HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-07; City Council; Resolution 2003-2641
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. 2003-264
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR (1) A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO AMEND TITLE
21 OF THE MUNICPAL CODE BY AMENDING VARIOUS
SECTIONS AFFECTING THE REVIEW AND PROCESSING OF
LAND USE APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING: (a) REVISING AND
STANDARDIZING VARIANCE FINDINGS AND THE APPEAL
PROCESS FOR MANY LAND USE PROJECTS; (b) REVISING
AND CLARIFYING SOME REVIEW PROCEDURES AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; (c) REPLACING AND
REPEALING OUTDATED OR SUPERSEDED NAMES AND
TITLES; (d) REPEALING DENSITY PROVISIONS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN; AND (e) ADDING
A DEFINITION FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
AND INCORPORATING A CITY POLICY ON THE SAME; AND
(2) A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT TO (a) REPLACE IN
VARIOUS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS “BUILDING AND
PLANNING DIRECTOR,” “DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND
PLANNING,” “LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER,” “LAND USE
PLANNING OFFICE,” AND “PRINCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR
WITH CURRENT TITLES; AND (b) AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTIONS 19.04.0808., 19.04.110A., AND 19.04.170
REGARDING APPEAL PROCEDURES.
CASE NAME: VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
CASE NO.: ZCA 00-02 / MCA 03-01 / LCPA 00-09
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on August 20, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider a Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment ZCA 00-02, and Local Coastal
Program Amendment LCPA 00-09, and received and filed a report on Municipal Code
Amendment (MCA 03-01 ) and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5449, 5450, and
5451 recommending to the City Council that they be approved and;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 7th day of
October , 2003, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Negative Declaration,
Zone Code Amendment, Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 03-01), and a Local Coastal
Program Amendment, and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests,
comments from all persons interested in or opposed to ZCA 00-02, MCA 03-01 and LCPA 00-09
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
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 findings of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 5449 (Negative Declaration), 5450 (ZCA 00-02), and 5451 (LCPA 00-09)
constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter.
3. That the Negative Declaration is adopted as shown on Exhibits “ND,”
“NOI” and “PII” attached hereto and made a part hereof.
4. That the Local Coastal Program Amendment is approved as shown in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5451 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of October
2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Hall, and Packard
NOES: None
Council Member Kulchin ABSENT: n
ATTEST:
(SEAL) /
Page 2 of 2 of Resolution No. 2003-264
-2- 4
__ City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
PROJECT LOCATION: Not applicable
CASE NO: ZCA 00-02LCPA 00-09/MCA 03-0 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project revises portions of the text of the Zoning Ordinance and, to a
lesser extent, other titles of the City’s Municipal Code. A Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessary
because the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance of the Local Coastal Program. Proposed
changes would (1) revise and standardize variance findings and the appeal process for many land use
projects, (2) revise and clarify some review procedures and development standards, (3) replace and delete
outdated or superseded names and titles, (4) delete density provisions inconsistent with the General Plan,
and (5) add a definition for wireless communication facilities and incorporate a city policy on the same. The
. project proposes no development and does not affect any property or section of the City in particular.
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above-described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study
(EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of
Carlsbad finds as follows:
IXI
0
0
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:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
PROJECT LOCATION: CITYWIDE
CASE NO: ZCA 00-02LCPA 00-09hiCA 03-0 I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of text changes to the Zoning Ordinance and,
to a lesser extent, other titles of the City’s Municipal Code. The changes affect the review and
processing of administrative and discretionary actions for many types of land use proposals. A
Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessary because the Zoning Ordinance is the
implementing ordinance of the Local Coastal Program. The project proposes no physical
development. The proposed changes can be summarized and highlighted as follows:
Revise procedures for the noticing of continued hearings and the review of some
applications, including subdivisions with panhandle lots and incomplete applications.
Revise and standardize the appeal process for most types of land use decisions.
Clarify standards relating to allowed protrusions above building height limits.
Replace outdated titles, such as “land use planning manager” with “planning director”
Update the names of zones to reflect currently adopted zones.
Revising variance findings to be consistent with the California Government Code.
Delete density provisions that are inconsistent with the General Plan.
Adding a definition for “wireless communication facilities” &e., cellular antenna
facilities and the like) and incorporating by reference a City policy on the same.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identifL any potentially
significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be
recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative
Declaration is on file in the Planning 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 (see deadline date below).
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 Scott
Donne11 in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4618.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS: MAY 25,2003
b PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 25,2003
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: MCA 03-01/ZCAOO-O2/LCPA 00-09
DATE: Auril 11.2003
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Scott Donne11 - (760) 60246 18
PROJECT LOCATION: N/A - The proiect applies to properties throughout Carlsbad
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A
ZONING: NIA
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES: The proiect consists of a variety of text changes, some “housecleaning” in nature. to the
Zoning Ordinance, and, to a lesser extent, other titles of the City’s Municipal Code. The changes
affect the review and urocessing of administrative and discretionary actions for manv twes of
land use proposals. A Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessary because the Zoning
Ordinance is the implementing ordinance of the Local Coastal Promam. The project proposes no
physical development and, since it affects regulations applicable to properties citvwide, there is
no specific proiect site with a suecific environmental setting or surrounding land uses. The
changes proposed to the Zoning Ordinance can be summarized and highlighted as follows:
a. Revise procedures for the noticing of continued hearings and the review of some
applications. including subdivisions with panhandle lots and incomplete applications.
b. Revise and standardize the appeal process for most twes of land use decisions.
C. Clarify standards relating to allowed protrusions above building height limits.
d. Replace outdated titles. such as redacinp “land use planning manager” with “planning
director”
e. Update the names of zones to reflect currently adopted zones. f. Revise variance findings to be consistent with the California Government Code.
g. Delete density provisions that are inconsistent with the General Plan. h. Add a definition for “wireless communication facilities” (i.e.. cellular antenna facilities
and the like) and incomorate bv reference a Citv Council uolicy on the same.
1 7 Rev. OJlO3102
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils [7 Noise
0 Agricultural Resources 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 poPUlatiOn and Housing
0 Air Quality 0 HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services
0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation
0 Utilities & Service Systems u Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2 B Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I frnd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(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 frnd 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.
+ /e 3-3
Planner Signature Date
3 Rev. 07/03/02 9
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that
the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist.
This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project
and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but &l potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental
document is required.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
4 Rev. 07/03/02
An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or
mitigated in an earlier EJR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation
measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the
EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a
level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts, whch would otherwise be determined significant.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially Significant
Impact 1
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and hstoric
buildings within a State scenic highway?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
0 o
0
0
c)
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?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
0
o
0
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?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation lncorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant No
Impact Impact
OB om
om
6 Rev. 07/03/02 /&
ISSUES (and Sumortine 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)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
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?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant NO
Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 OH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UN
OH
om
OH
OH
om
OH
OH
7 Rev. 07/03/02 /3
ISSUES (and SuDDortinv Information Sources) Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
I7 0 om
0 0 oIx1
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in 8 15064.5?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- 0 0 om '
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
0 OB 0
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
liquefaction?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
iv. Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evpluation.)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
om
om
OBI
om
8 Rev. 07/03/02
ISSUES (and SuDporting 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?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
For a project within an alrport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
IXI
Ixl
IXI
IXI
Iz
Ixl
IXI
IXI
Ixl
IXI
9 Rev. 07/03f02
ISSUES (and Sumortine 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 which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Impacts to groundwater quality?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
map?
10
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentiail y Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0 a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
IXI
Ixl
Ix1
IXI
IXI
IXI
Ixl
IXI
IXI
Ix1
IXI
IXI
Rev. 07/03/02
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
IXI n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fiesh or
wetland waters) during or following construction?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
p)
IX.
c)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 0 0
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 IXI
0
0
0 0 IXI
IXI
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of fkture value to the region
and the residents of the State?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
0 0
0 0 0 IXI 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?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
b) 0 0 0 IXI
IXI
IXI
0 0 0
0 0 0
/7 11 Rev. 07/03/02
ISSUES (and SuDporting Information Sources)
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 ahport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
'
f)
XII.
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
(See Discussion'of Environmental Evaluation.)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
XIV. 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?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 OB
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
ON
OB
OH
OB
0 0 OH
12 Rev. Q7lQ3IO2
ISSUES (and SuDDorting Information Sources)
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? (See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (ie., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
13
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Significant NO Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 OBI
0 OH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OBI
ON
OBI
OIXI
om
ON
OH
Rev. 07/03/02
ISSUES (and SuDporting Information Sources) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, whch serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
0 0
0
f)
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?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
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 hture projects?)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
0
0 c)
0
0
OIXI
OIXI
OIXI
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
14 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
No Impact (a, b, c, and d) - The project neither proposes any new 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. Land use applications processed in accord with the proposed requirements and
procedures will be subject to environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) at which time aesthetic impacts can be assessed.
The project may make a positive contribution toward visual quality by proposing to incorporate by reference into the
Zoning Ordinance the existing City Council policy on wireless communication facilities (which include structures
such as cellular towers and antennas). As a result, effectiveness and awareness of this policy, which includes
location and appearance guidelines, would increase.
AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Impact (a, b, and c) - The project’s text amendments propose no development nor do they affect any existing
standard or propose any new standard 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.
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 paiticulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM,,). 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
15 Rev. 07/03/02
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
County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
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 TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the
following:
0
0
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being
implemented. As previously mentioned, the project involves text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Municipal
Code and Local Coastal Program and proposes no development of any properly. 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 amendments 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
viola tion?
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 &hour
average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of
any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The proposed amendments, which consist of general
processing and review requirement changes for land use projects, propose no physical development or air quality
planning or standard changes. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the
amendments 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 amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, 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, these amendments do not include a proposal for
physical development of any property in Carlsbad. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in
accord with the amendments 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 amendments 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 hture
development projects subject to the proposed text revisions through the CEQA process to determine if the project
would create objectionable odors that would affect a large number of people.
16 Rev. Q7lQ3lO2
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The 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 amendments proposed will
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?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? f)
No Impact (e & 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.
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
No Impact - The project’s text amendments do not include a proposal for any physical development of any site, and
none of the amendments affects or proposes 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
amendments 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 0 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to
$1 5064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
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 historical, archeological, or paleontological resource.
Since Carlsbad contains cultural resources near its lagoons, future development proposals processed and reviewed in
accord with amendments proposed by the project will be subject to CEQA review and the City’s Cultural Resource
Guidelines.
17 Rev. 07/03/02
GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
No impact (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 fbture
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?
18 Rev. 07/03/02
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 amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to
determine the extent and, if necessary, mitigation of hazardous materials.
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 amendments do 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 (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quaiity?
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?
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) -The 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
19 Rev. 07/03/02 25
development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the project’s text amendments 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
and reviewed in accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any potential
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 fiu-ther 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 amendments 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 amendments 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 revisions eliminate existing conflicts and improve awareness of city
standards by (1) deleting density provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that conflict with General Plan density ranges
20 Rev. 07/03/02
and Growth Management control points, and; (2) incorporating by reference into the Zoning Ordinance a city policy
on wireless communication facilities.
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 amendments 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.
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the
region and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact (a & b) - The 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 valuable on a
local, regional, or state level. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendments will be
subject to Wher 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
amendments 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)?
21 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact (a) - The project does not include a component to develop land or infiastructke or make land available
or more feasible for development. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendments 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?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Impact (b & c) - The project proposes not development nor does it propose or affect any standard that would
result in the displacement of any existing housing or people. Future development processed according to the
project’s text amendments 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:
1. 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 amendments 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 according to the project’s text amendments 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.
22 Rev. 07/03/02
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, future 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
regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these
designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Rancho Santa Fe Road
El Camino Real
Palomar Airport Road
SR 78
1-5
Existing ADT* @ Buildout ADT*
15-32 “A-c” 28-43
2 1-50 “A-C“ 32-65
10-52 ‘‘A-B” 29-77
120 “F” 144
183-198 “D” 2 19-249
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if
that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated
roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS.
Note that the buildsut 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) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact (d, e, f) - The project’s proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, 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 changes will not affect the required CEQA
review of all development projects.
23 Rev. 07/03/02
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
No Impact - The 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 amendments will be subject to further environmental review, including an analysis of wastewater
treatment impacts, pursuant to CEQA and on a site-specific basis.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact (b, e, 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 amendments will be subject to CEQA review, including an analysis of wastewater, water, and
infrastructure impacts, on a site-specific basis.
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact (f & g) - The project contains no development component and thus generates no waste. Moreover, its
proposed text amendments 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 amendments 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 amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code and Local Coastal Program do
not include 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 history or prehistory. Any future development processed in accord
with the revised text amendments 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
24 Rev. 07/03/02
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.)
No Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San
Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those
projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation,
congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the
region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The
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.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively
considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. 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 amendments 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)(4), the contributions of these future
developments to the cumulative impact would be considered de minimus. 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.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
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 amendments 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.
1. Final Master Environmental ImDact ReDort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
2.
3.
Carlsbad General Plan, September 6, 1994.
Zoning Ordinance (Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code)
25 Rev. 07/03/02