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