Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 55421 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. 5542 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 SECTION 21.44.020(b)(7) OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGING THE PARKING RATE FOR GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS FROM 1 SPACE PER 35 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA TO 1 SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. CASENAME: GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT CASE NO.: ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-10 WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to the parking standard for “gyms and health spas;” and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of March 2004, 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, if any, 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 (Exhibit “ND”) and Addendum (Exhibit “A”), according to the NO1 dated December 10, 2003 and EIA Part I1 (Exhibit “PII”) dated November 20, 2003, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 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 Fin din PS : 1. Th Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad do a. hereby find: it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts therein identified for the project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of March 2004, by the following vote, to wit: b. c. d. AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J.”~LZ&!ILLER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5542 -2- - City of Carlsbad Existing Parking Standard Gyms and Health Spas - 1 space/35 square feet of floor area. NEGATIVE DECLARATION Proposed Parking Standard Gyms and Health Spas - 1 space/200 square feet of floor area. CASE NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: CITYWIDE GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT CASE NO: ZCA 03-03 / LCPA 03-10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program to amend the parking requirement for “gyms and health spas” as follows: 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: (XI 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: April 13,2004, pursuant to Citv Council Resolution No. 2004- 12 1 ATTEST: Planning Director a9 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ADDENDUM TO THE Existing Parking Standard Gyms and Health Spas - 1 space/35 square feet of floor area. NEGATIVE DECLARATION Proposed Parking Standard Gyms and Health Spas - 1 space/200 square feet of floor area. FOR GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT ZCA 03-03 / LCPA 03-10 / ZCA 04-02 / LCPA 04/03 Self-Improvement Services Includes aerobic/exercise studio, dance and music studio/school, health spa, and martial arts studio. Business and Professional Schools This Addendum to the project Negative Declaration is to modi@ the project description. The modification to the project description is insignificant and does not create any new significant environmental effect that was not previously identified. Existing Proposed Parking Standard ParkinP Standard 1 space/35 square feet 1 space/200 square feet of of floor area. floor area. 1 space/emplovee plus 1 1 space/35 square feet space for each 3 students, of floor area. minimum, with adequate loading and unloadinP area. The modified project description is as follows: Project Description: An amendment to the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, and Local Coastal Program to amend the parking requirement for “gyms and health spas” as follows: Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual: Also, amend Section 21.35.020 of the Zoning Ordinance to reference the amendment to the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual. DATE: January 23,2004 MICHAEL J. HwZmLER Planning Director NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATJYE DECLARATION Existing Parking Standard Gyms and Health Spas - 1 space/35 square feet of floor area. CASE NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: CITYWIDE GYMS AND HEALTH SPAS PARKING RATE AMENDMENT CASE NO: ZCA 03-03 / LCPA 03-10 Proposed Parking Standard Gyms and Health Spas - 1 space/2OO square feet of floor area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program as follows: The project consists of amending Section 21.44.020(b)(7) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to change the parking rate for “gyms and health spas” as follows: 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 Planning Commission and City Council. A copy of the initial study (EL4 Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration are 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. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvalladoption 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 Jennifer Coon in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4637. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD DECEMBER 10,2003 TO JANUARY 10,2004 PUBLISH DATE DECEMBER 10,2003 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ Exhibit ‘TII” Existing Parking Standard Gyms and Health Spas - 1 space/35 square feet of floor area. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 Proposed Parking Standard Gyms and Health Spas - 1 spacel200 square feet of floor area. (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: ZCA 03-03/LCPA 03-10 DATE: November 20,2003 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Gyms and Health Spas Parking Rate Amendment LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad, CA 92008 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Jennifer Coon, Associate Planner - (760) 602- PROJE(JT LOCATION: Citywide PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Michael London, PureFitness - 501 West Broadway. Suite F, San Diego, CA 92101 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A ZONING N/A OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (Local Coastal Program Amendment) PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SE”G AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment is as follows: The proiect applies to properties citywide, therefore there is no specific project site with a suecific environmental setting or surrounding land uses. 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 Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 HazardsiHazardous Materials 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Mineral Resources u Mandatory Findings of Significance Noise Population and Housing 0 Public Services c] Recreation u TransportatiodCirculation u Utilities & Service Systems 2 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) [XI 0 0 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have “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. 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 “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but a 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 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 nitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of 01,erriding 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 Supporting Information Sources). I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 17 o 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) 17 0 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 17 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) 11. AGRICULTRAL 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: 0 0 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) 0 17 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 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? Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ow ow (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact I 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: 0 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 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)? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) I7 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the pr.oject: Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 0 0 Ian 0 0 OIa 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) 0 0 UIa 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) 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: OB 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? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Significant Mitigation Significant No Unless Less Than Incorporated ImGt Imgt 0 0 OB Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined ' in 6 15064.5? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 OB Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 6 15064.5? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 OH Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 Potentially Significant Less Than Significant No lnipact Impact 0 Impact 0 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) V. 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. 17 0 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 17 0 0 [XI iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 Ixl 0 [XI iv. Landslides? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 0 [XI b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 0 IXI 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1 994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 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) 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). VI. 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 auport 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) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 I7 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 Less Than Significant Impact E 17 0 0 0 0 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Si-mificant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated lmfit in-gct 0 0 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) MII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: 0 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) o 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 (i.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 whch permits have been granted)? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) c) Impacts to groundwater quality? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 Q 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) 0 0 0 0 0 0 om OH OH om 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Impact 0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 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) 0 Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 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 U Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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) 0 Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact 0 0 0 0 17 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI IXI IXI Kl Ix1 IXI IXI BI IXI 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated ImEt Imgt 0 0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: 0 OB a) Physically divide an established community? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) o 0 om 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) 0 0 om c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) 0 OH 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) 0 nIx1 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) 0 0 OBI 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) 0 17 OH b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 No Impact [XI c) A Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 lxl [XI d) A Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 0 (XI 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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 Ixl (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 cl 17 Ixl b) Displace Substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing else where? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) IXI c) Displace Substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 14 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ2 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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) 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which night have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) 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)? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI h0 Impact la [XI [XI El [XI [XI [XI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 15 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated lmgt InEt 0 17 b) 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) 0 0 om 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 17 OB d) 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) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum- outs, bicycle racks)? 0 OBI 0 0 NU 0 0 oIx1 e) f) (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) XM. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) 0 17 UBI Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) o 0 OBI 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? (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? 0 0 OBI c) (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 16 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 0 0 d) 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) 0 0 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) 0 0 f, Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 0 0 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of ‘ California history or prehistory? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) b) 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?) o 0 (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? 0 0 c) Less Than S ign i fican t Impact 0 0 0 0 0 [XI NO I nipac t [xi [xi [XI IXI 0 IXI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 17 Rev. 07/03/02 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 withn 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. 18 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parkmg requirements will not affect any development standard that could result in an adverse effect on a scenic vista. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. 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? No Impact (b & c) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking requirements will not affect any development standard that could result in substantial damage to scenic resources or degradation of the visual character of any site. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking requirements will not affect any development standard that could result in substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. 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? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking requirements will not affect any development standard that could result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking requirements will not affect any development standard that would cause a conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 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 - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking requirements will not affect any development standard that could result in changes to the existing city environment that would cause the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parlung standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. All properties within the city are 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 (PM,,). 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 (AF’CD) 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 on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to 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. The proposed project will affect !he development of future gyms and health spas on properties throughout the city. Future 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 the 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 RAQS. 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 (citywide) is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. Future development projects affected by the proposed amendment to the parking standards will be required to be consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. 20 Rev. Q7l03lQ2 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The closest air quality monitoring station to properties within the city 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. Long-term emissions associated with travel generated from future development of gyms or health spas subject to the proposed amended parking standards will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with future development of gyms or health spas, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any potential impact is assessed as less than significant. c) 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? Less Than Significant Impact - The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with a future development subject to the proposed amended parking standards would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with a gym or health spa development, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not a future gym or health spa development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the contribution to the cumulative impact from a future gym or health spa development within the city is considered de minimus. Any potential impact is assessed as less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. As noted above, future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in any activity that could create objectionable odors. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis No impact is assessed. 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? 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? b) 21 Rev. 07/03/02 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 proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in an adverse effect on any sensitive habitat or species, or interference with any native or migratory wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery site. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. 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 & !) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not 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. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement €or “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parkmg standards will not affect any standard that would result in an adverse impact to any environmentally sensitive tributary area. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is ass esse d . CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 8 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to 5 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? a Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in a disturbance of any human remains or an adverse impact to any historical, archeological, or paleontological resource. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental 22 Rev. 07/03/02 review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis, and will be subject to the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines No impact is assessed. 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 - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from a rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic related ground failure, or landslides. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact is assessed. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parlung standards will not affect any standard that would result in substantial soil erosion on any site. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environinental review pursuant to CEQA, and the City’s Engineering standards, on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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 (1994), 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 proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in impacts to unstable or expansive soil conditions. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and the City’s engineering and building standards, on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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? 23 Rev. 07/03/02 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? 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 proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in hazards associated with exposure to hazardous materials. Any future -residential development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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 proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for ‘‘gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in exposing people to hazards associated with an airport. Any future residential development subject to the proposed amended development standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. €9 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 proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would interfere with the implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, or result in exposing people to risk from wildland fires. Any future residential development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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? 24 Rev. 07/03/02 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? 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 g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would conflict with any water quality standards, impact groundwater suppliesiquality, alter any drainage pattern, impact the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or result in the degradation of water quality. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in placing housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in exposing people or structures to significant risk from flooding as a result of a dam failure, or from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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? 25 Rev. 07/03/02 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 (I, m, n, o & p) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect 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. Any future development subject to the proposed amehded parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in the division of an established community. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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 - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would conflict with the any City land use plan, policy, or regulation. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would conflict with the any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parlung standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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 proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parlung rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in 26 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ2 the loss of availability of a mineral resource. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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? 4 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 proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels or groundbourne vibrations, or increase noise levels. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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? 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? No Impact (e & f) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels associated with an airport. In addition, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Auport, will ensure that future development will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by the airport. Also, any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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)? Less than Significant Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site, and therefore will not directly induce any growth. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for ‘‘gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would directly or indirectly induce substantial growth. In addition, any future development within the city must comply with the City’s growth projections contained in the Growth Management Program. Because all public facilities (roads, infrastructure, etc) have been planned to accommodate the growth anticipated in the Growth Management Program, no substantial new roads or infrastructure will be necessary. Therefore, any future growth subject to the amended parking standards will be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 27 Rev. 07/03/02 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact (b & c) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in the displacement of any existing housing or people. Also, any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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: 1. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? V. Other public facilities? No Impact (a.i to a.v.) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in adverse impacts to the maintenance of acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any public service. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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 proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would increase the use of existing parks or other recreation facilities. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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? Less than Significant Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to existing traffic load or capacity of any street system. In addition, 28 Rev. 07/03/02 the performance standards of City’s Growth Management Program will ensure that future development will not exceed the traffic load and capacity of the city’s street system. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. Less than significant impact assessed. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant 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 highway 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: Existing ADT* Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43 El Camino Real 21-50 ‘‘A-C” 32-65 Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77 SR 78 120 “F” 144 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. 1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249 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. The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal to amend the City’s general plan or to physically develop any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would cause any future development to exceed a level of service standard established by the County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP). Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the CMP on a site specific basis. Less than significant impact assessed. 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 proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. . The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks associated with air traffic patterns. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. . The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 29 Rev. 07/03/02 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Existing Parking Standard Gyms and Health Spas - 1 space/35 square feet of floor area. No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. . The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would result in inadequate emergency access. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. Proposed Parking Standard Gyms and Health Spas - 1 space/200 square feet of floor area. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less than significant - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed change to the parlung rate for “gyms and health spas” is as follows: Although the proposed parking rate is a reduction to the currently required number of parking spaces for gyms and health spas, the proposed rate more closely reflects the current parking demand of gyms and health spas. The existing parlung requirement is excessive when applied to the modem day gyms. Gyms now have large amounts of open area (more area per piece of equipment, saunas, lobbies, seating areas, courts, offices, etc.) that were not commonplace at the time the current parking requirement was established. A parking rate study was submitted with the project that concludes the average parking demand for a gym during peak hours is 4.35 spaces/1,000 square feet (1 space1230 square feet). In addition, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation data indicates the average parking demand for gyms is 4.37 spaces/1,000 square feet (1 space/229 square feet). The proposed rate of 1 space/200 square feet is consistent with, and slightly higher than, the results of the parking study and ITE parking generation data. Based upon the nature of modern day gyms, and the results of the parking study and ITE data, the proposed parking rate will not result in significantly inadequate parking capacity for gyms and health spas. In addition, any future development subject to the proposed amended parlung standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. Less than significant impact assessed. €9 Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parlung rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parlung standards will not affect any standard that would conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for ‘‘gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would cause any future development to exceed any wastewater treatment requirements. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standards will be subject to the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and further environmental review pursuant to CEQA, on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 30 Rev. 07/03/02 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 proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would increase the need for, or conflict with the current growth projections for water facilities, wastewater treatment or drainage facilities. Any fbture development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 9 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact (f & g) - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would conflict with any regulations related to solid waste, or impact the ability to accommodate solid waste disposal needs within the city. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 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 Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would 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. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to hrther environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (‘‘Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) 31 Rev. 07/03/02 Less than Significant 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 amendment to the parking standards will not affect any standard that would conflict with other 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 potentia1 to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parking rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. Future development subject to the proposed amended parking standards would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with a future gym or health spa development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with a future gym or health spa development, air quality would be essentially the same whether or nat development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. Also, 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 proposed amendment to the gym and health spa parking standard will not affect any standard that would conflict with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than significant. With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact - The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program Amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project consists of an amendment to the parlung rate requirement for “gyms and health spas”, which will affect the development of future gyms and health spas on a citywide basis. The proposed amendment to the parlung standards will not affect any standard that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Any future development subject to the proposed amended parking standard will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. No impact assessed. 32 Rev. 07/03/02 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Ciw of Carlsbad Fitness Center Parking Rate Study, November 11,2003, prepared by RI3F Consulting. Parking Generation, August 1987, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Final Master Environmental Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. Carlsbad General Plan, September 6, 1994. Carlsbad Municiual Code. Title 2 1. Zoning Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Zones City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mauuing Study, November 1992. f f - 33 -. Rev. 07/03/02