Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 56501 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. 5650 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE RESIDENTIAL POLICIES AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE RESIDENTIAL REGULATIONS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE; AND ALSO TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN CITY POLICIES AND STATE LAW. CASENAME: RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY AMENDMENTS CASE NO.: GPA 03-13/ZCA 03-02/LCPA 03-12 WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared an amendment to the General Plan and Title 21 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to residential land use policies and regulations; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration and Addendum were prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of June 2004 and on the 21st day of July 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 and Addendum. 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 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 Declaration (Exhibit “ND”) and Addendum according to the NO1 dated April 16, 2004, and EIA Part I1 (Exhibit “PII”) dated April 2, 2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings : 1. 2. 3. 4. The Planning Commission has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and Addendum for the RESIDENTIAL, GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY AMENDMENTS (GPA 03-13, ZCA 03-02 and LCPA 03-12), the environmental impacts therein identified for the project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project. The Negative Declaration and Addendum 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. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. 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 21st day of July 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery and Segall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None /FRANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: . Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5650 -2- CASE NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: NOT SITE SPECIFIC RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN & ZONING CONSISTENCY AMENDMENTS CASE NO: GPA 03-13 I ZCA 03-02 ILCPA 03-12 PROJECTDESCRIPTION: The project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the residential policies and land use designations in the General Plan and the residential regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and also to ensure consistency between City policies and State law. The project applies to policies and regulations that are applicable to properties citywide. The proposed amendments include the following: A. General Plan Amendment: 1. 2. 3. 4. B. Zoning OrdinanceLocal Coastal Program Amendment: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Clarify the intent and purpose of each residential land use designation; Specify that residential density shall not be permitted below the low end of the density range; except that a provision will be added to allow a one-family dwelling on any existing residential lot, regardless of density; Incorporate the provisions of Government Code Section 65863, which restricts the City’s ability to reduce residential densities below the density utilized to determine compliance with housing element law; and Add finding #3 from Municipal Code Section 21.90.045 to the General Plan Land Use element section that lists the findings required to exceed the Growth Management Control Point density. Reformat residential zone chapters to list all permitted and conditionally permitted uses; Clarify which land use designation each zone is intended to implement; Specify that one-family dwellings will not be permitted in zones that implement the medium-high and high density land use designations; except that a provision will be added to allow a one-family dwelling on an existing residential lot. Modify residential standards to ensure consistency with General Plan policies (ex. amend the minimum lot area in certain zones to ensure the zone can implement the General Plan density requirements). Amend the Planned Development (PD) regulations to allow a PD in the R-1 Zone when a site contains sensitive habitat; and amend the PD regulations to no longer allow “small-lot single-family’’ development in the RMH or RH land use designations. Other miscellaneous text amendments for consistency purposes. 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: 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 the effects that remained to be addressed). Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or rriitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: September 21,2004. pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2004-301 ATlXST Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ADDENDUM TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN & ZONING CONSISTENCY AMENDMENTS GPA 03-13 / ZCA 03-02 / LCPA 03-12 This Addendum to the project Negative Declaration is to modify 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. The modified project description is as follows: The project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the residential policies and land use designations in the General Plan and the residential regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency between the General Plan and ‘Zoning Ordinance; and also to ensure consistency between City policies and State law. The project applies to policies and regulations that are applicable to properties citywde. The proposed amendments include the following: A. General Plan Amendment: 1. Clarify the intent and purpose of each residential land use designation; 2. Specify that residential density shall not be permitted below the low end of the density range; except that a provision will be added to allow a one-family dwelling on any existing residential lot, regardless of density; 3. Incorporate the provisions of Government Code Section 65863, which restricts the City’s ability to reduce residential densities below the density utilized to determine compliance with housing element law; and 4. Add .finding #3 from Municipal Code Section 2 1.90.045 to the General Plan Land Use element section that lists the findings required to exceed the Growth Management Control Point density. B. Zoning OrdinanceLocal Coastal Program Amendment: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Reformat residential zone chapters to list all permitted and conditionally permitted uses; Clarify which land use designation each zone is intended to implement; Specify that one-family dwellings [on individual lots) will not be permitted in zones that implement the medium-high and high density land use designations; except that a provision will be added to allow a one-family dwelling on an existing residential lot, and one-familv dwellings on small-lots will be permitted with a planned development permit in the RMH designation. Modify residential standards to ensure consistency with General Plan policies (ex. amend the minimum lot area in certain zones to ensure the zone can implement the General Plan density requirements). Amend the Planned Development (PD) regulations to allow a PD in the R-1 Zone when a site contains sensitive habitat; and amend the PD regulations to no longer allow “small-lot single- family” development in the Rh4H-e~ RH land use designations. Other miscellaneous text amendments for consistency purposes. DATE: A~ril 28,2004 Planning Director - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: NOT SITE SPECIFIC RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN & ZONING CONSISTENCY AMENDMENTS CASE NO: GPA 03-13 J ZCA 03-02 J LCPA 03-12 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the residential policies and land use designations in the General Plan and the residential regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and also to ensure consistency between City policies and State law. The project applies to policies and regulations that are applicable to properties citywide. The proposed amendments include the following: A. General Plan Amendment: 1. 2. Clarify the intent and purpose of each residential land use designation; Specify that residential density shall not be permitted below the low end of the density range; except that a provision will be added to allow a one-family dwelling on any existing residential lot, regardless of density; Incorporate the provisions of Government Code Section 65863, which restricts the City’s ability to reduce residential densities below the density utilized to determine compliance with housing element law; and Add finding #3 from Municipal Code Section 21.90.045 to the General Plan Land Use element section that lists the findings required to exceed the Growth Management Control Point density. 3. 4. B. Zoning OrdinanceLocal Coastal Program Amendment: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. - - Reformat residential zone chapters to list all permitted and conditionally permitted uses; Clarify which land use designation each zone is intended to implement; Specify that one-family dwellings will not be permitted in zones that implement the medium-high and high density land use designations; except that a provision will be added to allow a one-family dwelling on an existing residential lot. Modify residential standards to ensure consistency with General Plan policies (ex. amend the minimum lot area in certain zones to ensure the zone can implement the General Plan density requirements). Amend the Planned Development (PD) regulations to allow a PD in the R-1 Zone when a site contains sensitive habitat; and amend the PD regulations to no longer allow “small-lot single-family” development in the RMH or RH land use designations. Other miscellaneous text amendments for consistency purposes. 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 (EIA 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 ths notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvaYadoption 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. DATED: APRIL 16,2004 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD PUBLISH DATE APRIL 16,2004 APRIL 16,2004 TO MAY 16,2004 a9 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 CASE NO: GPA 03-13lZCA 03-02lLCPA 03-12 DATE: April 2.2004 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN & ZONING CONSISTENCY AMENDMENTS LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad, CA 92008 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Jennifer Coon, Associate Planner - (760) 602-4637 PROJECT LOCATION: Not site suecific PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Same as Lead Agencv. above. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: NIA - not site specific ZONING: N/A - not site specific OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (Local Coastal Promam Amendment) PROJECT DESCRIPTION1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment consist of amendments to the residential policies and land use designations in the General Plan and the residential regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and also to ensure consistency between City policies and State law. The project applies to policies and regulations that are applicable to properties citywide. There is no specific project site with a specific environmental setting or surrounding land uses. The proposed amendments include the following: A. General Plan Amendment: 1. 2. Clarify the intent and purpose of each residential land use designation; Specify that residential density shall not be permitted below the low end of the density range; except that a provision will be added to allow a one-family dwelling on any existing residential lot, regardless of density; Incorporate the provisions of Government Code Section 65863, which restricts the City’s ability to reduce residential densities below the density utilized to determine compliance with housing element law; and Add finding #3 from Municipal Code Section 2 1.90.045 to the General Plan Land Use element section that lists the findings required to exceed the Growth Management Control Point density. B. 3. 4. Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Program Amendment: 1. 2. 3. Reformat residential zone chapters to list all permitted and conditionally permitted uses; Clarify which land use designation each zone is intended to implement; Specify that one-family dwellings will not be permitted in zones that implement the medium-high and high density land use designations; except that a provision will be added to allow a one-family dwelling on an existing residential lot. Modify residential standards to ensure consistency with General Plan policies (ex. amend the minimum lot area in certain zones to ensure the zone can implement the General Plan density requirements). 5.’ Amend the Planned Development (PD) regulations to allow a PD in the R-1 Zone when a site contains sensitive habitat; and amend the PD regulations to no longer allow “small-lot single-family” development in the RMH or RH land use designations. 4. 6. Other miscellaneous text amendments for consistency purposes. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils 0 Noise 0 Agricultural Resources 0 HazarddHazardous Materials 0 and Housing 0 Air Quality 0 HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services 0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation 0 Cultural Resources [7 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Ixi 0 0 0 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. IOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in ths 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. 3 Rev. Q7lQ3lQ2 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 potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-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 Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 OBI Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) o I7 OBI Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 UBI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 0 OBI (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: 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? 0 0 (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 0 0 c) OBI OIX] (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 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) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant No Impact Impact OIXI OIXI OIXI 0 0 17 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 0 0 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [XI IXI IXI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 7 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 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? 0 om 0 0 om 0 0 OH (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a hlstorical resource as defined in 5 15064.5? 0 0 OH (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 0 15064.5? o 0 OB b) (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 OH c) (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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) 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 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI 1xI Ixl IXI IXI IXI IXI El El Rev. Q7fO3JQ2 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 airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI El IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 Potentially Significant ImDact Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Ixl 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) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: 0 0 0 0 [XI IXI 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 which permits have been granted)? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 c) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 [XI [XI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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) e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? 0 0 0 [XI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 0 IXI f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI IXI Ea El [XI la IXI IXI IXI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated ImGt 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: a) Physically divide an established community? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 ow 0 0 nw 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 OB 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 0 OIXI Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 ow 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) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels 0 0 OIXI in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive o 0 ow groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 13 Rev. Q7lQ3fQ2 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 0 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 0 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) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 0 e) (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 f) For a project withm the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or worlung in the project area to excessive noise levels? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) MI. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 0 0 a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant No Impact Impact OH om om (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 14 Rev. 07/03/02 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 might 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 Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI Ixl IXI IXI Ixl [XI IXI Ixl (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 15 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact 0 No Impact Incorporated 0 Impact El 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 0 IXI 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 0 0 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? IXI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 0 0 0 la IXI [XI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 0 0 0 IXI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 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? [XI (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 la 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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 16 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact CI 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significanl Impact 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI IXI Ixl IXI [XI [XI [XI (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 within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 18 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact - The proposed text amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policy or standard that could: a) adversely effect a scenic vista; b) substantially damage scenic resources; c) degrade the visual character of any site; or d) create substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to fiuther environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact - The proposed text amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policy or standard that could: a) result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use; b) conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract; or c) result in changes to the existing city environment that would cause the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policy or standard that could conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan. 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 (PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) 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. 19 Rev. OlfQ3fO2 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: 0 0 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. The proposed amendments will not change the growth assumptions of the General Plan. Future development projects that are subject to the amended policies and 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. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact - The closest air quality monitoring station to 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. The proposed amendments do not involve the physical development of any site nor air quality planningfstandard changes. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to Mer environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. 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? No Impact - The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The project consists of an amendment to residential policies and standards contained in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, which will affect the development of future residential projects on a citywide basis. The proposed amendments do not propose or affect any policy or standard that would result in a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. Additionally, the project does not include a proposal for physical development of any site. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards relating to air quality or pollution. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to hrther environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in an activity that could create objectionable odors. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards 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 proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 9 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact (e & f) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in a conflict with local policies and ordinances that protect biological resources or the provisions of any habitat conservation plan. In fact, one of the proposed amendments is to allow a “planned development” in the R-1 zone when a site contains sensitive biological habitat as identified in the City’s Habitat Management Plan. This amendment will assist in protecting biological habitat by creating a provision for residential development to be clustered in areas outside of the habitat boundaries. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in an adverse impact to any environmentally sensitive tributary area. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 5 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to $1 5064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 21 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in a disturbance of any human remains or an adverse impact to any historical, archeological, or paleontological resource. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to hrther environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis, and will be subject to the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines. 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 - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active of potentially active faults within the City. However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. Landslides are also a potential threat in parts of the City. All development proposals in Carlsbad are subject to requirements such as the Uniform Building Code earthquake construction standards and soil remediation that when necessary ensure potential adverse effects are not significant. The proposed amendments, however, do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from a known earthquake fault, ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure or landslides. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in substantial soil erosion on any site. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the City’s Engineering standards on a site specific basis. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (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 amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in impacts to unstable or expansive soil conditions. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the City’s engineering standards on a site specific basis. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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 amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in hazards associated with exposure to hazardous materials. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. 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 amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in exposing people to hazards associated with an airport. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact (g & h) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards 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 development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. 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 (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 which permits have been granted)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 23 Rev. 07/03/02 e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would conflict with any water quality standards, impact groundwater supplies/quality, 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 proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. 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? 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 (h, i, j & k) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in placing housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, or expose people or structures to flooding or inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to Wher environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? P) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? No Impact (I, m, n, o & p) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards 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 proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. 24 Rev. 07/03/02 LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in the division of an established community. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. In fact, the purpose of the proposed amendments is to ensure consistency between the City’s land use plan, zoning ordinance and local coastal program, which will help avoid conflicts in the future between development projects and City policieshegulations. Any fbture development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would conflict with the any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. In fact, one of the proposed amendments is to allow a “planned development” in the R-1 zone when a site contains sensitive biological habitat as identified in the City’s Habitat Management Plan. This amendment will assist in protecting biological habitat by creating a provision for residential development to be clustered in areas outside of the habitat boundaries. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. 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 amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 25 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels or groundbourne vibrations, or increase noise levels. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to fbrther environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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 amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels associated with an airport. In addition, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport, will ensure that future residential development will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by the arport. Also, any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. 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)? No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and therefore will not directly induce any growth. In addition, the proposed amendments will not introduce any new standard or provision that would indirectly induce substantial growth beyond what is currently allowed by City policies and standards. Any future residential 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, the project will not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly. Also, any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact (b & c) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in the displacement of any existing housing or people. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? V. Other public facilities? 26 Rev. 07l03l02 No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in adverse impacts to the maintenance of acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public service (fire & police protection, schools, parks and other public facilities). Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact (a & b) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site. As part of the City’s Growth Management Program, a performance standard for parks was adopted. Any future residential development subject to the proposed amended policies standards will be required to comply with the performance standards of the Growth Management Program, which will ensure that future residential development will not adversely impact any park facilities. Also, any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and it does not affect or propose any policy or standard that might cause an increase in traffic. A performance standard for traffic is part of the City’s Growth Management Program. Future development that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be required to comply with this performance standard, which ensures future development will not exceed the traffic load and capacity of the city’s street system. In addition, future development will be subject to Mer environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact - SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two 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: Rancho Santa Fe Road El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road SR 78 1-5 Existing ADT* LOs Buildout ADT* 15-32 ‘‘A-C” 28-43 21-50 ‘‘A-C” 32-65 10-52 “A-B” 29-77 120 “F” 144 183-198 “D” 2 19-249 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed land use and zone change is consistent with the growth projections of the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design 27 Rev. 07/03/02 capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. This project proposes no physical development of a property. Further, it does not propose to change or add a standard that would affect levels of service as established by the CMP. Any future residential development subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the CMP on a site specific basis. 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 amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks associated with air traffic patterns. Any future residential development subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. 4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would cause a future project to increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Any future residential development subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 9 Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact (e & f) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies'or standards that would result in inadequate emergency access or parking capacity. Any future residential development subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Any future residential development subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to firther environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or Standards that would cause future development to exceed any wastewater treatment requirements. Any future residential development subject to the amended policies and 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. 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? 28 Rev. 07/03/02 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) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would increase the need for, or conflict with the current growth projections for water facilities, wastewater treatment or drainage facilities. 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. Any future residential development subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 9) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact (f & g) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards 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 residential development subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards 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 hstory or prehistory. Any future residential development subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) No Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. Development of future residential projects subject to the proposed amended policies and standards may represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. However, emissions associated with a future residential development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with a 29 Rev. QllQ3IO2 residential development, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not a residential development is implemented. With regard to circulation, 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 amendments will not affect any policies or standards that would conflict with City or region-wide standards. Also, the proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site; therefore, the project will not result in an individually or cumulatively considerable environmental impact. Any future residential development subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. 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 amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Any future residential development subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. 30 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. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Carlsbad General Plan, September 6, 1994. 3. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 2 1, Zoning 4. Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Zones 5. Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992. 31 Rev. 07/03/02