HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 59581
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. 5958
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE
CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE PROCEDURES AND
REGULATIONS GOVERNING USES ALLOWED UPON THE
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP).
CASE NAME: CUP CODE REVISIONS
CASE NO.: ZCA 04-09/LCPA 04- 1 5
WHEREAS, the City, “Applicant,” has filed a verified application with the City
of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Citywide
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of January, 2006, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration,
Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated May 17,2005, and “PII” dated
May 13, 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
...
...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Findinps:
1. Th
a.
b.
C.
d.
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration analyzing the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of January 2006, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: J JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5958 -2-
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
CUP CODE REVISIONS
CITYWIDE
ZCA 04-09LCPA 04- 15
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to amend the procedures and regulations governing uses allowed upon the approval
of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The proposed amendments include:
(1) Reformatting the Zoning Ordinance (Title 21) to place all conditional uses and the
designated approval authority in the individual land use zones (rather than in the CUP
Chapter of the code),
Modifying some commercial and industrial land use zones to allow “by right” specific
commercial and industrial uses respectively that previously required the approval of a
CUP because they are considered similar to and compatible with other permitted uses in
each,
Modifjmg some land use zones to no longer allow some previously allowed conditional
uses because they are not considered compatible uses based upon accepted planning
principles,
(4) Establishing a Minor CUP that can be approved administratively by the Planning Director
rather than at a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and,
(5) Modifylng the approval authority &om the Planning Commission to the City Council for
specific unique and/or potentially controversial conditional uses.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the project described above 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 (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative
Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California
92008. Comments kom the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the
Planning Department wih 30 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvaVadoption by
the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be
issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Chris
DeCerbo in the Planning Department at (760) 602-461 1.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD May 17,2005 through June 16,2005
PUBLISH DATE Mav 17.2005
(2)
(3)
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CUP Code Revisions
ZCA04-09/LCPA04-15
Citvwide
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend
regulations governing uses allowed upon the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The proposed
amendments include:
(1) Reformatting the Zoning Ordinance to place all conditional uses and the designated approval authority in
the individual land use zones (rather than in the CUP Chapter of the code),
(2) Modifying some commercial and industrial land use zones to allow "by right" specific commercial and
industrial uses respectively that previously required the approval of a CUP because they are considered
similar to and compatible with other permitted uses in each,
(3) Modifying some land use zones to no longer allow some previously allowed conditional uses because
they are not considered compatible uses based upon accepted planning principles,
(4) Establishing a Minor CUP that can be approved administratively by the Planning Director rather than at a
public hearing before the Planning Commission, and
(5) Modifying the approval authority from the Planning Commission to the City Council for specific unique
and/or potentially controversial conditional uses.
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:
E3 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
0 The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one
potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be
addressed).
1 I Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED Jebruary 14. 2006. pursuant to City Council Resolution 2006-036
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLA”G DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZCA 04-09LCPA 04-15
DATE: May 13.2005
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: CUP CODE REVISIONS
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Chris DeCerbo 760-602-461 1
PROJECT LOCATION Citywide in the Citv of Carlsbad
PROJECT SPONSORS NAME AND ADDRESS:
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Citv of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Ave,
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A
ZONING: NIA
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUTRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The proposed Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment consist of amending
the procedures and regulations governing uses allowed upon the approval of a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP). The proposed amendments include:
(1) Reformatting the Zoning Ordinance to place all conditional uses and the designated approval
authority in the individual land use zones (rather than in the CUP Chapter of the code),
(2) Modifylng some commercial and industrial land use zones to allow “by right” specific
commercial and industrial uses respectively that previously required the approval of a CUP
because they are considered similar to and compatible with other pennitted uses in each,
(3) Modifylng some land use zones to no longer allow some previously allowed conditional uses
because they are not considered compatible uses based upon accepted planning principles,
(4) Establishing a Minor CUP that can be approved administratively by the Planning Director rather
than at a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and
(5) Modifylng the approval authority from the Planning Commission to the City Council for specific unique andor potentially controversial conditional uses.
The project applies to CUP regulations that are applicable to properties citywide. There is no specific - project site with a specific environmental setting or surrounding land uses.
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 [7 GeologylSoils II] Noise
0 Agricultural Resources 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials II] Population and Housing
0 AirQuality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality Public Services
[7 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning II] Recreation
[7 Cultural Resources Mineral Resources TransportatiodCircUation
[7 Mandatory Findings of Utilities & Service Systems
Significance
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI
0
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(^)^' 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 E"MENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier E"MENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
Planner Signature Date r
3 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ2
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.
e 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.
e “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.
e “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.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
sipficantly adverse.
e Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse
effect on the environment, but 4 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.
e 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.
e 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.
e 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
4 Rev. 07/03/02
appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e 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 sigrufkant; or (4) through the EIA-Part 11 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 fom
under DISCUSSION OF ENWRONMENTAL 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:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a State scenic highway?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
LI.
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
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?
Potentially
Potentially Unless Less Than
Sigdcant Mitigation Significant No
significant
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
CI IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
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?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to
make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
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?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated impact Impact '17 0 0 €3
17
0
17
cl
0
0
IXI
0 IXI
0 la
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defmed by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including but not
limited to mars4 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?
Potentially
Sigdcant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Sigdicant Mitigation Sigmficant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 'cl 0 0 E3
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
[XI
[XI
17 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact '0 a CI IXI e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
CI 0 [XI f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
0 [XI g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
0 0 [XI Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in $15064.5?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
0 0 ixI Cause a substantial adverse change in the
sipficance of an archeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
0 CI I7 [XI Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
0 0 [XI Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Wormation Sources). Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
significant Mitigation Significant NO
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury or death involving:
CI 0 IXI i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, CI
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.
cl
CI
CI
0
0 IXI
0 IXI
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
0 cl El iv. Landslides?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
17 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 0 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?
0 cl IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Be located on expansive soils, as defined in 17 Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
cl Ix1
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation) 0 0
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)
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Sigdicant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
I Impact Incorporated Impact %act
VI. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
0 0 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)
0 IXI 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)
0 IXI 0 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)
CI 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
signlficant hazard to the public or
environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
17 IXI 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)
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
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)
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Sigmficant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 IXI
cl
0
0
0
0
0 IXI
0 IXI
IXI
0 IXI
IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 IXI
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Substantially alter the existing drainage ,o 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)
o 17 0 IXI Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the flow rate
or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a
manner, which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
0 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?
CI IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
a
0
a
17
Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? a IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Bollndary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood delineation map?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
17 Place within 100-year flood hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Signiscant Mitigation Signitlcant NO
'0 0 0 IXI Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss injury or death involving
floodmg, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0
a
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
cl 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)?
0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation) cl Ixi cl
Changes to receiving water quality (marine,
fiesh or wetland waters) during or following
construction?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
0 0 Increase in any pollutant to an already
impaired water body as listed on the Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) list?
(See Discussion of Environinental
Evaluation)
0 Ix1 0 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:
14 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Wormation Sources).
a) Physically divide an established community?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or ~t~ral community
conservation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
X 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?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
b) Result in the loss of availabdity 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 in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
Potentially
Sigdcant
PotentiaIIy Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated impact Impact .o 0 El IXI
0 0 IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 IXI
0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
15 Rev. 07IQ3lQ2
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundbourne vibration or
groundbourne noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
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)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
W. 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
mf?astructure)?
Potentially
Sigmiicant
Potentially Unless . Less Than
'0 0 IXI
Signiscant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 cl
0
0
17
cl
0
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 Ixl
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
16 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
government facilities, a need for new or
physically altered government facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
MV. 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?
potentially
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 17 IXI
0 0 17 €3
cl 0
0 IXI
cl IXI
17 €3
0 IXI
IXI
17 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially
Sigdicant Impact
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0
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. TRANSPORTATIONlTRAFFIC - Would the
project: 0 0 Cause an increase in traffic, which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (ie.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
CI CI 0 Exceed, either individuillly or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
cl 0 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 Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
0 0
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
0 0 Result in inadequate emergency access?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
18 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Unless Less Than Potentially
Significant
Impact '0 Incorporated Impact Impact Ix1 0 Result in insufficient parking capacity?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
0 IXI g) ConfIict with adopted policies, plans, or pro€?- supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turn-outs, bicycle
racks)?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
0 a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quahty
Control Board?
(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?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
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?
0 IXI
(See Discussion of Enviromntal
Evaluation)
Ixi d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
19 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
(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)
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Si@cant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 El
0
0
XW. 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?
0
0
0
0 [XI
CI IXI
IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
20 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 hture
projects?)
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
c) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause the substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
(See Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation)
Potentially
Significant Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Sigdicant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IJ cl 0 El
CI 0 IXI
21 Rev. 07/03/02
Xvm. EARLIER ANALYSES
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 specifies that the environmental impact
assessment may be used to determine, pursuant to a program E& tiering, or other appropriate CEQA process,
which of a project’s effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. In this case,
the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation on the attached sheets should identify the following:
a) Earlier analyses used Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Ident@ which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Impacts not adequately addressed. Identify which effects, if any, from the above checklist were
not adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration, and should, therefore, be
analyzed in a later EIR or negative declaration.
d) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Sigmficant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
descnie the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined fiom the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-speciflc conditions for the project.
22 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for physical
development of any site. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be
subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. Therefore, this project will
not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. ’
One component of this Zone Code AmendmedLocal Coastal Program Amendmendment modifies some commercial
and industrial land use zones to allow by right specific commercial and industrial uses respectively that
previously required the approval of a CUP. However, no significant adverse environmental impacts are
anticipated because: 1) the uses (Le.; delicatessens in the C-1, C-2, C-T, C-M, M zones, restaurants in the C-1
zone, training and tutoring schools for cosmetology, pet grooming, music, dance, martial arts, gymnastics and
language in the C-1, C-2 and C-L zones and bookbindinghook printinglpublisbing in the C-M, My P-M zones)
are similar to and compatible with other permitted uses in each zone, 2) the development standards of each zone
(i.e.; building height, setbacks and lot coverage) ensure use compatibility and 3) each use would be subject to
other City, State and Federal regulatory controls (i.e.; grading, air quality and water quality).
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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physicaI development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 CUP regulations will be subject to further 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?
e) 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 regulations will be subject to
Mer 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?
23 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact - The amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 (SNAG).
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 fiom 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.
Future development projects relate to the SIP and/or R4QS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the
County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air
Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS, which include the
following:
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area (citywide) is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is
being implemented. As previously mentioned, the proposed amendments involve text amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance, and do not include a proposal for physical development of any property. Furthermore, the project does
not propose any change that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan. Future
development projects that are subject to the amended regulations will be reviewed for consistency with the growth
assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. The amended regulations do not obligate the city to approve
a development project if the project would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 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 Apnl, 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
%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 amendments to the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) regulations do not involve physical development of any site nor any changes to air quality
planning/standards. Any hture development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to
further 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?
.
24 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact - The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The
amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for physical development of
any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that could result in a contribution to a cumulatively
considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. Any future development proposal that is
subject to the amended regulations 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit regulations do not include a proposal for physical
development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in exposing sensitive
receptors to pollutant concentrations. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations
will be subject to linther environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact - The amendments to the Conditional Use Pennit regulations do not include a proposal for physical
development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in an activity that could create
objectionable odors. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to
further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
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 fuh 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a
proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 regulations will be
subject to fi,ut.her 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?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact (e & f) - The amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in a conflict with
local policies and ordinances that protect biological resources or the provisions of any habitat conservation plan.
Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental
review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
9) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
25 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact - The amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in an adverse impact
to any environmentally sensitive tributary area. Any hture development proposal that is subject to the amended
regulations 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
§15064.5?
b) Cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to
g15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, inchding those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The amendments to the Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) regulations do not include a
proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in a
disturbance of any human remains or an adverse impact to any historical, archeological, or paleontological resource.
Any hture development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further 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 or 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 Build~ng
Code earthquake construction standards and soil remediation that when necessary ensure potential adverse effects
are not significant. The amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CTJF) regulations, however, do not include a
proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 regulations 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in Substantial soil
erosion on any site. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations 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?
26 Rev. 07/03/02
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risk 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal
for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in impacts to
unstable or expansive soil conditions. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations
will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the City's engineering standards on a site-
specific basis.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
4 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a
proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in
hazards associated with exposure to hazardous materials. Any future development proposal that is subject to the
amended regulations will be subject to Mer 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?
0 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal
for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in exposing
people to hazards associated with an airport. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended
regulations 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (C") regulations do not include a proposal
for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 regulations will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
27 Rev. 07/03/02
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
ground water table level (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
Ievel which wouId not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount
(volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
r) 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CVP) regulations do not include
a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 deveIopment proposal that is subject to the amended regulations 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a
proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 regulations will be
subject to f'urther 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?
28 Rev. 07/03/02
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficia1 uses?
No Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a
proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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
regulations will be subject to Mer environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact - The amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in the division of an established community. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Any future
development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to Mer 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would conflict with the any
habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Any future development proposal that is subject
to the amended regulations 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal
for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in the loss of
availability of a mineral resource. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations 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?
29 Rev. 07/03/02
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a
proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 regulations will be subject to further environmental review
pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)
No Impact (e & f) - The amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal
for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 airport. Also, any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations
will be subject to furtheT 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)?
Less Than Significant Impact - The amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include
a proposal for physical development of any site, and therefore will not directly induce any growth. The amended
regulations will not induce growth. Future development that is approved subject to the amended regulations will be
required to be consistent with the City’s growth projections contained in the Growth Management Program, which
ensures adequate public facilities and infbtructure are constructed to serve existing and future development. In
addition, any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to Mer
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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CW) regulations do not include a proposal
for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in the
displacement of any existing housing or people. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended
regulations 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:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
30 Rev. 07/03/02
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
V. Other public facilities?
No Impact - The amendments to the Conditional Use Peqit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in adverse impacts to
the maintenance of acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public service
(fne & police protection, schools, parks and other public facilities). Any future development proposal that is subject
to the amended regulations 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations 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 development subject to the amended regulations will be required to comply with
the performance standards of the Growth Management Program, which will ensure that the development will not
adversely impact any park facilities. Also, any future development proposal that is subject to the amended
regulations 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site. A performance standard for traffic is part of the City’s Growth Management
Program. Future development that is subject to the amended regulations 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 further 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 Purport 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:
Existine ADT* - LOS Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43
El Camino Real 2 1-50 “A-C” 32-65
Palomar mort Road 10-52 ‘‘A-B” 29-77
SR 78 120 T 144
1-5 183-198 “D’ 219-249
*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.
31 Rev. 07/03/02
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community
plans. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E standard assumes implementation of the
adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and
implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at
buildout.
This project proposes no physical development of a property. Further, it does not propose to change or add a
standard that would affect levels of service as established by the CMP. Any hture development subject to the amended regulations will be subject to Mer 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in a change in air
traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks associated with air traffic patterns. Any future development
proposal that is subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to
CEQA on a site-specific basis
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact - The amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would cause a future project to
increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Any future development proposal that is subject to the
amended regulations will be subject to fkther environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact (e & f) - The amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would result in inadequate
emergency access or parking capacity. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended regulations
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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Any future development proposal that is subject to
the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
32 Rev. 07/03/02
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
No Impact - The amendments to the Conditional Use Perkit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would cause future development
to exceed any wastewater treatment requirements. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended
regulations will be subject to the requirements of the Regional Water Quallty 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?
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 @, c, d & e) - The amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CVP) regulations do not include a
proposal for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation 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 development subject to the amended regulations will be subject to the City’s Growth Management Program, and
Mer environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. /+
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact (f & g) - The amendments to the Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal
for physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would conflict with any
regulations related to solid waste, or impact the ability to accommodate solid waste disposal needs within the city.
Any hture development subject to the amended regulations will be subject to Mer 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 amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that wodd 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 imporbt examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory. Any future development subject to the amended regulations will be
subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
33 Rev. 07/03/02
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 (SAhAG) 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 projects
subject to the amended regulations may represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net
increase in emissions throughout the air basin. However, emissions associated with a future development would be
minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with future development, air quality would be
essentially the same whether or not the 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 Axport 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 road-ys 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 development subject to the amended regulations will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to
CEQA on a site-specific basis.
4 Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No Impact - The amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regulations do not include a proposal for
physical development of any site, and do not propose or affect any regulation that would cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Any hture development subject to the amended regulations
will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
34 Rev. Q7lO3lQ2
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 hact Revort 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 Municioal Code, Title 21. Zoning
4. Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Zones
5. Citv of Carlsbad Geotechcal Hazards Analvsis and Mavving Stud& November 1992.
35 Rev. 07/03/02