HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-06; City Council; 17575; Farmworker Housing‘d al a d rj a,
0 m
CJ 0 r- I m z
Q) u d Id d -d a k 0
a a, u 3 a 0 k c, d H .. Z 0 F
25
2
z 3 0 0
Project application(s) Administrative
Approvals
Environmental Review - Negative
Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 04-
01)
Local Coastal Program Amendment
Declaration
(LCPA 04-01)
AB# 17,575
MTG. 4/6/04
DEPT. PLN&
Reviewed by and
Final at Planning
Commission
To be Reviewed -
Final at Council
X
X
X
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
TITLE:
FARMWORKER HOUSING
ZCA 04-0 1 /LCPA 04-0 1
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTY.
CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2004-110 , ADOPTING a Negative
Declaration and APPROVING the Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-01), based on the
findings contained therein, and INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS--702 , APPROVING an
amendment to the Zoning Code (ZCA 04-01) to permit the consideration of agricultural farmworker
housing by conditional use permit.
This proposed Zone Code Amendment would amend Section 21.42.010 of the code to allow consideration of agricultural farmworker housing in the City through the processing of a Conditional
Use Permit. The amendment would allow the processing of the Conditional Use Permit in any zone
in the City because existing agricultural operations which might need farmworker housing are located
in many different zones. Staff’s analysis of this amendment took into consideration the following
which are covered in detail in the attached staff report to the Planning Commission, dated March 3,
2004:
1.
2. General Plan consistency; and
3.
City Council referral as a result of the Council’s review of a feasibility study for
farmworker shelter on December 9,2003;
Compliance with State Housing Law.
Based upon the analysis, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 (Whitton) to recommend approval of
the amendment.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed project could not have a significant
effect on the environment and recommends the adoption of a Negative Declaration.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed project is the amendment of the Zoning Code to establish a procedure for
consideration of farmworker housing. It does not commit staff time or resources at this time and
therefore, does not create a fiscal impact on the city.
Ill
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17 r 575
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2004-110 2. Ordinance No. NS-702
3. ZCA 04-01 Bold/Strikeout
4.
5.
6.
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5577, 5578, and 5579
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated March 3,2004 Draft Excerpts of the Planning Commission Minutes, dated March 3, 2004.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Michael Holzmiller, (760) 602-4601 , mholzQci.carlsbad.ca.us
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-1 10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND APPROVING A
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO AMEND TITLE
21 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION
21.42.01 0 TO ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF FARMWORKER
HOUSING BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
CASE NAME: FARMWORKER HOUSING
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLA-
CASE NO.: ZCA 04-01/LCPA 04-01
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on March 3, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider a Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment, and recommended their approval; and
day of WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 6th
Apr i 1 , 2004, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Negative
Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment, and at that time
received recommendations, objections, protests, comments from all persons interested in or
opposed to ZCA 04-01 and LCPA 04-01 ;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
hereby resolve as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Negative Declaration is adopted as shown on Exhibit “ND”,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based upon information presented at the public
hearing and contained in Exhibits “NOI” and “PII”, attached to Planning Commission Resolution
No. 5577 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
3. That the findings of the Planning Commission for the LCPA, as specified
in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5579, are incorporated herein by reference and are the
findings of the City Council.
‘7 J
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of April
2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard ,
NOES: None
ABSENT: None /7
ATTEST:
amd-
LBRR'AINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Resolution No. 2004-110 page 2
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1;
1E
IS
2c
21
22
21
24
2:
2c
2;
2t
ORDINANCE NO. NS-702
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AND SECTION 21.42.010 OF THE CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF
FARMWORKER HOUSING BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
CASE NAME: FARMWORKER HOUSING
CASE NO.: ZCA 04-01
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
Section I: That Title 21, Chapter 21.42, Section 21.42.010 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, is amended by the amendment of Subsection 21.42.010(1) to read as follows:
(1) R-A (Residential-Agricultural) zone only:
Section II: That Title 21, Chapter 21.42, Section 21.42.010 of the Carlsbad
(A) Temporary public dumps;
Municipal Code, is amended by the addition of Subsection 21.42.01 0(2)(M) to read as follows:
(M) Temporary Agricultural Farmworker Housing in all zones except Residential
(unless exempt from a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.4)
approved by the City Council following recommendation of the Planning Commission at a duly
noticed public hearing.
Section Ill: That the findings of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 5578 constitute the findings of the City Council.
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. (Notwithstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be
effective within the City’s coastil Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.)
/Ill
/Ill
1/11
/Ill
/Ill
Ill/
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
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the 6th day Of ADril 2004, and thereafter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAl N:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Ordinance No. NS-702 page 2
-2-
EXHIBIT 3
ZCA 04-01 - BOLDBTRIKEOUT
21.42.010 Permitted uses.
All of the following in all matters directly related thereto are declared to be uses possessing
characteristics of such unique and special form as to make impractical their being included automatically
in any classes of use as set forth in the various zones herein defined, and the authority for the location
and operation thereof shall be subject to review and the issuance of conditional use permits. It is also
intended for uses whose approximate location is indicated in the general plan, but whose exact location
and arrangements must be carefully studied. In granting the permit, certain safeguards to protect the
health, safety and general welfare may be required as conditions of approval.
The following uses may be permitted by approval of a conditional use permit in the following zones:
(1) R-A (residential-agricultural) zone only:
@j (A) Temporary public dumps;
(2) All zones including residential, with the exception of the community facilities zone (Chapter
21.25) in which all uses must be specifically allowed by Chapter 21.25:
(A) Cemeteries,
(B) Churches,
(C) Public and private schools,
(D) Repealed by Ord. NS-56 9 2.
(E) Golf courses (except as may be approved as part of a planned community
development),
(F) Greenhouses greater than two thousand square feet in area and packing or sorting
sheds greater than six hundred square feet in area subject to the following conditions:
1. Lighting to be directed away from nearby residences and shall not create undue
illumination
2. Fans shall not create a noise nuisance to nearby residences
3. Driveways shall be improved with dust control material and be maintained
4. Structure, including panels or coverings, shall be maintained and not become a
safety hazard or nuisance to the neighborhood
5. The approving conditional use permit resolution shall contain the time limits of the
permit and the provisions for periodic review,
(G) Repealed by Ord. 9564 9 3.
(H) Overnight campsites. All overnight campsites shall comply with the following
conditions:
(a) Any campsite shall be located in, adjacent to, or shall be directly associated
with existing or planned parks and open space system and shall augment
the city’s general plan.
(b) An overnight campsite shall comply with all federal, state and local laws.
I
(c) Overall design for an overnight campsite shall be approved by a licensed
(d) No person shall occupy any part of an overnight campsite for more than
architect or landscape architect.
ninety days, in the aggregate, during any given year.
(e) The design of an overnight campsite shall be subject to the following
conditions:
1. Upon site review, a perimeter six-foot fence or wall may be required. Interior six-
foot fencing shall be required to isolate major trash collection and storage areas.
Such fences or walls shall be of materials compatible with an approved
architectural scheme for the total development.
2. Primary road surfaces, Le., two-way throughways, shall be blacktop, asphalt or
equivalent road surfaces. One-way throughways with sufficient natural drainage
may be surfaced with decomposed granite or equivalent, otherwise hard surface
equal to 'two-way requirements will be required. The remaining travel surfaces
(camp pads, footpaths, maintenance roads) will be covered with decomposed
granite or equivalent material.
3. Associated signs, freestanding or attached to buildings shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with city ordinances.
4. Unit site densities will be computed from a slope analysis of the project area: 0-5
percent slope = maximum 7 units; 6-1 5 percent slope = maximum 3 units; 16 plus
percent slope = permanent open space.
5. Sites within the campground shall be clearly marked and shall be not less than two
thousand five hundred square feet in area.
6. Sites utilized by auto-truck campers, trailers, mobile coaches, shall front on a
roadway not less than fifteen feet wide and which affords access to a public road.
7. Said campground facility shall total not less than ten acres, of which not less than
sixty percent of the site shall be utilized for recreation activities, other than
buildings, roadways, parking pads, trash or storage areas.
8. Camping spaces shall be placed at random throughout the project, so as not to
reflect uniformity in appearance or design.
9. Exterior lighting shall be a type so as not to make visible a direct light source or
cause glare outside the campground facility. Proposed light fixtures shall be
subject to review to assure compatibility with the architectural scheme of the total
development.
10. Landscaping and sprinkler system shall be constructed in conformance with a
plan approved by a registered landscape architect and approved by the land use
planning office prior to building permit issuance. The sprinkler system shall be
8
applied only to those areas that are not in extensive recreational use. Such
landscaping shall be in conformance with but not limited to the following minimum
standards:
(a) The campground site shall be planted with combinations of flowers, turf,
groundcovers, shrubs, and trees; said plantings shall be distributed throughout
the site to create a park-like effect.
(b) Trees shall be planted at a ratio of one for each one thousand square feet of
gross land area. Ten percent of all trees shall be of specimen size, the
remainder of which shall be equally divided among fifteen, five and one-gallon
sizes. Existing on-site trees may be utilized to fulfill tree requirements.
11. An architectural concept shall be adopted for the total development. Plans for all
structures and fences shall be subject to review and approval by the land use
planning office to assure harmony and compatibility of all facilities within the
campground.
12. Documents pertaining to the maintenance of all facilities including landscaping,
and designating those persons responsible for same, shall be submitted for staff
approval prior to building permit issuance.
Other conditions may be imposed in connection with any conditional use permit
issued for a campsite, pursuant to conditional use permit ordinance regulations
then in effect;
(I) Public buildings,
(J) Accessory public and quasi-public utility buildings and facilities including, but not
limited to, water wells, water storage, pump stations, booster stations, transmission or
distribution electrical substations, operating centers, gas metering and regulating
stations, or neighboring telephone exchanges, with the necessary apparatus or
appurtenances incident thereto,
(K) Private zoos; provided the property for such private zoo has a minimum of twenty
thousand square feet, no animal is kept within twenty feet of any property line, and a
valid wild animal permit has been issued by the state,
(L) Aquaculture: The cultivation of aquatic organisms both in inland waters and the open
sea;
(M) Agricultural Farmworker Housing (unless exempt from a Conditional Use
Permit pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.4)
(3) R-A commercial or industrial zones: nurseries and nursery supplies;
(4) R-P (residential-professional) commercial and industrial zones:
(A) Mortuaries;
9
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
EXHIBIT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5577
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 AMEND TITLE 21 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE.
CASE NAME: FARMWORKER HOUSING
CASE NO.: ZCA 04-0 1 /LCPA 04-0 1
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the
Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to farmworker housing; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of March 2004, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, 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)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration
according to the “ND”, Exhibit “NOI” dated January 16, 2004, and “PII” dated
January 14,2004, 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:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration for the
FARMWORKER HOUSING (ZCA 04-01LCPA 04-01) the environmental
/o
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
impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of March 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
b.
c.
d.
Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, and Segall
NOES: Commissioner Whitton
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
IhgLISSA WHITE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HO&MIMER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5577 -2-
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: FARMWORKER HOUSING
PROJECT LOCATION: CITYWIDE
CASE NO: ZCA 04-0 l/LCPA 04-0 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow consideration of
constructing Farmworker Housing in the City through the Conditional Use Permit Process. Presently,
the ordinance only allows consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Farmworker Housing in the EA
and RA Zones. A Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessary because the Zoning Ordinance is the
implementing ordinance for the Local Coastal Program.
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 (EL4 Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the
environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
Ix1 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Negative Declaration applies only to the
effects that remained to be addressed).
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on
file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
, Dursuant to Council Resolution No.
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
’b 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 6024600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.car1sbad.ca.us
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Farmworker Housing
PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide
CASE NO: ZCA 04-01/LCPA 04-01
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow consideration
of constructing Farmworker Housing in the City through the Conditional Use Permit Process.
Presently, the ordinance only allows consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Farmworker
Housing in the EA and RA Zones. A Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessary because
the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the Local Coastal Program.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EL4 Part 2) did not identify any potentially
significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be
recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative
Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California
92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the
Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvaVadoption by
the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be
issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Michael
Holzmiller in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4601.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD Januarv 16,2004 to February 16,2004
PUBLISH DATE January 16,2004
13
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 0 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 - www.y.carls&i&j3.us @ an"ary
ENVIRONRlENTAL IMPACT ASSESShlENT FORhI - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC.4 03-0 1 /LCPA 03-0 1
DATE: January 12.2004
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Farmworker Housing
2.
3.
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Michael J. Holzmiller (760) 602-4601
4. PROJECT LOCATION: Non-site specific
5.
6.
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Not applicable
7. ZONING: Not apulicable
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
The uroiect consists of an amendment to ChaDter 2 1.42 of the Zoning Ordinance (Conditional
USES:
Uses) to authorize the consideration of allowing temporary farmworker housing in the Citv of
Carlsbad bv the urocessina of a Conditional Use Permit. A Local Coastal Program Amendment
is necessarv because the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the Local Coastal
Promam. Currently Chapter 2 1.42 only allows farmworker housing (“Agricultural Labor
Housing”) in the Residential Agricultural (RA) Zone through the apuroval of a Conditional Use
Permit. Also. the E-A Zone (Chapter 21) allows the use bv Conditional Use Permit. This uroiect
would allow consideration of farmworker housinp in any zone by Conditional Use Permit.
Active farming in the Citv is located in many different zones. The project does not involve a
suecific site or zone in the citv but rather is auplicable citywide. The project uroposes no uhvsical
development and, since it affects regulations auulicable to properties citywide, there is no specific
project site with a sDecific environmental setting or surrounding land uses.
1 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
c] Aesthetics u Geology/Soils u Noise
u Agncultural Resources 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials u and Housing
0 Air Quality
0 Biological Resources
0 Hydrology/Water Quality c] Public Services
0 Land Use and Planning Recreation
0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation
0 Mandatory Findings of 0 Utilities & Service Systems Significance
2 14 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI
0
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in ths case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment. but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
Planner Signature Date
3 l(P Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL IAlPACTS
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 projectmd provides the City tvith information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), h’egative 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” ans\ver 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 “EM-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental
document is required.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
4 Rev. 07/03/02
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not liniited 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 mitisation
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
EM-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a
level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIROhTMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts, whch would otherwise be determined significant.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant No
Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0
0 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and hstoric
buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 OH
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighnime views
in the area?
0 0 OH
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model- 1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
0 0
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract? . 0
0
0
0
ON
OH c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? 0
0
OH
CIH b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
19 6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
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)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
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?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological intemption, or other means?
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?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Impact tributary areas that are 'environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Inipacr
om
0
0
0
0 IXI
IXI
7 Rev. 07/03/02 do
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact 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 9 15064.5?
0 0
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
0 0
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0
0 0
IXI
0 (XI d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
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:
0 0 IXI 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? 0 0
0 0
0 IXI
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? 0
iv. Landslides? 0 0
0 0 0 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
0 0 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?
0 IXI
0 0 0 d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
8
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS RlATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
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?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
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?
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 worhng in the project area?
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?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
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?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
9
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentiall!
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Sign i ficant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rev. Q7lO3lQ2 22
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 whch would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for whch permits
have been granted)?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
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?
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?
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?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 1 00-year flood hazard'area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
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?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
cl
0
0
0
I7
0
0
0
0
0
Potent isilk
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
Less Than
Si-mifioant No
Impact Impact
OB
OB
OB om
OB
om
OIXI
OIXI
10 Rev. 07/03/02 93
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact
0
NO
Impact
o n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? lsi
0 0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
0 Kl
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
0 0 Kl
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
0 0 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?
0 0 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
IXI
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?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
0 0 0 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?
0
0
0 IXI 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?
0 IXI
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
0 0 IXI
Rev. 07/03/02 a3 11
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Porentiall\
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
SO
Impact
0 0 0 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?
0 0 0
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
0 0 a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
0 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0 0 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
0 0 IXI 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?
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potent ia1 l y
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Sign i fican t
Impact
N 0
Impact
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?
0 CI
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehlcle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
0 0 IXI
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or hghways?
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 IXI
Ixl
IXI
KJ
IXI
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
0 0 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)'?
cl
0
0
0 0
0
0
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in insufficient parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
0
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0
0
0 0
0
IXI
IXI 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?
0
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
0 0 0
0 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to Serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
0 0 IXI
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 conlmitnients?
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?
Potentiall) Significant
Less Than Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Significant So
Impact Incorporated lnipact Impact
0 cl 0151
0 OH
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
0 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? o 17 nIx1 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?)
0 na c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
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 ear!ier 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 is 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 earliei docunient
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
14 Rev. 07l03f02 a3
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRON&\IEXTAL E\'ALVATIOS
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 outcroppiegs.
and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundi.ngs?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
NO Impact (a, b, c, and d) - The project neither proposes any ne\v development, standard, or procedure nor
changes any existing standard or procedure in a way that would have an adverse affect on a scenic vista or resource.
on visual character, or on any view. Any site specific conditional use permit application will be subject to
environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at which time aesthetic
impacts can be assessed.
AGFUCULTRAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Conserve Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide lniportince
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Impact (a, b, and c) - The project proposes no specific development that would (1) convert farmland to a non-
agricultural use; (2) conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract; or (3) involve
other changes in the existing environment that would result in conversion of farmland to a non-farm use. Indirectly,
providing farmworker housing could actually have a positive effect on the longterm viability of agriculture in the
city.
AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. None of the project's text changes involves or affects standards for implementation of an air quality
plan.
Carlsbad is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a
state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMlo). The periodic
violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for
ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be
undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the
Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
Development projects relate 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
15 Rev. 07/03/02 a8
County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan. then the projeci
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency u ould ensure that
a project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCl1 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 tvhich 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 ivhere a R4QS is being
implemented. As previously mentioned, the project involves text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, and Local
Coastal Program and proposes no development of any property. Furthermore, the project does not propose any
change that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan. The City will evaluate future
development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the proposed amendment for consistency with the
growth assumptions of the City's General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional
air quality plan because it will not in any way conflict with or obstructs its implementation.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
No Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to Carlsbad is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for
this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the
state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour
average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of
any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The proposed amendment, is not site or project specific
and therefore proposes no physical development or air quality planning or standard changes. Future development
proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendment proposed will be subject to CEQA review to
determine any air quality impacts.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
NO Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone .and suspended fine particulates. The
project's amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program do not propose or affect any
standard that would result in a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions
throughout the air basin. Additionally, the amendment does not include a proposal for physical development of any
property in Carlsbad. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendment
proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any air quality impacts.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact. The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site, nor does it propose or
affect any standards relating to air quality or pollution. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in
accord with the amendment proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any air quality impacts.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. The project does not propose or affect any standard relating to air quality. The City will evaluate future
development projects subject to the proposed amendment through the CEQA process to determine if the project
would create objectionable odors that would affect a large number of people.
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?
16 Rev. 07/03/02
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 Califorilia
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 40.1 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal. etc.) through direct
removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
’
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or nugratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project does not propose or affect any standard that would result in an adverse effect
on any sensitive habitat or species, or interfere with any native or migratory wildlife corridor or native wildlife
nursery site. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendment proposed tvill be
subject to CEQA review to determine any biological resource impacts.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact (e 8z f) - The project does not propose nor affect any standard that would result in a conflict with local
policies and ordinances that protect biological resources or the provisions of any habitat conservation plan.
9) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
No Impact - The project’s text amendment does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site,
and the amendment does not affects or propose any standard that would result in an adverse impact to any
environmentally sensitive tributary area. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the
amendment proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any potential impacts.
CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
81 5064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site.
Additionally, the project does not propose any new standard or affect any existing standard that would result in a
disturbance of any human remains or an adverse impact to any hstorical, archeological, or paleontological resource.
Since Carlsbad contains cultural resources near its lagoons, future development proposals processed and reviewed in
accord with amendment proposed by the project will be subject to CEQA review and the City’s Cultural Resource
Guidelines.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
17 Rev. 07/03/02 30
substantial evidence of a known’fault? Refer to Division of XIines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
No impact (i - iv.) The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project
also does not affect or propose any standard relating to geology and soils. Though no particular site analysis is
possible, general information about earthquake and landslide impacts to Carlsbad is known. 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. All
development proposals in Carlsbad are subject to site-specific environmental review pursuant to CEQA, which
results in the application of requirements such as the Uniform Building Code earthquake construction standards and
soil remediation that when necessary ensure potential adverse effects are not significant.
Landslides are also a potential threat in parts of the City.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. In addition, the
project does not affect or propose any standard regarding the control of soil erosion or topsoil loss. Any future
development subject to the project’s revised processing requirements and review procedures will be subject to
further environmental review according to CEQA and the City’s Engineering standards, and done on a site specific
basis.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact (c, d & e) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. Future
development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA
review and the City’s Engineering standards on a site-specific basis.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or environment?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site or a
change or adoption of any’ standard that would result in exposure to hazardous materials. Future development
proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendment proposed will be subject to CEQA review to
determine the extent and, if necessary, mitigation of hazardous materials.
18 Rev. 07/03/02
e) For’a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted. within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact (e & f) - The project’s proposed amendment does not affect nor propose any standard relating to the
safety of people working near an airport. The individual CEQA review of land use proposals within the influence
area of the McClellan-Palomar Airport will include evaluation of potential safety hazards based on the airport’s
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
No Impact (g & h) - The project neither affects nor proposes any standard relating to an adopted emergency
response or evacuation plan or a standard that might expose people to a significant wildfire risk. The City will
evaluate risks associated with development projects in wildland-urban interface areas upon the submittal of the
individual project.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
ground water table level (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
’
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount
(volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
0 Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) -The project does not affect or propose any standard that would have an adverse
effect on water quality, groundwater, stormwater drainage, capacity, or patterns, or erosion or flooding. Future
development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the project’s text amendment proposed will be
subject to CEQA review to determine any potential hydrology and water quality impacts
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact (h & i) - Project amendments propose no development and do not affect or propose any standard that
would result in placing a building or structure with a flood hazard area. Future development proposals processed
19 Rev. 07/03/02 3;3.
and reviewed in accord with the amendment proposed will be subject to CEQA review to deternune any pottrntllll
impacts.
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding.
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact (j & k) - Project amendments propose no development and do not affect or propose any standard that
would expose people to flooding risks, including flooding caused by dam breaks or tsunamis. Any future
development subject to the proposed changes will be subject to further CEQA review on a site-specific basis.
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic
organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or
other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following
construction?
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
No Impact (I, m, n, o & p) - The project does not propose any development nor affect or propose any standard 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. Future development proposals processed and
reviewed in accord with the amendment proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any potential
impacts.
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site nor does it affect any
standard that would result in the division of an established community. Any future development subject to the
project’s text amendment will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
No Impact - Proposed changes do not propose or affect any standard that would conflict with any City land use
plan, policy, or regulation. Conversely, the revision assists in implementing existing policy in the General Plan
having to do with housing for agricultural workers.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact - The project does not affect any particular site in the site and it proposes no development.
Additionally, proposed text amendment neither affect nor propose any standard that would conflict with any habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Instead, any potential conflicts with the conservation
plans will be determined as part of the individual environmental review that land use proposals undergo.
20 Rev. 07/03/02 33
MINERAL RESOURCES - \Vould 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 project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site and it’does
not propose or affect any standard that would result in the loss of a mineral considered important or ialuable on a
local, regional, or state level. Future development processed according to the project‘s test amendment nil1 be
subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
NO Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. It also
does not affect or propose any standard that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels or
groundbourne vibrations, or increase noise levels. Future development processed according to the project’s text
amendment will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
NO Impact (e & f) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site, and it does
not affect or propose any standard that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels associated with an
airport. Land use proposals processed in accord with the proposed requirements and procedures will be subject to
individual environmental review. As necessary, required compliance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for
McClellan-Palomar Airport will ensure that future development avoids exposure to excessive airport noise levels.
POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact (a) - The project does not include a component to develop land or infrastructure or make land available
or more feasible for development. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendment will be
subject to CEQA review on a site-specific basis.
All future development within Carlsbad must comply with the City’s growth projections contained in the Growth
Management Program. Because the City has planned all public facilities (roads, infrastructure, etc) to accommodate
the growth anticipated in the Growth Management Program, no substantial new roads or infrastructure will be
necessary.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
21 Rev. 07/03/02 34
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
h’o Impact (b & c) - The project does not propose any site-specific development nor does it propose or affect my
standard that would result in the displacement of any existing housing or people. Future development processed
according to the project’s text amendment will be subject to CEQA review on a site-specific basis.
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other Performance objectives for any of
the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
V. Other public facilities?
No Impact (a.i to a.v.) - The project does not affect or propose any standard that would result in adverse impacts to
the maintenance of acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public service.
Future development processed according to the project’s.text amendment will be subject to CEQA review on a site-
specific basis.
RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact (a & b) - The project proposes no development, and it does not affect existing recreational facilities in
any way. Moreover, it does not include any recreation component or generate the need for the same.
A performance standard for parks is part of the City’s Growth Management Program. Future development that is
processed will be required to comply with this performance standard, which ensures future development will not
adversely impact any park facilities.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system?
No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site, and it does not affect
or propose any standard that might cause an increase in traffic.
A performance standard for traffic is part of the City’s Growth Management Program. Future development that is
processed according to the project’s text amendments will be required to comply with this performance standard,
which ensures future development will not exceed the traffic load and capacity of the city’s street system. In
addition, hture development will also undergo CEQA review on a site-specific basis.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No Impact - SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho
Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the
22 Rev. 07/03/02 3 5’
regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existins LOS on thsse
designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Existing ADT* - LOS Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43
El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C“ 32-65
Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77
SR 78 120 “F” 144
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-239
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 hghways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS.
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community
plans. 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. The City will assess a development proposal
processed in accord with the text amendments for compliance with CMP standards as part of its environmental
review.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact - The project does not include any aviation components. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air
traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks.
d)
e)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact (d, e, f) - The project’s proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program
do not affect or propose any standard that might hinder adequate emergency access, result in insufficient parking
capacity, or substantially increase a hazard because of design or a use.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact - The project proposes no physical development of any property or a change in or adoption of a standard
supporting alternative transportation. Furthermore, the proposed text change will not affect the required CEQA
review of all development projects.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development or to change or add any standard
that would cause wastewater treatment requirements to be exceeded. Future development processed according to
the project’s text amendment will be subject to fiuther environmental review, including an analysis of wastewater
treatment impacts, pursuant to CEQA and on a site-specific basis.
23 Rev. 07/03/02
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 esisting entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or mag serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact (b, c, d & e) - 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.
The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. Additionally, the project does not
affect or propose any standard that would increase the need for or conflict with the current growth projections for
water facilities, wastewater treatment or drainage facilities. Future development processed according to the
project’s text amendment will be subject to CEQA review, including an analysis of wastewater, water, and
infrastructure impacts, on a site-specific basis.
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 (f & g) - The project contains no development component and thus generates no waste. Moreover, its
proposed text amendment do not conflict with any regulations related to solid waste, including regulations that
might affect landfill capacity. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendment will be
subject to CEQA review, including analysis of solid waste impacts on a site-specific basis.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
No Impact - The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program do not a component to
physically develop any site. Moreover, the project does not affect or propose any standard that would have the
potential to degrade or reduce environmental quality, fish or wildlife habitat or populations, or eliminate key
examples of state hlstory or prehistory. Any future development processed in accord with the revised text
amendment will be subject CEQA review on a site-specific basis.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.)
No Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San
Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incoxporated 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
proposed project does not affect or recommend any standard that would conflict with City or 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.
24 Rev. 07103102
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to hait a cuniu]ari\~e]~~
considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the project does
not include a proposal for any physical development of any site or a proposal that would have an effect on an air
quality or regional circulation standard. Construction of future projects processed in accord with the project’s
proposed text amendment would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in
emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with future development
would be minimal. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(il), the contributions of these future
developments to the cumulative impact would be considered de minimis. Any impact would be assessed as less
than significant.
In addition, as discussed above, 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 project does not affect the City’s growth projections. Further, city standards and regulations will ensure that
future development subject to the proposed project will not result in a significant cumulative considerable impact.
? Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? c)
No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project does not
affect or propose any standard that would adversely affect people either directly or indirectly. Future development
processed according to the project’s text amendment will be subject to CEQA review on a site-specific basis.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
Final Master Environmental ImDact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
Carlsbad General Plan, September 6, 1994.
Zoning Ordinance (Title 2 1 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code)
25 Rev. 07/03/02
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5578
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND
SECTION 21.42.010 TO ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF
FARMWORKER HOUSING BY CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT.
CASE NAME: FARMWORKER HOUSING
CASE NO: ZCA 04-01
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code, the Planning Director has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the Municipal Code
(Zoning Ordinance) relating to farmworker housing; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is set forth in the draft City Council
Ordinance, Exhibit LLA” dated March 3, 2004, and attached hereto FARMWORKER
HOUSING - ZCA 04-01; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of March 2004, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, analyzing the information submitted by
staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
factors relating to the Zone Code Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of FARMWORKER
HOUSING - ZCA 04-01 , based on the following findings:
Findinps:
1. That the proposed Zone Code Amendment is consistent with the Housing Element of the
General Plan which requires the City to work with and assist interested parties in
providing adequate shelter for farmworkers in the City. 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
2. That the proposed Zone Code Amendment is consistent with the State Housing law
which requires the City to identify adequate sites that can be made available for
housing/shelter for agricultural employees.
That the proposed Zone Code Amendment reflects sound principles of good planning in
that by requiring a Conditional Use Permit, a proposal for farmworker housing can
be reviewed for site design, adequate improvements and compatibility with
surrounding property.
3.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 3rd day of March, 2004, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, and Segall
NOES: Commissioner Whitton
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5578 -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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5579
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDING TITLE 21 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) BY’
TION OF AGRICULTURAL FARMWORKER HOUSING IN
THE CITY BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
CASE NAME: FARMWORKER HOUSING
AMENDING SECTION 21..42.010 TO ALLOW CONSIDERA-
CASE NO: LCPA 04-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the
Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to agricultural farmworker housing; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the City of
Carlsbad Local Coastal Program; and
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program and
Zoning Ordinance be in conformance, and therefore, an amendment to the Local Coastal
Program is required in conjunction with an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (implementing
ordinance) to ensure consistency between the two documents; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Applicant,” has filed a verified application
for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “A” dated March 3, 2004, attached to Planning
Commission Resolution No. 5578 and incorporated herein by reference, as provided in
Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal Commission
Administrative Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of March 2004, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
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
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, analyzing the information submitted by
staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
factors relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Coastal Commission requirements, the
Local Coastal Program Amendment was subject to a six-week public review period, starting on
January 29, 2004 and ending on March 11,2004, and the Planning Commission considered all
comments received prior to the Planning Commission hearing, if any.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, 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 APPROVAL of FARMWORKER
HOUSING - LCPA 04-01 based on the following findings, and subject to the
following conditions:
FindinPs:
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies
of the Mello I, Mello 11, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, East Batiquitos Lagoon, West
Batiquitos Lagoon, and the Village Redevelopment Plan segments of the Carlsbad
Local Coastal Program not being amended by this amendment, in that it ensures
consistency with the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, and does not alter any coastal
zone regulations, land use designations or policies, and any future proposals must
comply with all of the above.
2. That the proposed Local Coastal Amendment will assist in retaining agricultural use in
the City’s coastal zone for as long as it is viable.
3. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is required to ensure consistency
with the proposed Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 04-01).
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5579 -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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 3rd day of March 2004, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, and Segall
NOES: Commissioner Whitton
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOL’dVIILkkR
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5579 -3- 43
EXHIBIT 5
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
P.C. AGENDA OF: March 3,2004
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: NIA
Project Planner: Michael Holzmiller
Project Engineer: N/A
SUBJECT: ZCA 04-01/LCPA 04-01 - FARMWORKER HOUSING - Request for a
recommendation of adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of a Zone
Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend Chapter
21.42, Section 21.42.010 to permit the consideration of agricultural farmworker
housing by Conditional Use Permit.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5577, 5578, and
5579 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration and RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of Zone Code Amendment ZCA 04-01 and Local Coastal Program Amendment
LCPA 04-0 1 based upon the findings contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
This proposed Zone Code Amendment would amend Section 21.42.010 of the code to allow
consideration of agricultural farmworker housing in the City through the processing of a
Conditional Use Permit. The amendment would allow the processing of the Conditional Use
Permit in any zone in the City because existing agricultural operations which might need
farmworker housing are located in many different zones. Staff is proposing this amendment as a
result of City Council direction provided when the Council reviewed a feasibility study for
farmworker housing/shelter in December of 2003.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On December 9, 2003, the City Council received a feasibility study for developing farmworker
housing/shelter in the City. Among other things, the Council directed staff to amend the
applicable codes to allow consideration of farmworker housing in the event that a property owner
or group of interested parties submitted an application for same. In addition, State Housing law
requires the City to provide for sufficient sites to be available for farmworker housing should an
application for development of a site be submitted. This amendment will implement City
Council action by amending Section 21.42.010 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow consideration
of a proposal to develop agricultural farmworker housing on any site in any zone in the City
through the processing of a Conditional Use Permit. Presently Section 21.42.010 only allows
farmworker housing (“Agricultural labor housing”) to be considered by Conditional Use Permit
in the R-A (Residential Agriculture) Zone. Also, a different section of the Zone Code, Section
21.07.040, allows farmworker housing (“Farm employee housing”) in the E-A (Exclusive
Agricultural) Zone by Conditional Use Permit. This amendment will delete the reference to the
ZCA 04-0 1 /LCPA 04-0 1 - FARMWORKER HOUSING
March 3,2004
Page 2
R-A Zone in Section 21.42.010 and insert a provision which allows it to be considered in any
zone by Conditional Use Permit.
Because the City’s Zoning Code is the implementing ordinance for the City’s Local Coastal
Program, an LCPA is also being processed.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this Zone Code Amendment was developed based upon
direction from the City Council, conformance with the City’s General Plan and compliance with
State Housing law as described below.
A, City Council Referral
When the City Council reviewed the Farmworker HousinglShelter Feasibility Study on
December 9, 2003, a number of potential sites were identified in the study. None of these sites
were zoned R-A or E-A although several had active farming operations occurring on them. In
recognition of this, the Council requested staff to process the necessary code amendments to
allow consideration of developing farmworker housing should a property owner, farmer or
interested group of individuals submit a proposal. Amending the code to allow consideration for
farmworker housing by Conditional Use Permit in any zone will allow the greatest flexibility
particularly on sites which have active farming and are located in several different zones. The
Conditional Use Permit process will allow the Planning Commission to determine whether a
particular proposal on a specific site is compatible with surrounding properties and uses, whether
the site is sufficient in size and shape to accommodate the use, and whether adequate
improvements are being proposed to accommodate the use at a specific location.
B. General Plan
The Housing Element of the City’s General Plan contains the following objective and program
relative to farmworker housinglshelter:
“OBJECTIVE
Provide adequate shelter for both the permanent and migrant farm worker.
PROGRAM
The City shall continue to work with, and assist, local community groups, social
welfare agencies, farmland owners, and other interested parties to provide shelter
for the identified permanent and migrant farm workers during the five-year
housing element period. These efforts will be in coordination with other regional
and local programs and will involve neighboring jurisdictions in a cooperative,
regional approach.”
This Zone Code Amendment will assist with the implementation of this objective and program,
and the amendment is, therefore, consistent with the General Plan.
ZCA 04-0 1 /LCPA 04-0 1 - FARMWORKER HOUSING
March 3,2004
Page 3
C. State Housing Law (Government Code Section 65583)
State law requires that a City’s Housing Element of its General Plan identify adequate sites
which can be made available for housing for apcultural employees. The Zoning Code currently
allows farmworker housing by Conditional Use Permit only in the R-A and E-A zones. At the
present time, all of the R-A zoning in the City has been developed with permanent single-family
housing and there is only one remaining, small property with E-A zoning. Active farming
operations exist on a number of properties throughout the City which have numerous; different
zones. Therefore, this Zone Code Amendment will assist the City in compliance with State
Housing law in that it will allow consideration of farmworker housing by Conditional Use Permit
in any zone in the City, particularly the ones which currently have agricultural operations on
them.
It should be noted that there is also a new State law that exempts certain multifamily projects,
including farmworker housing, from obtaining a Conditional Use Permit under very limited
narrow circumstances. Although staff does not believe that the law would be applicable to any
proposals for farmworker housing in Carlsbad, staff has nevertheless referenced the exemption in
the proposed Zone Code Amendment.
Based upon the above analysis, staff is recommending approval of the Zone Code Amendment
(ZCA 04-01) and corresponding Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-01).
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The initial study (EM Part 11) prepared for this amendment did not identify any potentially
significant environmental impacts. The amendment does not involve a specific site or zone in
the City. Should the amendment be approved, any proposal to physically develop a specific site
would be required to comply with CEQA. Staff recommends adoption of a Negative
Declaration.
A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was both published in the newspaper and
provided to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to the applicable state agencies. As of the
date of distribution of the staff report to the Planning Commission, no comments were received
in response to the notice.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5577 (Negative Declaration)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5578 (ZCA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5579 (LCPA)
Strikeouthnderline version of Zone Code Amendment
Planning Commission Minutes ww6 DRAFT March 3, 2004
5. ZCA 04-011LCPA 04-01 - FARMWORKER HOUSING - Request for a recommendation of
adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal
Program Amendment to amend Chapter 21.42, Section 21.42.010 to permit the consideration of
agricultural farmworker housing by Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 5 and stated that Planning Director Michael Holzmiller would be making the
presentation.
Chairperson White opened the public hearing on Item 5.
Planning Director Michael Holzmiller presented the Staff Report stating that this Item is a request to adopt
a Negative Declaration and to approve a Zone Code Amendment and a Local Coastal Plan Amendment,
which would amend Section 21.42.010 of the Zone Code to allow consideration of agricultural farmworker
housing by Conditional Use Permit. Currently the Zoning Code only allows consideration of farmworker
housing by Conditional Use Permit in the RA and EA zones, so this Amendment would allow
consideration in any zone in the City by Conditional Use Permit. Under the Conditional Use Permit
process, that would allow the Planning Commission to review whether a specific proposal, if one is
submitted, to be reviewed in terms of compatibility with surrounding land uses and properties, whether the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, and whether sufficient improvements are
being proposed with the farmworker housing for that specific proposal. Staff analyzed several items. The
first item is being brought to the Planning Commission based upon City Council referral. In December of
last year the City Council reviewed temporary farmworker shelter feasibility study and at that time, in
addition to a number of different decisions that the City Council made, they did direct the Planning
Department to amend the City Codes to allow for more opportunities for consideration of farmworker
housing. Secondly, it was analyzed in terms of the General Plan. In the General Plan there is an
objective and a program that relates to farmworker housing. There is an objective to provide adequate
shelter for both the permanent and the migrant farmworker and the program is that the City shall work
with and assist local community groups, social welfare agencies, farmland owners, and other interested
parties to provide shelter to farmworkers. This Amendment will assist the City in the implementation of
this objective and program. The Zone Code Amendment was also reviewed for compliance with State
law. Government Code Section 65583 of State Housing Element Law requires that the City identify
adequate sites for potential housing for agricultural employees. This Zone Code Amendment will help
ensure compliance with State law. Currently, the Zone Code only allows consideration of farmworker
housing in the RA and EA zone and there are very few of those sites that are still available in the City.
There are active farm locations in zones outside of the RA and EA zones. If approved by the Planning
Commission and the City Council, this will require California Coastal Commission approval before it
becomes effective. In terms of analysis of compliance, the proposal does comply with the City Council
referral and is consistent with Carlsbad’s General Plan and brings the City into better compliance with
State housing law and through the Amendment process will be consistent with the Local Coastal
Program.
Commissioner Baker asked why a Negative Declaration was necessary when a specific project was not
under consideration. Mr. Holzmiller explained that a Zone Code Amendment and a Local Coastal Plan
Amendment were considered projects. It is a type of an Amendment that isn’t listed under CEQA as
being exempt from environmental review. Staff determined through that review that adopting the Code
Amendment and the Local Coastal Program Amendment would not have been an impact on the
environment.
Commissioner Baker noted that in the Staff Report on permitted uses in the different zones, such as the
RA zone, it says that “agricultural labor housing, and temporary public dumps.” She stated that the
Planning Commission would not allow any temporary public dumps in the residential, agricultural area.
She asked if the Planning Commission should deal with that issue or if they were limited to farmworker
housing. Mr. Holzmiller stated that they had not analyzed whether eliminating the provision for public
dumps would have any effect on the City. He stated that the RA zone may be the only zone in the City
that they’re permitted in, so the question of whether they need to have at least some zone that they would
be permitted in was not analyzed. He stated that it would not likely be a big problem if the Planning
Commission wanted to eliminate that. It wasn’t noticed, however, that that would be considered.
Planning Commission Minutes March 3,2004 Page 11
Commissioner Montgomery read from the first page of the Staff Report that this proposal is “to develop
agricultural farmworker housing on any site in any zone in the City”. He stated that he was a proponent of
having this type of housing, but that that statement seemed quite broad. He asked if it would be
appropriate to slightly amend these multiple Resolutions with some clarification that would state that the
farmworker housing would be on or adjacent to existing agricultural operations. He stated that it was his
understanding that none of the existing agricultural operations were in the EA zone, but were in multiple
zones. Mr. Holzmiller stated that the approach that Staff took was to make this as general and flexible as
possible so that they would definitely comply with State law and to leave as many opportunities as
possible as directed by the City Council. He noted that from a practical standpoint, probably the only way
it would work was if a proposal was submitted that was on an active farm area or close to it. It wouldn’t
work if the farmworker housing were far from the farm area. He stated that it would probably not be a
problem to add the suggested wording.
Commissioner Montgomery commented that such a broad statement might be alarming to anyone
opposed to such farmworker housing in that they might assume the farmworker housing could be built
anywhere.
Commissioner Whitton stated that he had been wrestling with this for a long time, but he would like to
have the language clarified as to farmworker and migrant worker to say that they’re legal residents of the
United States or they’re legally here within the United States for a specified purpose.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that it was his understanding that the proposal under consideration was
the preparatory procedural elements that were necessary for the City to actually develop farmworker
housing and to bring the City into compliance with State law, and that the proposal buffered the “any site”
provision, or what appeared to be an open-ended placement of farmworker housing, by the Conditional
Use Permit process that was included as part of the ordinance. Mr. Holzmiller confirmed that that was
correct and that this was to set up a process that could be followed for consideration of a Conditional Use
Permit, but not approving any site or any of the conditions that might be applied to a proposal.
Chairperson White noted that the City was the applicant, hence there would be no presentation by the
applicant necessary, and she opened public testimony and invited those who would like to speak to the
podium. Seeing none, she closed public testimony.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Segall commented on Commissioner Montgomery’s point about the wording of “any site in
any zone” and stated that with this wording farmworker housing could be set up in a park or any location.
He suggested rewording it to restrict it to be contiguous with farmland.
Commissioner Baker stated that she understood this concern, but that La Posada was in the Business
Park that served as housing, which is a good site as it was not around residents who would object to it, so
unintended consequences could be created by changing that wording. She noted that the Planning
Commission could still rely on the Conditional Use Permit to keep the farmworker housing in all practical
purposes where they would want it to be.
Commissioner Heineman reiterated what Mr. Holzmiller stated in that the process of approving a
Conditional Use Permit gave the Planning Commission complete control over both the location and the
complete setup for such housing. Commissioner Heineman asked if an application for a CUP would have
to go before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Holzmiller replied that the approval
would be final at the Planning Commission unless it was appealed. He stated that one of the findings that
the Planning Commission had to make was based upon location in terms of compatibility with the
surrounding properties.
Commissioner Whitton asked for a response to his previous comment regarding definition of terms. Mr.
Holzmiller stated that because this was an ordinance set up for processing that conditions that might be
placed on an actual submission of a CUP and the operations would be more appropriate to decide and
discuss at that time rather than putting them into the ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2004 Page 12
Chairperson White stated that concerns about placing any future housing in zones near agriculture and
also any concerns or definitions of terms regarding immigration status would be best handled during the
processing of an actual CUP.
Chairperson White called for a motion.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5577, 5578, and 5579
recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration and recommending
approval of Zone Code Amendment ZCA 04-01 and Local Coastal Program
Amendment LCPA 04-01 based upon the findings contained therein.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that he agreed with the points made, such as La Posada being in a
non-agricultural area, and he would be agreeable to address such issues during a CUP hearing.
Chairperson White noted that the location would also be important to the farmworkers so that would be
discussed in any planning application.
Commissioner Segall concurred with Commissioner Montgomery.
Chairperson White stated that she felt it was important that the Zone Code for the City be brought into
compliance with State law.
Chairperson White called for a vote.
VOTE: 6-1
AYES:
NOES: Whitton
Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and White
Chairperson White thanked Mr. Holzmiller for the presentation and closed the public hearing.
APRIL 6, 2004
TO: CITY COUNCIL
VIA: City Manager
FROM: Planning Director
ALTERNATIVES FOR ZCA 04-Ol/LCPA 04-01 - FARMWORKER HOUSING - AGENDA
ITEM NO. 15
Here are some possible alternatives regarding the Zone Code Amendment to allow the
consideration of Farmworker Housing in the city by Conditional Use Permit.
1. If the City Council wishes to only allow consideration of locating Farmworker
Housing in non-residential zones, the use should be listed under Section
21.42.01 O(5) of the Conditional Use Permit chapter rather than Section 21.42.01 O(2)
as presently recommended. Section 21.42.01 O(5) states “All zones except
residential.....”. (Note: Staff would later need to do a follow-up amendment to
delete the use from the two residential zones where the ordinance presently allows it
to be considered by Conditional Use Permit.)
2. If the Council wishes to allow consideration in the residential zones but only where
there is active farming operations, it would continue to be listed in Section
21.42.010(2) but the Council should add the following wording to the present
recommendation “In residential zones, the proposed location of Agricultural
Farmworker Housing must be on a site with active farming operations.”
3. If the Council wishes to have final approval over the Conditional Use Permit, then
the following wording should be added to the existing recommendation or either
alternative described above “The City Council shall have final approval authority on
the Conditional Use Permit.”
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
C: City Attorney
Community Development Director
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 The Coast News, a
newspaper printed and published weekly and which news-
paper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation
for the cities of Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encinitas/Cardiff,
Carlsbad, Oceanside, San MarcosNista and the County
Judicial District by the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego (8/4/94, #677114, B2393,
P396); and that the notice, of which the annexed is a print-
ed copy, has been published in, each regular and entire issue
of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the
following dates, to-wit:
March 25. 2004
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 18th dav of March. 2004.
// Clerk of the Printer
Space above for County Clerk's Filing Stamp
I NQTlCE OF WBUC HEARM
NOTICE Is HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hdd a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive. Carlsbad, California, at 6Sll p.m. on Tuesday, April 6,2004, to consider a request for adop tion of a Negaan, Dederalkn and approvalof aZone Code Amendment and Local
Coastal Program Amendment to amend Chapter 21.42, Section 21.42.010 to per- mit the comidwafion of agricultural farmworker housing by Condibional Use Permit. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invied to attend the public hearing Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after April 2, 2004. if you have myqudom, please call Mi Holuniller in the Planning Dqmtment at (76U) 602-4801.
coastal Prcgram Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issuea you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written consspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: Cily Clerk, 1200 Carlsbed Vi- Drhre, Carisbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the puMic hear- ina. CZSE FILE:ZCA 04-01RCPA 04-01 CASE NAME FARMWORKER HOUSINQ CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
CN 7830 Mar. 25,2004
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN 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:OO
p.m. on Tuesday, April 6, 2004, to consider a request for adoption of a Negative Declaration
and approval of a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend
Chapter 21.42, Section 21.42.01 0 to permit the consideration of agricultural farmworker
housing by Conditional Use Permit.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after April 2, 2004. If you have any
questions, please call Michael Holzmiller in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4601.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and/or Local Coastal
Program Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered
to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at
or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA 04-01/LCPA 04-01
CASE NAME: FARMWORKER HOUSING
PUBLISH: March 26, 2004
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN 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:OO
p.m. on Tuesday, April 6, 2004, to consider a request for adoption of a Negative Declaration
and approval of a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend
Chapter 21.42, Section 21.42.010 to permit the consideration of agricultural farmworker
housing by Conditional Use Permit.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after April 2, 2004. If you have any
questions, please call Michael Holzmiller in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4601.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and/or Local Coastal
Program Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered
to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at
or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA 04-0 1 /LCPA 04-0 1
CASE NAME: FARMWORKER HOUSING
PUBLISH: March 26, 2004
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51@ \.
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DIST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ENClNlTAS CA 92024
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024 ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE 100 URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO CA 92123 9174 SKY PARK CT
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SANDIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SUE REYNOLDS
COMMUNITY HSG WORKS
STE 101
1820 SO ESCONDIDO BLVD
ESCONDIDO CA 92025
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
MIKE WISCHKAMPER
STE 240
1808 ASTON AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
ATTN TED ANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
RUTH LOVE
SDG&E CORP REAL ESTATE
101 ASH ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PU BLlC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES DEPT
PUBLIC W ORKS/E NG I N EER I NG MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
MICHAEL HOLZMILLER
0311 112004
AVERYB Address Labels Laser 5 160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
RANCHO CARLSBAD HOA
RUSS KOHL
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ANTHONY & DICKY BONS
25709 HILLCREST AV
ESCONDIDO CA 92026-8650
REG WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG
PO BOX 92007
LOSANGELES CA 90009
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
JAN SOBEL
5934 PRIESTLY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CALTRANS DISTRICT 11
BILL FIGGE
MAIL ST 50
P 0 BOX 85406
SAN DIEGO CA 92186-5406
U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
JOHN MARTIN
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
RONALD M JAEGER
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY
PATRICIA W NEAL DEPUTY SEC HOUSING SUPERINTENDENT
STE 2450 1901 SPINNAKER DR
980 NINTH ST SAN BUENA VENTURA CA 93001
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
AVE RW) S h i p p i n g La be 1s Laser 5 163"
.Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5!1";?'
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAIRMAN
722 JACKSON PL NW
WASHINGTON DC 20006
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STE 400
611 RYAN PLAZA DR
ARLINGTON TX 7601 1-4005
DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIV
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIR COORD
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
RM 700
110 WEST A ST
SANDIEGO CA 92101
AVERW Shipping Labels
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DlST ENGINEER
PO BOX 271 1
LOSANGELES CA 90053
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIR
STE 350
901 MARKETST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD &AGRICULTURE
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
RM 100
1220 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVE
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REG ADMlN
450 GOLDEN GATE AV
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 5504
1120 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
Laser 5163@
MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, SPR
350 GOLDEN SHORE
LONGBEACH CA 90802
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC
ADMIN OCRM,55MC4
N/ORM - 3
1305 EAST-WEST HWY
SILVER SPRING MD 20910
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
DWIGHT SANDERS
STE 1005
100 HOWE AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
MID-PACIFIC REGION
U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LILY ALYEA
STE 702
333 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2197
OFFICE OF PLANNING & RESEARCH
OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 93044
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION &
DEVMT COMMISSION
BILL TRAVIS
STE 2600
50 CALIFORNIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941 11-4704
U S BUREAU OF LAND MGMT
STE RM W 1834
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
2800 COTTAGE WAY
STE W-2605
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-1888
USDA - RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPT 4169
430 "G" ST
DAVIS CA 95616
Laser 5163@
Smooth Feed Sheets'"
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BD
PO BOX 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95801
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 9201 8-1 338
LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893 AMELFI DR
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
..
LAKESHORE GARDENS
TOM BENSON
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DR
LOSANGELES CA 90069
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
COMDEV DEPT
505 S VULCAN AV
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
SANDAG-EXEC DIRECTOR
GARY GALLEGOS
STE 800
IST INT'L PLAZA 401 "B" ST
SANDIEGO CA 92101
CY RI L/MARY GI BSO N
12142 ARGYLE DR
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702
LANlKAl LANE PARK
SHARP SPACE3
6550 PONTO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
KIM BLESSANT
101 ASH STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101-
Laser 5163@
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
MARY GRIGGS
STE 100 S
100 HOWE AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
PERRY A LAMB
890 MERE POINT RD
BRUNSWICK ME 04011
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
RICHARD RETECKI
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DALE/DONNA SCHREIBER
7163 ARGONAUTA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCIES
STE 1311
1416 9TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
COUNTY OF SD SUPERVISOR BILL HORN
ART DANELL
RM 335
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
S D CO PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
JAON VOKAC
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
STE B-5
FLOYD ASHBY
416 LA COSTA AV
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
GEORGE BOLTON
6583 BLACKRAIL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SANDAG-LAND USE COMMISS
NAN VALERIO
STE 800
401 “B” STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I LENNAR HOMES
CH Rl STlN E ZORTMAN
STE 320
5780 FLEET ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-4702
Farm Worker HousingZCA 04-01/LCPA 04-01
Project Description✽Amend Section 21.42.010 of the Zone Code to allow consideration of agricultural farm worker housing by conditional use permit✽Currently, code only allows consideration in R-A and E-A zones✽Amendment would allow consideration in any zone by conditional use permit
ZCA 04-01 AnalysisA.City Council Referral!Temporary farm worker shelter feasibility study review by City Council on 12/9/03!Directed staff to amend City codes to allow consideration of farm worker housing
ZCA 04-01 Analysis (Cont.)B.General Plan Consistency!Objective: provide adequate shelter for both the permanent and migrant farm worker!Program: the City shall continue to work with, and assist, local community groups, social welfare agencies, farmland owners, and other interested parties to provide shelter for the identified permanent and migrant farm workers during the five-year housing element period. These efforts will be in coordination with other regional and local programs and will involve neighboring jurisdictions in a cooperative, regional approach.
ZCA 04-01 Analysis (Cont.)C.Compliance with State law!Government code section 65583!Requires identification of adequate sites for potential housing of agricultural employees!ZCA will ensure compliance with State law
ZCA 04-01 Analysis (Cont.)D.Local Coastal Plan!Local Coastal Program amendment (LCPA 04-01) is required since Zone Code is implementing ordinance for Coastal Program!California Coastal Commission approval is required to effectuate amendment
ZCA 04-01 Compliance✽City Council referral✽General Plan consistency✽State Housing Law✽Local Coastal Program (amendment)
Recommendation✽Considered and approved by Planning Commission on March 3, 2004✽Staff and Planning Commission recommend that the City Council:!Adopt Resolution No. 2004-110 approving a Negative Declaration and a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-01)!Introduce Ordinance No. NS-702 approving an amendment to the Zone Code (ZCA 04-01) to permit the consideration of farm worker housing by conditional use permit