Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 6926 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 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO REPEAL AND REENACT THE CITY’S SIGN ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 21.41 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE) TO: (1) PROVIDE MORE FLEXIBLE SIGN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, (2) INCORPORATE REVISIONS TO ADDRESS FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PERMITTED REGULATION OF NON-COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE, AND TO (3) CLARIFY THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT MORE USER FRIENDLY. CASE NAME: SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CASE NO.: ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad “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 project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on November 21, 2012 and April 17, 2013, hold duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearings, 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 “Notice of Intent (NOI),” and “Environmental Impact Assessment Form – Initial Study (EIA),” attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6926 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Negative Declaration for SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA 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 April 17, 2013, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioners L'Heureux, Schumacher, Scully and Segall Commissioner Montgomery Commissioner Black KERRY SIEKMANN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ~71~ DONNEU City Planner PC RESO NO. 6926 -2- ~ ~~CARLSBAD FilE COPY 1·11·);2 Community & Economic Development CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Sign Ordinance Amendment ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 Citywide www.carlsbadca.gov PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project is a proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance: (1) to provide more flexible sign development standards, {2) to incorporate revisions deemed necessary by the City's legal counsel to address first amendment issues associated with the permitted regulation of non-commercial signage, (3) to allow electronic message board signs at regional commercial centers (Plaza Camino Real and Car Country Carlsbad) with a regional commercial general plan land use designation that have frontage on a freeway (1-5 or 1-78) and (4) to clarify the ordinance to make it more user friendly. 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 (CEQA) 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 is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Pursuant to Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines, in reviewing Negative Declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: {1) identify the specific effect; {2) explain why they believe the effect would occur; and (3) explain why they believe the effect would be significant. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Division within 30 days ofthe date of this notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council. A public notice will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4611. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD PUBLISH DATE Planning Division July 13, 2012-August 13, 2012 July 13, 2012 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT lOCATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION Sign Ordinance Amendment ZCA 11-03/lCPA 11-04 Citywide PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project is a proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance {CMC Chapter 21.41): (1) to provide more flexible sign development standards, (2) to incorporate revisions deemed necessary by the City's legal counsel to address first amendment issues associated with the permitted regulation of non-commercial signage, {3) to allow electronic message board signs at regional commercial centers (Plaza Camino Real and Car Country Carlsbad) with a regional commercial general plan land use designation that have frontage on a freeway (1-5 or 1-78) and (4) to clarify the ordinance to make it more user friendly 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. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED; [CLICK HERE date) pursuant to [CLICK HERE Administrative Approval, PC/CC Resolution No., or CC Ordinance No.) ATTEST: DON NEU City Planner ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM – INITIAL STUDY (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION) CASE NO: ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 DATE: July 1, 2012 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad – 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner – (760) 602-4611 4. PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide 5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Same as Lead Agency, above 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A – not site-specific 7. ZONING: N/A – not site-specific 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (Local Coastal Program Amendment) 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The City’s Sign Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.41) was last comprehensively amended in 2001. Since that time, staff has identified a number of issues with the existing Sign Ordinance, including concerns expressed by business owners with respect to permitted signage, which merit reconsideration and potential amendment. This project is a proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance: (1) to provide more flexible sign development standards, (2) to incorporate revisions deemed necessary by the City’s legal counsel to address first amendment issues associated with the permitted regulation of non-commercial signage, (3) to allow electronic message board signs or digital displays at regional commercial centers (Plaza Camino Real and Car Country Carlsbad) with a regional commercial general plan land use designation that have frontage on a freeway (I-5 or I-78) and (4) to clarify the ordinance to make it more user friendly. The proposed amendments include the following substantive changes: 1. Incorporate revisions deemed necessary by the City’s legal counsel to address first amendment issues associated with the permitted regulation of non-commercial signage. 2. Provide more flexible sign standards and allow for project’s with a Modified Sign Program to vary from the sign standards (i.e.; permitted number, area and height of signs) of the sign ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 2 Rev. 10/18/10 ordinance subject to specific findings being made and subject to the approval of a Modified Minor Sign Program by the City Planner or a Modified Sign Program by the Planning Commission. The City Planner would have the discretion to approve modifications in sign area, sign height and permitted number of signs by up to 25% of the maximums permitted by the Sign Ordinance and the Planning Commission could approve modifications from greater than 25% up to 50%. The proposed findings require continued consistency with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program and address those factors that are typically associated with the request including unique size, location, orientation or visibility of the building or freestanding sign. 3. Allow electronic message board signs or digital displays at regional commercial centers (Plaza Camino Real and Car Country Carlsbad) with a regional commercial general plan land use designation that have frontage on a freeway (I-5 or I-78) subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the City Council. 4. This project also includes a revision to City Council Policy #65 (Signs on Public Property) to allow the City to post way-finding (directional) signs off-site and within the public right-of-way or on public property to guide residents and visitors to public buildings and facilities, quasi-public buildings, city neighborhoods, philanthropic organizations, cultural/historical destinations, tourist destinations and points of public interest within Carlsbad and other uses, locations or destinations as approved by resolution of the City Council. A variety of other ordinance and sign standards revisions are proposed; however, they are minor in nature and are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity will have a significant impact on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The project applies to regulations that are applicable to properties citywide. There is no specific project site with a specific environmental setting or surrounding land uses. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 3 Rev. 10/18/10 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. Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04-Sign Ordinance DETERMINATlON. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) r;g) ) find .that the proposed projec~ COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be 'prepared. 0 I tind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this c11se because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have .been added to the project A MITlGATED NEGATIVE DEC LARA TfON will be prepared. 0 I t1nd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVlROl'.l"MENT AL IMPACT REPORT is required. D I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standatds, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier ana1ysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addresseil. 0 I tincf 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 pote11tially significant et1ects (n) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVJRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGKflVE DECLARATION, including revisiollS or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. 1--£-/2- Planner Signatllre Date City Planner's Signature Date 4 Rev. 10118110 ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 5 Rev. 10/18/10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 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-Initial Study”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all 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. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 6 Rev. 10/18/10 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-Initial Study 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 after each related set of questions. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 7 Rev. 10/18/10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. 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 amendment to the standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and therefore does not: a) adversely affect 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 Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards and could: a) adversely affect 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 will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a project-specific basis. Furthermore, since the percentage increase in sign number, area or height permitted through a discretionary modified sign program is limited to 50% and specific findings are required to be made to approve this discretionary permit, adequate control over sign aesthetics and visual quality will still be maintained. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 8 Rev. 10/18/10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.) 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) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 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 or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact - The amendment to the standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 9 Rev. 10/18/10 freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? a) No Impact. The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does not propose or affect any regulation that could conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone (O3) and for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). 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. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 10 Rev. 10/18/10 The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or 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. The amendment to the Sign Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan. Section 15125(d) of the State of California Environmental 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 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 Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65, 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 standards will be reviewed for consistency with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp Pendleton. Data available for this monitoring site from 2000 through December 2004, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 10 days during the 5-year period). No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not involve physical development of any site nor any changes to air quality planning/standards. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis c) Less Than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site- specific basis. d) No impact. The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does not propose or affect any regulation that would result in exposing sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. e) No Impact. The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does not propose or affect any regulation that would result in an activity that could create objectionable odors. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 11 Rev. 10/18/10 sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. 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, filling, 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? 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 (a, b, c & d) - The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. No Impact (e & f) - The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 12 Rev. 10/18/10 habitat conservation plan. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. 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 signifi-cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards 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. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 13 Rev. 10/18/10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 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? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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 Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), 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 (a) – 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 amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 14 Rev. 10/18/10 has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. No Impact (b) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 standards will be subject to the City’s Engineering standards on a site-specific basis. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. No Impact (c, d & e) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 standards will be subject to the City’s engineering standards on a site-specific basis. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Impact (a and b) The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does not propose any development that would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 15 Rev. 10/18/10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. 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? 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? 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 (a, b, c & d) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does not propose or affect any regulation that would result in hazards associated with exposure to hazardous materials. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 16 Rev. 10/18/10 No Impact (e & f) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does not propose or affect any regulation that would result in exposing people to hazards associated with an airport. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. No Impact (g & h) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 17 Rev. 10/18/10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. 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) 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? d) 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? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) 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? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) 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? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 18 Rev. 10/18/10 No Impact (a, b, c, d, e & f) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. No Impact (g, h, i, j & k) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does not propose or affect any regulation that would result in placing housing or any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, or expose people or structures to flooding or inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. No Impact (l, m, n & o ) - The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact (a) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does not propose or affect any regulation that would result in the division of an established community. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. No Impact (b) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 19 Rev. 10/18/10 pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. No Impact (c) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does not propose or affect any regulation that would conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. 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 amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does not propose or affect any regulation that would result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 20 Rev. 10/18/10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. 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? 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 (a, b, c & d) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. No Impact (e & f) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does not propose or affect any regulation that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels associated with an airport. In addition, the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) will ensure that future residential development will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by the airport. Also, any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 21 Rev. 10/18/10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. 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)? 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 (a, b, & c) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and therefore will not directly induce any growth. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? No Impact (a) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does not propose or affect any regulation that would result in ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 22 Rev. 10/18/10 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 Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. 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 amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site and therefore it will have no impact on recreational facilities or parks. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 23 Rev. 10/18/10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 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? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact (a) - The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site therefore it will not generate any traffic. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. No Impact (b) – 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: LOS Rancho Santa Fe Road “A-D” El Camino Real “A-D” Palomar Airport Road “A-D” SR 78 “F” . ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 24 Rev. 10/18/10 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. 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 future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. No Impact (c) - The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. No Impact (d) - The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. No Impact (e, f & g) - The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does not propose or affect any regulation that would result in inadequate emergency access or parking capacity nor affect any regulation that would conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 25 Rev. 10/18/10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? f) 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 (a) - The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does not propose or affect any regulation that would cause future development to exceed any wastewater treatment requirements. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. No Impact (b, c, d & e) - The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 26 Rev. 10/18/10 No Impact (f & g) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does 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 future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII. 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? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact (a) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does not propose or affect any regulation that would have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. No Impact (b) – 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. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 27 Rev. 10/18/10 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 signs subject to the amended sign standards will not contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. However, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not a sign pursuant to the sign standards 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 Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. No Impact (c) – The amendment to standards of the Sign Ordinance and City Council Policy #65 does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and does not propose or affect any regulation that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Any future Modified Sign Program to vary from the standards of the sign ordinance or a City Council Conditional Use Permit for a digital sign at a Regional Commercial Center which has freeway frontage that is processed pursuant to the amended sign standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 28 Rev. 10/18/10 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. ZCA 11-03/LCPA 11-04 – Sign Ordinance 29 Rev. 10/18/10 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 Division 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 Division. March 1994. 2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, dated March 1994. 3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, as updated. 4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, final approval dated November 2004.