Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-26; City Council; 16252; Update Title 19CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL TITLE: UPDATE TITLE 19 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE - MCA 01-02 ClTYMGR=@ RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. %- 5 73 , APPROVING, MCA 01-02 and ADOPT Resolution No. 600 I - 1013 and, ADOPTING the Negative Declaration for MCA 01-02 ~~~e~~anxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ITEM EXPLANATION: On May 16, 2001, the Planning Commission received and reviewed staffs informational report on the proposed repeal and re-enactment of Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Without comments, the Planning Commission received the report with a 6-O vote (Nielson, absent). Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code provides for the enhancement and protection of the physical environment within the City of Carlsbad. Title 19 implements the California Environmental Protection and the State Guidelines prepared by the State Office of Planning and Research. This title establishes principles, objectives, criteria, definitions and procedures for the evaluation of the ~ environmental impacts created by public and private development projects. 1 The proposed update of Title 19 brings the City’s environmental protection procedures into compliance with State law. In addition to the inclusion of new language required by CEQA, the proposed revisions delete existing ordinance language already found in CEQA, clarify responsibilities of the Planning Director, Planning Commission and City Council and add/delete several provisions. Major features of the amended ordinance address the following: 1. Includes mandated time lines for the environmental review of projects; 2. Permits staff to request supporting environmental studies at the time of application submittal; 3. Specifies the Planning Director as the City’s environmental official and appointed authority to determine a project as exempt from CEQA; 4. Allows the Planning Commission to certify ElRs for projects on which they are the decision- making body; 5. Requires ElRs to be prepared by the Planning Director through the use of a consultant paid for by the applicant rather than allowing developers to prepare their own ElRs and have them reviewed by a third party consultant hired by the City; 6. Gives the City the right to revoke or modify all approvals or permits if an applicant fails to perform any required mitigation measures; and 7. Requires notices that preparation of an EIR is about to begin to be sent to property owners within 600 feet of the perimeter of the subject site and that adjacent cities be noticed for Carlsbad projects that have the potential for regional impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL: The Planning Director determined that no significant adverse environmental impacts would result from this amendment to Title 19 and issued a Negative Declaration on March 21, 2001. The changes to the City’s Environmental Protection Procedures will ensure that CEQA is being implemented more effectively thus providing better environmental review of public and private projects. More effective environmental review translates into increased protection of the City’s environmental resources. PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 1 h’ I a 52 FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impacts from the adoption and implementation of the proposed amendments to Title 19. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Ordinance No. Ns-5 q 3 2. City Council Resolution No. GIG0 \- \q 3 3. Planning Commission Informational Report, dated May 16, 2001. a 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 ORDINANCE NO. NS-5g3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA TO REPEAL AND RE-ENACT TITLE 19, CHAPTER 19-04 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO BRING THIS CHAPTER INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES CASE NAME: TITLE 19 UPDATE CASE NO.: MCA 01-02 WHEREAS, the proposed repeal and re-enactment of Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines and will ensure effective implementation of Title 19, WHEREAS, the proposed repeal and re-enactment of Title 19 is consistent with the City’s General Plan by ensuring proper and adequate environmental review of public and private projects that may affect the City’s physical environment and natural resources, WHEREAS, the proposed repeal and re-enactment of Title 19 will not cause any significant environmental impacts since the changes are designed to more effectively implement existing State environmental law, as described in the Negative Declaration completed by the Planning Director on March 8,2001, follows: The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby ordain as TITLE 19 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROCEDURES CHAPTER 19.04 19.04.010 Purpose. 19.04.020 State Guidelines Incorporated by Reference. 19.04.030 Planning Director Responsibilities. 19.04.040 Planning Commission Responsibilities. 19.04.050 City Council Responsibilities. 19.04.060 Determination of Exemption and Exception. 19.04.070 Exemption Procedures. 19.04.080 Appeals on Determinations of Exemptions or Exceptions. 19.04.090 Initial Study. 19.04.100 Mailing of Negative Declaration on Request. 19.04.110 Appeal of Negative Declaration. 19.04.120 Preparation of Environmental Impact Report. 19.04.130 Requests for Additional Public Review Time on the Draft 3 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 Environmental Document. 19.04.140 Hearing. 19.04.150 Consolidation. 19.04.160 Time Limits for Preparation of Environmental Documents. 19.04.170 Appeal of Environmental Impact Report 19.04.180 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Programs. 19.04.190 Mailing of Notices on Request. 19.04.200 Indemnification by An Applicant. 19.04.210 Enforcement. 19.04.220 Severability. 19.04.010 Purtoose. A. This chapter is intended to provide for protection and enhancement of the environment within the City by establishing principles, objectives, criteria, and procedures for evaluation of the environmental impact of public and private projects and for administering the City’s responsibility under the California Environmental Quality Act, hereinafter referred to as CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines issued pursuant thereto by the California Resources Agency. The procedures and provisions of this chapter are intended to supplement the CEQA Guidelines and to provide additional guidelines for implementing CEQA and evaluating projects in the City. 19.04.020 State Guidelines Incorporated bv Reference. A. The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Q 21000 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines contained in Title 14, Division 6 of Chapter 3, Section 15,000 et. seq., of the California Code of Regulations, and as amended from time to time, are adopted by reference as the environmental review regulations for the City except for changes or additions contained in this chapter that shall supplement the provisions of said Guidelines. 19.04.030 Planninq Director Responsibilities. A. The Planning Director or his designee is responsible for the general administration and implementation of this chapter. Whenever any notices, reports or documents are required or permitted to be filed, the Planning Director shall be responsible for such filing unless otherwise provided in this title. Whenever this chapter or CEQA requires the City to make a determination or do an act and the person or body to make the determination or do the act is not specified, then the Planning Director shall have that responsibility, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning Director shall be responsible for the preparation of any environmental impact report (“Elf?‘), negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or other related environmental documents required by this chapter. B. The Planning Director may require an applicant for a City entitlement for any private project to submit data and information which may be necessary to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment prior to accepting the application as complete. C. The Planning Director may request assistance from any City department, other governmental entities or the public as determined to be necessary to carry out these responsibilities. All department heads shall respond promptly to all requests for information or assistance made by the Planning Director. D. Prior to completing a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or draft EIR, the Planning Director may consult directly with any person or organization he believes will be concerned with the environmental effects of the project. E. If the Planning Director determines that a project is to be carried out or approved by one or more public agencies in addition to the City, he shall first determine which entity will be the lead agency. -2- 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 F. Whenever the City is a responsible agency the Planning Director shall provide the information and responses to the lead agency which the Planning Director deems necessary in order to comply with the statutory responsibilities of a responsible agency. 19.04.040 Plannina Commission Responsibilities. A. For projects for which the Planning Commission is the final decision-making body, except for the possibility of appeal, it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to hold a hearing on and adopt or disapprove adoption of a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration, or to certify by resolution that an EIR is completed pursuant to CEQA. 6. For projects for which the City Council is the final decision-making body, but requiring Planning Commission review of the project, it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to forward the final environmental document to the City Council with a recommendation for City Council action. 19.04.050 Citv Council Responsibilities. A. Unless the Planning Director or Planning Commission is the final decision- making body for a project, it is the responsibility of the City Council to hold a hearing on and adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration or to certify, by resolution, a final EIR for the project. 19.04.060 Determination of Exemption and ExceDtion. A. The Planning Director shall determine whether a private or public project is a ministerial project, and if not, whether it is exempted from the requirements of this chapter. The Planning Director's determinations of exempt projects made according to this section shall be posted weekly for five business days on a bulletin board accessible to the public in the Planning Department. The Planning Director shall also determine whether a private or public project is excepted from the exemptions in the State CEQA Guidelines or this title, in which case the applicant will be notified in writing of the Planning Director's determination. Any determination may be appealed as provided in Title 21, Chapter 21.54, Section 21.54.140 of this code. 19.04.070 Exemption Procedures. A. The following sections implement Section 15300.4 of the CEQA Guidelines which require the City to list those specific activities which fall within each of the following exempt classes: 1. Statutorv exemptions. Pursuant to Section 15260, statutory exemptions are those projects that the Legislature has determined should be exempted from CEQA and which are found in various State statutes. These include ministerial projects, categorical exemptions and general rule exemptions. a. Ministerial projects. Pursuant to Section 15369 of the CEQA Guidelines, ministerial projects are those that involve little or no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project. They involve the use of fixed standards or objective measurements. Projects in the City specifically deemed to be ministerial include all post-approval submittals in substantial conformance with the approval. Post- approval submittals include certified tentative subdivision maps, final maps, grading, landscape and improvement plans, CCBRs and building plans. Other ministerial projects include final inspections, issuance of licenses, utility service connections and disconnections, City-ordered brush clearance of non-sensitive areas in accordance with City of Carlsbad procedures, and other similar actions for which no discretion exists that could create or avoid environmental impacts. b. Categorical exemptions. Pursuant to Section 15300 of the CEQA Guidelines, categorical exemptions are classes of projects determined not to have a significant effect on the environment which are therefore exempt. No clarifications or additions are -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 necessary to Sections 15260 to 15285 and Sections15300 to 15332 other than to specify that preliminary design work for capital improvement projects in the City and lot line adjustments (that do not increase density or intensity of use), within prescribed parameters, fall within Class 5, Section 15305 of the Guidelines. exemptions provided for in the Public Resources Code and State CEQA Guidelines including ministerial projects and categorically exempt projects pursuant to Section 15061(b)3 of the CEQA Guidelines, general rule exemptions are defined as projects "where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA." The following are specific actions considered not to have a significant effect pursuant to this provision: 1) Minor zone or municipal code amendments that do not involve physical modifications, lead to physical improvements beyond those typically exempt, or which refine or clarify existing land use standards; 2) Projects that are not specifically listed as categorical or statutory exemptions but exhibit characteristics similar to one or more specific exemptions. no exemption shall apply in the following circumstances: B. Exceptions. Even though a project may otherwise be eligible for an exemption, 1. Grading and clearing activities affecting sensitive plant or animal habitats, which disturb, fragment, or remove such areas as defined by either the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 et seq.), or the Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. Section 15131 et seq.); sensitive, rare, candidate species of special concern; endangered, or threatened biological species or their habitat (specifically including sage scrub habitat for the California Gnatcatcher); or, archaeological or cultural resources from either historic or prehistoric periods; 2. Parcel maps, plot plans and all discretionary development projects otherwise exempt but which affect sensitive, threatened or endangered biological species or their habitat (as defined above), archaeological or cultural resources from either historic or prehistoric periods, wetlands, stream courses designated on U.S. Geological Survey maps, hazardous materials, unstable soils, or other factors requiring special review, on all or a portion of the site. C. General rule exemptions. In addition to all other statutory ' II 19.04.080 Appeal on Determinations of Exemptions or Exceptions. A. The determinations made accordina to Section 19.04.070 are final unless appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to the procedures set forth in Title 21, Chapter 21.54, Section 21.54.140 of this code. City Council shall be sent by first class mail to the applicant and to the appellant. B. Notice of the hearing on appeal before either the Planning Commission or the 19.04.090 Initial Study. A. The responsible City department or a private applicant for a City entitlement shall submit to the Planning Director a completed en&onmental impact assessment form and supporting environmental studies as an aid in evaluating environmental impacts. B. The Planning Director, with assistance from City departments or staff as appropriate, shall review each project for which an initial study form has been filed. If the projeci the project may have a significant effect on the environment and determine the appropriate level is not categorically exempt, the Planning Director shall conduct an initial study to determine ii of environmental review necessary. C. If it is determined that the project will have no significant impact on the environment, the Planning Director shall prepare a negative declaration. D. If identified significant effects on the environment can be mitigated so that the project will have no significant effect on the environment, the Planning Director may, with the applicant's agreement, by imposition of appropriate project conditions, agreements, or other .. -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 i E s 1( 11 1; 1: 1L 1: 1t 1: If I! 2( 2: 2: 2: 21 2: 2( 2' 2: measures, including but not limited to, revision or redesign of the project, require the mitigation of these effects. A mitigated negative declaration may then be issued for the project provided, however, that no step or element of the project which may have a significant effect on the environment may be satisfied or carried out unless the conditions intended to mitigate that effect have been implemented or assurances have been provided that the condition will be carried out and enforced. E. Except as otherwise provided in (D) above, if it is determined that a project may have a significant impact on the environment the Planning Director shall prepare or cause to be prepared an EIR according to the requirements of CEQA. 19.04.100 Mailina of Neoative Declaration on Reauest. A. The Planning Director shall prepare a negative declaration or a mitigated for a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration under the provisions of CEQA. negative declaration when he/she finds after the required initial study that the project qualifies The declaration shall include a statement stipulating that comments on the environmental document from the public are encouraged. 19.04.1 10 ADDeal of Neqative Declaration. A. If the Planning Director or the Planning Commission has the authority under this code to approve or deny a~project, the decision to adopt, conditionally adopt or disapprove adoption of a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration is final unless any interested party files an appeal of the negative declaration, as provided by this code in Title 21, Chapter 21.54, Section 21.54.140. City Council shall be sent by first class mail to the applicant and to the appellant. B. Notice of the hearing on appeal before either the Planning Commission or the 19.04.120 Preparation of Environmental Impact Report. A. If the Citv determines that an environmental imDact reDort is reauired for a . .. .. ~~~ , ~~~~~ project, the City shall immediately send notice of preparation (NOP) to ali parties as provided in Section 21080.4 (PRC) and Sections 15082 and 15083.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The City shall send the NOP to all property owners within 600 feet of the perimeter of the subject site. Additionally, the City may send the NOP to all persons or organizations that the City believes may have an interest in the proposed project or related issues. Notices for projects with potential impacts of regional significance shall be sent to adjacent cities. Notice of preparation shall also be given by publishing once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the project is located and mailing to all persons who have previously requested such notice. All notices of preparation shall be posted on a bulletin board available to the public in the Planning Department, shall be sent to the County Clerk to be posted for a period of at least 30 days, and shall be sent to the State Clearinghouse when appropriate. B. The Planning Director may, with the approval of the City Council if necessary, enter into a contract with private consultant(s) for the preparation of a draft EIR. The cost for such consultant(s) shall be paid by the applicant. The applicant shall have no direct contact with the consultant unless approved by the City. The consultant shall not be an employee or affiliate of the applicant. C. Copies of the draft EIR may be submitted for comment to any agencies and to the applicant and a copy shall be available to the public in the Planning Department. A copy persons that the Planning Director determines to be necessary. The draft report shall be mailed shall also be made available at each of the Carlsbad City Libraries until filing of the notice of determination by the City. D. At the same time, a notice of completion shall be posted on a bulletin board accessible to the public in the Planning Department. -5- 1 i 3 - L & t I 5 1( 11 1: 1: 1L 1: 1( 1' 1: I! 21 2 2: 2: 2. 2. 2f 27 28 E. In addition to the notice required by State law, the Planning Director may require any additional notice deemed necessary for the project and shall assess the cost to the applicant. 19.04.1 30 Reauests for Additional Public Review Time on The Draft Environmental Document. interested party for an additional review period. The additional time for review shall not extend A. The Planning Director may approve a request from a community group or the time for action beyond that required under law. The failure to allow additional time for review shall not invalidate any discretionary approval based upon the document for which the additional review time was requested. 19.04.140 Hearinq, A. A negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or EIR shall be forwarded to the Planning Director, who shall cause the matter to be set for hearing by the appropriate decision-making body if .required. Notice of the hearing shall be given as provided in Section 21.54.060(1) of this code. At the hearing, the Planning Commission or City Council shall hear staff comments on the environmental document and may refer it back to staff for further decision-making body determines such to be necessary for a full and complete determination to investigation, information and analysis, andlor for the inclusion of additional material if the be made. The Planning Director shall supplement the environmental document if any significant points are raised at the hearing which have not previously been addressed. Copies of all environmental documents shall be made available for public review at the Planning Department. 19.04150 Consolidation. A. The Plannina Commission or Citv Council may consolidate a public hearing On a negative declaration, mitigGed negative declaration or an EIR with any other'public hearing held by the Planning Commission or City Council in regard to the same project. In such case, the notice required by this chapter may be given in the same manner and at the same time as public notice otherwise required for the project. The Planning Commission or City Council shall review and consider the information contained in the environmental document before taking action on the other aspects of the project before them. 19.04.160 Time Limits for Preparation of Environmental Documents. A. In accordance with CEQA, Section 21151.5, completion and adoption of a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration shall not exceed 180 calendar days from the date the application for proposed development is deemed complete. Completion and certification of an EIR shall not exceed one year from the date that the application is deemed complete. 1. 2. 3. 111 111 .. Unreasonable delays by the applicant shall suspend these time periods for the period of the unreasonable delay. The Permit Streamlining Act does not apply to legislative actions and likewise does not require that permit applications be deemed approved ii not acted on within the statutory period when such permit applications would require legislative changes in applicable general plans, zoning ordinances, or other controlling land use legislation. The City shall approve or disapprove a project within 60 days if the project is determined to be exempt. -6- 1 11 1: 1: lf If 1t 1: 11 l! 2( 2' 2: 2: 2. 2: 26 27 28 19.04.170 Appeal of Environmental Impact Report. A. Any challenge to the adequacy of an EIR certified by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 21, Chapter 21:54, Section 21.54.140. City Council shall be sent by first class mail to the applicant and to the appellant. 19.04.1 80 Mitiqation Monitorinq and Reoortinq Proqrams. potentially significant effects are effectively implemented and monitored throughout the project A. It is the intent of the City to ensure that all required mitigation measures to avoid approval, permitting and construction process, as well as the lifespan of the project. In conjunction with the approval of each project, an individual program shall be developed and adopted to ensure that each feature related to the mitigation measures is specifically included development review and permitting process, and monitored during construction and final as a reference in the conditions of approval, incorporated into the subsequent stages of compliance with the ongoing mitigation measures beyond final inspection. inspection, as well as on an ongoing basis. The program may contain remedies to ensure 19.04.1 90 Mailinq of Notices on Reauest. A. The Planning Department or the City Clerk shall mail copies of all notices of appeal, notices of hearings, and other notices resulting from this chapter to any individual or group who files a written request therefor. Such individual or group shall update their request annually. A fee to cover the costs of printing and postage in an amount established by City Council resolution shall accompany each such request. 6. Notice of the hearing on appeal before either the Planning Commission or the 19.04.200 Indemnification bv ADDhCant. A. The applicant shall be responsible and indemnify the City for any and all costs the City incurs in defending any action alleging noncompliance with CEQA or this Chapter, including all costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. 19.04.210 Enforcement. A. ExceDt as otherwise provided bv law. it is unlawful and an offense punishable as designated in Title i, Chapter 1.08'of this code for any project applicant or permittee to fail to perform any required mitigation measure(s) specified in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project. 6. The City shall also have the right to revoke or modify all approvals granted in relation to the environmental review of the project, deny or further condition issuance of any future building permits, and deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of the related approval. C. Violations may be enforced by criminal or civil judicial action, or both, or in combination with any of the administrative remedies enumerated in this code to compel compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. The Planning Director may record with the County Recorder's Office a notice against a property which is the subject of an enforcement action pending with the City of Carlsbad. 19.04.220 Severabilitv. A. If any provision of this title or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this chapter. Each and every provision of this title is severable from remaining provisions. 111 -7- 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 EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be effective within the My’s Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.) INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 26th day of June 2001, and thereafter. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk ww -8- 1 1 1 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 RESOLUTION NO. 2oo1-193 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALFORNIA ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT TO REPEAL AND RE-ENACT TITLE 19 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO BRING THE TITLE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATIVE CHANGES IN THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AS WELL AS TO REORGANIZE AND CLARIFY EXISTING REGULATIONS. CASE NAME: TITLE 19 UPDATE CASE NO.: MCA 01-02 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was issued on March 21, 2001 by the Planning Director; and WHEREAS, the City Council is satisfied that the amendment to Title 19 is in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. The amendment will not cause any significant environmental impacts, ensures that the California Quality Act and the State Guidelines will be more effectively implemented, and therefore, will provide enhanced environmental review of public and private projects. More effective review of projects helps ensure the protection of the City’s environmental resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . Carlsbad on the 26th 1 1 1: 1: 1L l! 1t 1: 1E 15 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 2 of reso. 2001-Y PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of day of _ June ,2001, by the following AYES: NOES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard, an None. ATTEST: WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) / -2- /a al City of Carlsbad Project Address/Location: Project Description: NEGATIVE DECLARATION City of Carlsbad Amendment of Title 19, Environmental Protection Procedures, to provide compliance between the City’s environmental protection procedures and legislative changes in the California Environmental Quality Act, as well as to reorganize and clarify the ordinance. 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, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on tile in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Adrienne Landers in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4615. DATED: MARCH 21,200l CASE NO: MCA 01-02 CASE NAME: TITLE 19 UPDATE PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 21,200l MICHAEL J. HOyZMI’#kER Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (780) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 - www.ci.car1sbad.ca.u~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: MCA 01-02 DATE: March 8.2001 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Title 19 Update 2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 602-4615 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment of Title 19 to provide compliance between the City’s Environmental Protection Procedures and legislative changes in the California Environmental Oualitv Act, as well as to reorpanize and clarifv the ordinance. SUMMARY OF 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. q Land Use and Planning El Transportation/Circulation q Public Services q Population and Housing q Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems cl Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics q Water cl Hazards q Cultural Resources Ix] Air Quality q Noise q Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Ix1 q 0 q q 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 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 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 EIR/MEIR 93-01 pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR/MEIR 93-01, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. / /- * . /’ ,d ,*,i - ?.,i : I c. c- Planner Signature Date - Date ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, 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 significant. Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but a potentially significant 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 (Prior Compliance). When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant 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 effect on the environment. 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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. l An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant 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 impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source ##(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) W cl Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or 4 W c) 4 e) f) 9) h) 9 expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1115) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l :Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2- 11) ’ b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water ‘quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q q q q q Cl q q q q q q q q q q III q q q q q q q Less Than so Stgmficant Impact Impact q lxl q El q El q Ix1 q IXI q q El q cl II q q lxl q q q q cl q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) 4 9 g) h) 9 Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l :Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2- 11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5,.2-l 1) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: b) cl d> Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- 1 - 5.3-12) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would . the 4 b) c> 4 e) f-J g) proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) VII.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) Potentially Significant Impact q q q q q q q 0 q q q q q q q q q q q Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q Less Than Significant Impact q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q No Impact (xl Ix1 El IXI IXI lxl El lzl Ix1 IXI ISI IXI El Ix1 El Ix1 (x1 Ix] lxl Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). cl d) e) VIII. a) b) cl Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 1 - 5.13-9) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) b) c) 4 4 A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9- 15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#I :Pgs 5.9- 1 - 5.9-15) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect a) b) cl 4 e) upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental service’s? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Potentially Significant Impact cl q q 0 q q q q q q q q q q q q q q Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q q . q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q Less Than Significant Impact q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q r-40 Impact 151 IXJ Ix1 IXI El lxl IXI lxl El (XI lxl (XI lxl lzl 1xI lxl IXI El Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a> b) cl 4 4 cl g> XIII. a> b) cl XIV. a) b) c> 4 4 Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-l - 5.13-9) Communications systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-l - 5.12.3-7) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-I - 5.12.4-3) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7) AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 5.11-l - 5.11-5) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs 5.11-l -5.11-5) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-l - 5.11-5) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8- 10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8- 10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8- 1 - 5.8-10) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: b) XVI. a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l :Pgs 5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered ,plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Signifkanl Impact q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q 0 q Less Than Synificant Impact q q q q q q q q q 0 q q q q q q q q SO Impact lxl IXI IZJ lxl El El El IXI Ix1 Ix1 IXI El lxl El Ix1 lxl lxl El Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) c) XVII. 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)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Significant Impact PotentialI> Significant Unless Mitigatton Less Than ho Significant Impact Impact q Incorporated cl 0 Is] cl q 0 lxl 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: 4 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. 4 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. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code provides for the enhancement and protection of the physical environment within the City of Carlsbad. The Environmental Protection Procedures establish principles, objectives, criteria, definitions and procedures for the evaluation of the environmental impacts created by public and private development projects. Title 19 implements the California Environmental Protection Act (CEQA) and the State Guidelines prepared by the State Office of Planning and Research. Title 19 establishes requirements for the preparation and evaluation of environmental documents such as Environmental Impact Reports. It also delineates the City’s responsibility for protecting the physical environment. Due to the nature of the proposed action, a discussion of physical biological and human impacts referred to on this checklist or a discussion or project alternatives is not applicable or appropriate. The amendment of Title 19 does not result in or contribute to direct or indirect significant adverse environmental impacts, therefore, there are no environmental impacts associated with the proposed revisions. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION EXHBlT3 - The City of Carlsbad Planning Department he@ Item No. 1 0 1 Application complete date: NA P.C. AGENDA OF: May 16,200l / ,%z;;E’tnn::i ;Inne Landers SUBJECT: MCA 01-02 - TITLE 19 UPDATE - Request to repeal and re-enact Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to bring the City’s Environmental Protection Procedures into compliance with legislative changes in the California Environmental Quality Act, as well as to reorganize and clarify existing regulations. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission receive the report. II. INTRODUCTION The proposed Municipal Code amendment includes revisions to Title 19, the City’s Environmental Protection Ordinance, which applies to all projects proposed in the City. These modifications address requirements established by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and also include a general reorganization and clarification of the text of Title 19. There are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed amendments. The details of each of the proposed changes is discussed in detail below. A “bold/itallics and strikeout” version of the changes is not included due to the extensive nature of the revisions. Because the proposed revisions are an amendment to the municipal code, the City Council will be the decision-making body on this action. This report is being presented as a courtesy to the Planning Commission due to its interaction with environmental procedures. Any comments or input the Planning Commission may have regarding the proposed ordinance are welcomed. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code provides for the enhancement and protection of the physical environment within the City of Carlsbad. The Environmental Protection Procedures establish principles, objectives, criteria, definitions and procedures for the evaluation of the environmental impacts created by public and private development projects. Title 19 implements the California Environmental Protection Act (CEQA) and the State Guidelines prepared by the State Office of Planning and Research. Title 19 establishes requirements for the preparation and evaluation of environmental documents such as negative declarations and environmental impact reports. It also delineates the City’s responsibility for protecting the physical environment. CEQA has been amended by the State legislature since the last update of Title 19 was approved by the City Council in 1995. The update of Title 19 brings the Environmental Protection Procedures into compliance with State law. In addition to the inclusion of new language required by CEQA, the proposed revisions delete existing ordinance language already found in TITLE 19 UPDATE - MCA 0 l-02 May 16,200l Page 2 CEQA; clarify responsibilities of the Planning Director, Planning Commission and City Council; and add several new provisions. All of these are discussed in the Analysis section. IV. ANALYSIS There are generally four areas of revision that are included in the proposed amendment. These topic areas include the following: 1) Deletion of language already found in CEQA; 2) Inclusion and clarification of topics required by CEQA; 3) Reorganization and clarification of duties and responsibilities of the Planning Director, Planning Commission and City Council; and, 4) Deletion of existing provisions and the inclusion of new provisions regarding City procedures. A more detailed discussion and analysis of these topic areas is included below. 1. Deletion of Language Already Found in CEOA In its current format, Title 19 includes a variety of regulations related to the preparation of initial studies, negative declarations and environmental impact reports. Most of this information is already included within the text of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines. To provide consistency and prevent conflicts when CEQA regulations are modified in the future, all requirements found in CEQA were deleted from the City’s ordinance. All regulations relating to the environmental impacts of proposed projects are thoroughly addressed in CEQA and an additional restating in a City ordinance is redundant and unnecessary. 2. Inclusions and Clarification of Topics Required bv CEOA There are several items that are either required by CEQA to be included in a city’s environmental regulations or are suggested for inclusion in a city’s regulations. As discussed below, required processing times are specifically required to be incorporated into City regulations. In addition, cities are also allowed to clarify certain provisions within CEQA to adapt the State regulations to the unique requirements of each jurisdiction. These are also discussed below. P Time Lines - CEQA, in conjunction with the Permit Streamlining Act, mandates maximum time lines for both environmental review and project processing. These time lines are required to be included in the City’s regulations and can be found in Section 19.04.160. The City is also required to provide this information to project applicants to notify them of the time limits established for the review and approval of development permits. This information is included in a routine letter provided to applicants at the time their application is deemed complete. P Ministerial Proiects - Exemptions for ministerial projects are those that involve little or no personal judgment by the public official approving the project and involve the use of fixed standards or objective measurements. Staff is proposing to expand this category to include preliminary design work for capital improvement projects, final maps, most grading, landscape and improvement plans, CC&Rs, building permits, final inspections, issuance of licenses, utilities service connections and disconnections and City-ordered brush clearance of non-sensitive areas. These are actions requiring compliance with City or State standards not requiring judgment by the City. New language clarifies the fact that no environmental review is required because environmental impacts are not expected to occur with these types of actions. 27 TITLE 19 UPDATE - MCA 0 l-02 May 16,200l Pane 3 o Categorical Exemptions - Categorical exemptions are for classes of projects determined not to have a significant effect on the environment Staff is proposing to add lot line adjustments that do not increase density or intensity of use within this category believing that lot line adjustments of this type are minor, regulatory actions that could not create environmental impacts. o General Rule Exemptions - General rule exemptions are those where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question could have a significant effect on the environment and therefore the activity is deemed exempt from CEQA. Staff is proposing to include in this category minor zone or municipal code amendments that do not involve physical modifications, lead to physical improvements beyond those that are typically exempt, or those that refine or clarify existing land use standards. It is staffs opinion that minor amendments meet the general rule test and that including them within this category would reduce processing time and paperwork. o Submittal of Environmental Studies - CEQA allows cities to request any environmental studies necessary to determine whether or not a project may have a significant effect on the environment prior to accepting the application as complete. This provision is proposed for inclusion to clarify for applicants that the City, in order to comply with mandated time lines, will be requesting supporting environmental studies at the time of application submittal or shortly thereafter. 3. Reorganization and Clarification of Duties and Responsibilities of the Planning Director, Planniw Commission and Citv Council CEQA does not address what decision-making body in each city will make decisions on environmental determinations or certifications. That determination is left up to each jurisdiction to decide for itself. The City’s current environmental procedures do address decision-making responsibilities; however, the present format of Title 19 is poorly organized and difficult to follow. In addition, it is also difficult to discern the duties and responsibilities of each decision- making body. The proposed ordinance includes a more logical presentation of these topics. Specific provisions include the following: o Planning Director Responsibilitv - Proposed text removes the ability of other department heads, with the responsibility for approving ministerial projects, to determine that a project is exempt from CEQA. The responsibility for determining a project as exempt from CEQA lies with the Planning Director. Proposed language reflects that fact. o Decision-making Bodv for EIRs - New language more clearly and strongly states that when the Planning Commission is the final decision-making body on a project with an EIR that the Planning Commission may certify the EIR instead of requiring the project to be reviewed by the City Council. This is a clarification of responsibilities but also reduces the level of paperwork and processing time for applicants. o Appeals - As part of the text reorganization, the entire appeals section has been deleted and language inserted that defers to the appeals section of Chapter 21.54 of the Zoning Ordinance. This eliminates redundant and unnecessary text. 28 TITLE 19 UPDATE - MCA 0 l-02 May 16,200l Page 4 4. Deletions and New Provisions As discussed below, there are two sections of Title 19 that have been eliminated. There are also four new sections that have been added to achieve better monitoring and enforcement of mitigation measures placed on projects. o Annlicant-nrenared -EIRs - Existing language in Title 19 has led to the interpretation that the City may allow developers to prepare their own EIRs. To clarify this issue, text has been added to clearly state that all EIRS will be prepared by the Planning Director through the use of a consultant paid for by the applicant. Staff believes that this provides a more objective, non-biased document than an EIR prepared by the applicant in consultation with the developer. This eliminates the public perception of a conflict of interest between the EIR consultant and the developer. City-prepared EIRs versus developer-prepared ElRs preclude contact between the consultant and the developer. Although the development community believes that developer-prepared EIRs reduce processing time, that has not been staffs experience. EIRs on complex projects are a lengthy process regardless. Staff believes that when the consultant works for the City a more objective and credible document is produced. 0 Prior Compliance - The term prior compliance has been used to denote reliance on a prior environmental document. Because CEQA does not include this term as a form of environmental evaluation, it has been eliminated in the revised ordinance. A prior environmental document, such as an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration prepared for a project, may still be used as a resource document. A preferred method of addressing earlier environmental review is for the original document to be used in the assessment of impacts and if subsequent actions have already been adequately addressed with no new information or substantial changes existing, a Negative Declaration for the subsequent project could then be prepared. o Mitigation Monitoring - To more effectively implement and monitor mitigation measures throughout the approval, permitting, construction processes as well as the lifespan of the project, a provision has been added to include these measures as a reference in the conditions of approval. This ensures that staff and future property owners are aware of all pertinent mitigation measures without researching numerous documents. o Indemnification - This new provision indemnifies the City for any and all costs the City incurs in defending any action alleging non-compliance with CEQA, including attorney fees. o Enforcement - New text gives the City the right to revoke or modify all approvals, condition future building permits and deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy ‘if an applicant fails to perform any required mitigation measures. This language strengthens the City’s enforcement powers with regard to the implementation and monitoring of environmental mitigation measures. o Notice of Preparation - New text has been included to maximize notice to the public that the preparation of an EIR is about to begin. New language requires: 1) notices to be 29 TITLE 19 UPDATE - MCA 0 l-02 May 16,200l Page 5 published in a local newspaper; 2) notices to be sent to property owners located within 600 feet of the perimeter the subject site; 3) notices to be sent to interested parties; and, 4) notices to be placed on public bulletin boards in the Planning Department. New text also requires adjacent cities to be noticed for projects that have the potential for regional impacts. The intent of this noticing to provide clear and ample opportunities for public involvement in the CEQA process. Conclusion The proposed revisions to the City’s environmental protection procedures will provide a document that is more user-friendly and easier to understand. More importantly, the amendment will ensure compliance with State law, provide clarification with regard to decision-making and provide stronger means of ensuring mitigation monitoring. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The creation or amendment of an ordinance that, in some way, regulates physical land use development has the future potential to allow a physical development project that could adversely impact the environment; however, any future development project processed pursuant to these amended environmental procedures would be required to adequately mitigate adverse environmental impacts. The proposed amendment of Title 19 ensures compliance with CEQA and these proposed changes will not result in direct or indirect significant adverse physical impacts to the environment. In this instance, the changes to the City’s Environmental Protection Procedures would ensure that CEQA is being implemented more effectively. These amendments provide for improved environmental review of public and private projects. More effective environmental review translates into increased protection of the City’s environmental resources, and therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared for adoption by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Resolution, Exhibit X, dated May 16,200l 2. City Council Ordinance, Exhibit Y, dated May 16,200l AL:mh PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and San Diego County; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: June 16, 2001 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. San Marco5 Dated at , California 18th this June, 2001 day This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing $ . : ii* 9 NOTICE OF .t. . ” PlJBLlC nE)&JqlM@ IVICA 01-02 - TITLE 19 UPdATE r4QTttX WiEREBV WEN tci you; because YW intereat may be affe&&that~the City Council of the City of Carlabad wrtl hold a:publ@ h&&ngat the Council Chambers, 1200 Ca$bad WiHage‘Driv& Carlsbad; California, at 6:OQ p.m. on Tuesday, June 26,2OOl, to consider s Municipal C* Amendm@on propertyjocatc#r Ciide. < T&&p&$&s dishing to speak on this proposal a~e’ce~dt&ty 1 i&tied to attend the public hearing. Copies of the Staff report. will’be &Hable on and after June 22,2601. ‘tf YOU have tiny! questions, please call Adrienne Landers in the Plannfng Depa@ient at (766) 602-4615. The. time within which you’ may ~@.idlcially, challenge &is Municipal Code Amendment, if approved, is establish;dy;; state< law &d/or‘ city ordinance, and is very short. challenge the fWnfcipal ,Code Amendment in. cou& YOU may be fimlted‘.to- &sing only those issues. rarsed by you or someone else atthe. public hearing described in this notice or ‘in t&t&n correepondence de1ivere.d to the Cii of Cadgbad; ‘City Cierklr$Offlcd, at,or prior to’the pubkc hearing. \ _ APPLICANT? City of,‘Carlsb&f * .’ I( PUBLlSil FjCPTH COUNTY ‘D&l& June 16,200i ’ .+’ ,, I :; \’ CITY OF CARLSBAD CD-Y COUNCIL Legal 70312. June 16,200l’ NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING MCA 01-02 - TITLE 19 UPDATE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 26, 2001, to consider a Municipal Code Amendment on property located Citywide. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after June 22,200l. If you have any questions, please call Adrienne Landers in the Planning Department at (760) 602-46 15. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Municipal Code Amendment, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Municipal Code Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, City Clerk’s Office, at or prior to the public hearing. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH NORTH COUNTY TIMES: June 16,200l PUBLISH THE COAST NEWS: June 14,200l CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL Snwoth Feed SheetP Use template for 5160@ CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST 801 PINE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST 701 ENCINITAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE 2730 LOKER AVE WEST CARLSBAD CA 92008 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER ADRIENNE LANDERS 5/30/2001 n A\ AVERY@ Address labels SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069 LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST 1960 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 VALLECITOS WATER DIST 788 SAN MARCOS BLVD SAN MARCOS CA 92069 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE B 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST 101 RANCH0 SANTA FE RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 SD COUNTY PLANNING STE B 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT laser 5160@ (Form A) TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice MCA 01-02 - TITLE 19 UPDATE for a public hearing before the City Council. Please notice the item for the council meeting of FIRST AVAILABLE HEARING Thank you. The Coast News Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County. Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to The Coast News, P.O. Box 232-550, Encinitas, CA 92023 (760) 436-9737 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am principal clerk of the printer of newspaper printed and published week paper has been adjudged a newspaper o for the cities of Del Mar, Solana Beacl Carlsbad, Oceanside, San MarcosNis Judicial District by the Superior COI California, County of San Diego (8/4/9 P396); and that the notice, of which the ed copy, has been published in, each reg of said newspaper and not in any supple following dates, to-wit: June 14, 2001 Space above for County Clerk’s Filing Stamp S:QO p.m; on R&day, 10 considkr a Mwi*aI code Ammdme@oirpiop@ptQcatedcii. Those persons wkhhg to speak bn this proposal are cordfaily invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report wifi be avaWabl6 on Bnd and%fW Julie 22,. Tool. If you have any questions, pIeaSe c&l Adrienns Landers in the Planning Deparlment at (760) 602-4515. The time wit& wt&#t you may judi@lly chalfanga.thii Munii Code Amendment, if af$roved, is 6Mt@&hdy*te la* ilntw*~ordinarice; @Id Is very *tt If you challenge the Municipal C&s Aimd@M in court, you thay be timltsd to raising qt##use issued raised by you or someone el& at thk public hearing described in this notice c&i written cormspondsncs deliired to the’ wof Car&ad, C@Cterk’&QffW~ at-or @ior to ths public hearing: + APPLlCANTz CHyti.C&&bad v; , CW8FCAwmWCq;. ::’ + .’ ;‘:’ ‘i cN:4619611ucri -- *’ ._._: -i-; ‘_. ..:. ,, ” ,, ,/, I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California on the 14th day of June, 200 1.