project’s proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, and Local Coastal Program do not affect or propose any standard that might hmder adequate emergency access, result in insufficient parking capacity, or substantially increase a hazard because of design or a use. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact - The project proposes no physical development of any property or a change in or adoption of a standard supporting alternative transportation. Furthermore, the proposed text changes will not affect the required CEQA review of all development projects. 23 Rev. 07/03/02 UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development or to change or add any standard that would cause wastewater treatment requirements to be exceeded. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendments will be subject to further environmental review, including an analysis of wastewater treatment impacts, pursuant to CEQA and on a site-specific basis. b) 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? c) 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) 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? No Impact (b, c, d & e) - All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. Additionally, the project does not affect or propose any standard that would increase the need for or conflict with the current growth projections for water facilities, wastewater treatment or drainage facilities. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendments will be subject to CEQA review, including an analysis of wastewater, water, and infrastructure impacts, on a site-specific basis. 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 8) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact (f & g) - The project contains no development component and thus generates no waste. Moreover, its proposed text amendments do not conflict with any regulations related to solid waste, including regulations that might affect landfill capacity. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendments will be subject to CEQA review, including analysis of solid waste impacts on a site-specific basis. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact - The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code and Local Coastal Program do not include a component to physically develop any site. Moreover, the project does not affect or propose any standard that would have the potential to degrade or reduce environmental quality, fish or wildlife habitat or populations, or eliminate key examples of state history or prehistory. Any future development processed in accord with the revised text amendments will be subject CEQA review on a site-specific basis. 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 24 Rev. 07/03/02 when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) No Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The proposed project does not affect or recommend any standard that would conflict with City or region-wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site or a proposal that would have an effect on an air quality or regional circulation standard. Construction of future projects processed in accord with the project’s proposed text amendments would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with future development would be minimal. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the contributions of these future developments to the cumulative impact would be considered de minimus. Any impact would be assessed as less than significant. In addition, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project does not affect the City’s growth projections. Further, city standards and regulations will ensure that future development subject to the proposed project will not result in a significant cumulative considerable impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project does not affect or propose any standard that would adversely affect people either directly or indirectly. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendments will be subject to CEQA review on a site-specific basis. EARLIER ANALYSES 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. Final Master Environmental Impact ReDort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Carlsbad General Plan, September 6, 1994. 3. Zoning Ordinance (Title 2 1 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) 25 Rev. 07/03/02