Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 38970 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3897 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, ZONE CODE AMENDMENTS AND ZONE CHANGE TO FORM THE BARRIO SPECIFIC PLAN, CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN, REVISE PORTIONS OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL, AND CREATE A SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING DESIGNATION IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: BARRIO SPECIFIC PLAN CASE NO: ZCA 95-O5/GPA 95-03LCPA 95-05/SP 209/ZC 95-05/ZCA 96-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of Februar hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, a WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tes and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by st: considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the PI Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the P1 Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Nc Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated January 9, 1996, and dated October 30,1995, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based following findings: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project ma a significant impact on the environment because no development is proposed w Barrio Specific Plan project and the area is already urbanized. 0 e 1 development area. 2 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposec and the existing local street system is constructed to its fully improved stree 2. The site has been fully developed and now represents an urbanize4 3 since no additional traffic will be generated as a result of the Barrio Speci 4 7 development and the specific plan area has already been urbanized. impacted by this project since the Barrio Specific Plan Project does not pro1 6 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be sign 5 width. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of Fc a 9 10 1996, by the following vote, to wit: 11 12 13 14 AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Noble, Sava Welshons NOES: Commissioner Erwin ABSENT: Commissioners Monroy and Nielsen 15 11 ABSTAIN: None 3.6 17 18 d. . 19 I WILLL!!Z;AS 20 II CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 21 (I 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTEST: i v >b;;&;aw-~ \B !;LY 6 &/<$&qJ&/ f - ;: Ti ./-: -c MICHAEL J. HOLZQILLER Planning Director i PC RES0 NO. 3897 -2- I1 e Citv of 0 Carlsbac NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: West of Interstate 5, east of the North Sa Diego Railroad, south of Carlsbad Village Driv and north of Tamarack Avenue, in the City ( Carlsbad, County of San Diego. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Local Coast; Program Amendment, Zone Code Amendments an1 Zone Change to develop land use regulation3 development standards and architectural guidelines fc the Barrio area, slightly revise General Plan land use on selected parcels, revise design guidelines for portion of the Village Redevelopment area, create ' new zoning designation for specific plans withir Carlsbad and designate the Barrio 'area by that nev i zoning. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above describec project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmenta Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As t result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planninc Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from thb public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Adrienne Landers in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1 161, extension % DATED: JANUARY 9, 1996 CASE NO: SP 209/GPA 9503/LCPA 95-05/ Plann' g Director ' ZCA 96-01 /ZCA 95-05/ZC 95-05 u' CASE NAME: BARRIO SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 9, 1996 MG:kr 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. SP 2091GPA 95-03LCPA 95-05/ZCA 95-05/ZCA 96-02 DATE: October 30. 1995 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Barrio Specific Plan 2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT 2075 Las Palmas Drive. Carlsbad, C 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 19. 1995 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Specific Plan. General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program An Zone Code Amendments and Zone Change to develop land use regulations. development stan architectural guidelines for the Barrio area, slightly revise General Plan land uses on selecte revise the design guidelines for a Dortion of the Village Redevelopment area, create a ne designation for specific plans and designate the Barrio area by that new zoning. generally locate Interstate 5. east of the North San DiePo Railroad, south of Oak Avenue and north of Tamarack in the City of Carlsbad. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,, involvb one impact that is a “Potentially Sigruficant Impact”,, or *‘Potentially Significant Impact Unless h Incorporated as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Land Use and Planning - Transportation/Circulation - Public Services - Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service - Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics - Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources - Air Quality - Noise - Recreation - Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 3/28/95 e 0 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fmd 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I frnd that the proposed project MAY have a sigruficant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicat: legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as descri on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED 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 EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standa and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 1, h & Planner Signature - Date Qm +? /774 Date 2 Rev. 3/28/95 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? i II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatiiely exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 3 e Potentially Significant Potentially Unless LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? ' i) Unique geologic or physical features? IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of Surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, .or the come or direction of water movements? 4 0 Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated hpac t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? - g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? - h) Impacts to groundwater quality? - i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? - V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to i an existing or projected air quality violation? - Potentially Significant Unless LessThan Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact - - - - - - - - - - b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? - - - c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? - - - d) Create objectionable odors? - - - VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in. a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? - - - - - - - - - 5 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, * insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (eg. heritage trees)? Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat '(e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration comdors? - - - - - - - - - VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? - - - b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? - - - 6 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Potentially unless LessThan Sigmficant sigaificant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Jmpac t c) 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? - - - IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? - - - b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? - - - - - - d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? i e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? - - - - - - X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? - - - b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? - - - XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? - - - b) Police protection? , - - - c) Schools? - - - 7 Rev. 3/28/92 0 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significaat Potentially unless LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact incorporated tmpac t d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? - - - e) Other governmental services? - - - XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: proposal result in a need for new systems or a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? I. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - c) Create light or glare? - - - XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? - - - 8 Rev. 3/28/95 a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Kave the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated - - - - - - - - - - - -. LessThan Significant Impact - - - - - - 9 Rev. 3/28/95 0 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): XVI. 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 wild life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the ’ major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“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) 1 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Lncorporated Impact - - - - - - - - - XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. 10 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Barrio Specific Plan Project (also referred to as the specific plan project) includes a numt legislative actions. These actions are a specific plan, general plan amendment, local coastal prc amendment, zone code amendment and zone change. To abbreviate the following discussion, the "Barrio Specific Plan Project" and "specific plan project" shall be defined as the entire legislative pro! including all of the following actions: SDecific Plan: Includes development standards, design guidelines, various recreation revitalization programs and facility and service planning designed to perpetuate and enhanc existing small-scale residential character of the community. The specific plan will replac existing zoning, except as deferred back to. the zoning Ordinance through omission. General Plan Amendment: Changes the designation on the Chase Field baseball park fro1 (Continuation School) to OS (Open Space) to match existing and long term development 1 Also deletes 0 (Office) designation from several properties along the north and south si Chestnut Avenue, east of Roosevelt Street, to match existing development and inc compatibility with adjacent properties. Local Coastal Promam Amendment: Changes the implementing ordinance of the Mello I, Ei II and Agua Hedionda segments of the City's Local Coastal Program by incorporatinl changes proposed through the Zone Code Amendment detailed below, thus providing consisl between the Local Coastal Program and the Zoning Ordinance. Adopts the Barrio Specific as the implementing ordinance, Mello II segment, for that portion of the Barrio within the Cc : Zone. Zone Code Amendments: Creates a new zoning designation, S (Specific Plan), and detail requirements and procedures for the processing of a specific plan. A separate zone amendment revises the design guidelines .of the Village Redevelopment Master ,Plan and Dc Manual for that portion of Roosevelt Street within the Hispanic Mixed Use Area - Land District 5 to incorporate the Barrio Specific Plan design guidelines. Zone ChanPe: Replaces existing zoning in Barrio, except for the Village Redevelopment with new S (Specific Plan) designation in accordance with proposed zone code amendment, allowing the specific plan to be the underlying zoning for the project area. The proposed Banio Specific Plan Project does not propose any physical development, rather it g~ future development to meet the expressed desires of the community. There are certain programs, as a future community center on the Pine School property, that will involve construction. Each of t projects will undergo the appropriate level of subsequent environmental review and are therefore reviewed in this environmental assessment. Based upon review of the proposed specific plan project Planning Director finds that no SigTllficant adverse environmental impacts associated with the prc Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be frled. Following is the analysis that supports the declarz , of no significant effect on the environment. The analysis takes the format of the preceding checkli, 11 Rev. 3/28/95 e 0 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? With regard to the specific plan, none of the proposed land uses, development standara design criteria within the plan conflict with the existing general plan designations a adjustments to the currently allowed densities are proposed. The other portions of the Barrio Specific Plan Project involve a general plan amendment code amendment and zone change. The changes proposed in the general plan amendment zone code amendment would create a new S (Specific Plan) zoning designation; the zone c would replace the current zoning in the Barrio with the new S (Specific Plan) designation specific plan project would also amend the Village Design Manual for those portions I Barrio that lie within the Village Redevelopment area. Therefore, no conflicts with the g plan designations or zoning should occur. better reflect existing development and increase compatibility with sunoundiing developme b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies jurisdiction over the project? The proposed legislative actions do not conflict with the City's Master Environmental h Report (MEIR 93-01) in that they do not propose to alter the development envisioned t: General Plan. No other environmental plans or policies apply to the specific plan project 01 except for this negative declaration. The California Coastal Commission is the only agency with applicable jurisdiction ove project area. The portion of the specific plan project area that lies south of Magnolia A\ and its northwesterly extension to the North San Diego Railroad right-of-way lies withi Mello II segment of the City's Local Coastal Program. Since the proposed specific plan PI does not propose development and would not change the existing land use restrictions proposal does not conflict with the Local Coastal Program. I c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? The two land use changes proposed in the specific plan project involve a change from (Continuation School) to OS (Open Space) on the Chase Field baseball park property anr deletion of the 0 (Office) designation from several properties. These land use changes t reflect the existing development and increase compatibility with the surrounding residential a No land use compatibility impacts will result from the Barrio Specific Plan Project. d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or imp from incompatible land uses)? No agricultural resources or operations exist within the fully developed, urban environme~ the Barrio. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural resources or operations will occur. The spe plan project will include provisions for small greenhouses and the sale of agricultural g grown on the property, which may enhance small-scale agricultural operations. 12 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a income or minority community)? One of the goals of the community, and purpose of the specific plan project, is to precluc disruption or division of the existing low-lying residential neighborhood. Current zoning a multiple lot consolidations and large apartment or condominium buildings. Discouragin, development through the spec& plan project reduces any potential disruptive or dividing in to the long-established community. No physical development, other than a conceptual pla a community center on existing school property, is proposed with the plan. Therefore, the E Specific Plan Project is designed to provide more cohesion to the community and will not dj Of divide the physical arrangement of an established community. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? The Barrio Specific Plan Project proposes no changes to the existing density allowed b: General Plan. No alterations in the population projections should result from the adoptio~ implementation of the specific plan project. b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projec an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? i Since the Barrio Specific Plan Project does not propose any alterations to the planned residc density or non-residential intensity of the area, no substantial growth will occur in the area, e directly or indirectly. c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Since no development is proposed with the specific plan project, no displacement of exi housing will occm. The proposed standards, criteria and guidelines included in the B Specific Plan Project will enhance the existing housing situation and provide opportunitie second dwelling units and other affordable housing options. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture, seismic ground shaking or seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? No faults exist in the project area and no grading or other earthwork is proposed with the spe plan project therefore no risk of exposure of people to potential impacts involving fault rup~ seismic ground 'shaking, seismic ground failure exists. 13 Rev. 3/28/95 e 0 Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? No large bodies of water, oceans or volcanos exist within close proximity to the e: neighborhood and the specific plan project does not propose any development that would in the proximity to these features or expose people to risk of impacts involving seiches, ts or volcanic hazards. Landslides, mudflows, erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions excavation, grading, or fd, subsidence of the land, expansive soils or unique gealQl physical features? Since no grading is proposed with the legislative actions, no earthwork will be conducte direct result for the specific plan project. Subsequent development will continue to follc existing process of grading permit review and engineering standards with regard to el control, slope stability and soil compaction. No unique geologic or physical features exist 1 the specific plan area therefore no impacts to such will result. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface ru No alteration to the existing drainage patterns or surface absorptivity is proposed with the E Specific Plan Project. The rate and mount of surface runoff should remain unaffected sin due to drainage or runoff should occur. I physical alterations are included in the specific plan project. Therefore no significant im b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? While the -Barrio specific plan area is fully developed, some of the drainage systems re1 upgrading or refurbishment. The Barrio Specific Plan Project, via reference to the rn Drainage Plan, refers to the various drainage systems within the Barrio. Implementation c specific plan project will likely decrease the exposure of people to water related hmc improving the existing drainage systems as needed to accommodate existing and f development. c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? No Surface waters exist within the Barrio area and none are proposed with the specific project. Therefore, no discharge into or other alteration.of surface'waters will occur as a r of the Barrio Specific Plan Project. e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No watercourses lie within or proximate to the Barrio and none are proposed with the spe plan project. Therefore, no changes in currents or the course or direction of water moven: will occur. 14 Rev. 3/28/95 0 e f) Change in the quantity of ground.waters, either through direct additions or withdra or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial 1( groundwater recharge capability? Since no physical development is proposed with the Barrio Specific Plan Project, no CI excavations that would intercept an aquifer or reduce groundwater recharge capability will because of the specific plan project. No wells or other groundwater extraction system included in the specific plan project and no impacts to groundwater quality or quantit: expected. g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater, impact groundwater qualit! substantially reduce the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public 7 supplies? As discussed above, no alteration of the groundwater supply or system is proposed or exp due to the adoption of the Barrio Specific Plan Project. Therefore, no change in the dire or rate of flow of any groundwater sources should occur, nor should any impacts tc groundwater quality or quantity occur. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air qu violation; expose sensitive receptors to pollutants; alter air movement, moisture temperature, or cause any change in climate; or create objectionable odors? The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the upc 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle I traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, rea’ organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols an major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are consid cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the upd General Plan will have cumulative sigmfkant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a va: of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provis for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) meas to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Den Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including r transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; an( participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated intc design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is loci within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initiai Study” checklist is marked “Potenti Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the prepara 15 Rev. 3/28/95 0 a of an EIR is not required because the certifkation of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Cc Resolution No. 94-246, included a ‘Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air q impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent pr covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no f environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available ~ Planning Department. YL TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or trafflc congestion; hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipxr inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses; insufficient parking capacity 01 or off-site; hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists; conflicts with adopted pa supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks); or rail, watert or air traffic impacts? The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the up( 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adel to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be sev impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. 1 generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boule Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are proj I to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numt mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include mea! to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to der alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedes linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies I adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approva Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the fa of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore. “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Sigrufkant Impact”. This project is consi with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not. required because the re certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, includ “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Ovem Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impaci required. 16 Rev. 3/28/95 a 0 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? Since the Barrio and surrounding lands are already developed, no endangered, threatened o species or their habitats exist within the urbanized specific plan area and no impacts to should result. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees) or locally designated natural coxnmu~ (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? As the Barrio is fully urbanized, no sensitive or locally designated species or natural commw exist within the specific plan area. Several large eucalyptus trees live within the Barrio, hov they are not designated as locally significant. These trees will likely remain since the ar virtually fully improved. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? No marshes, riparian areas, vernal pools or other wetland habitat exist within the urbar Barrio area and, therefore, no adverse impacts to such should result due to the specific project. : Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No wildlife use the urbanized Barrio for dispersal or migration, therefore continued develop] and redevelopment of the Barrio Specific Plan area will not adversely affect wildlife disp or migration. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Since the Barrio Specific Plan project is intended to guide owner-initiated, future i development or redevelopment, no specific energy conservation or utilization plans are inch in the project. All applicable existing and future energy conservation plans would still appl the Barrio and, therefore, no conflicts would occur. b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? The use of non-renewable resources in the Barrio proceeds under the same regulatioa throughout the remainder of the City. No components of the Barrio Specific Plan Project wc encourage or otherwise cause the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful andlor ineffk manner. 17 Rev. 3/28/95 e 0 c) Result in the loss of availability 0f.a known mineral resource that would be of future to the region and the residents of the State? No known mineral resources exist within the Barrio, therefore no loss of availability a would occur with the continued development, redevelopment and occupation of the Barri discussed above, the resource consumption rates within the Barrio are not expected to L should occur. because of the specific plan project, therefore no loss in availability due to excess consu IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? Since no construction is proposed with the specific plan project, no increase in the r explosion or accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances will occur as a result Barrio Specific Plan Project. b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?. No physical construction is proposed with the Barrio Specific Plan Project and all stree plans will result. The specific plan calls for increased fire protection and law enforcement, 1 will be a positive influence on emergency response and evacuation plans. i improved to City standards therefore no physical barriers to emergency response or evacl c) The, creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? As no development is proposed with the specific plan project, no health hazards, actu potential, will be created. In addition, the public safety goals and objectives call for incrc public protection. Therefore, no health hazards or potential health hazards will result fro1 Barrio Specific Plan Project. d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? No existing sources of potential health hazards were identified within the Barrio Considering that no new development is proposed with the specific plan project, and no h hazards currently exist, no risk of exposure of people to existing sources of potential h hazards should occw. e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? The Barrio specific Plan does call for tree planting in the public parkway. Otherwise, no b grass or trees are proposed with the specific plan project. Since frre response times to the B are five minutes or less, as required by the Growth Management Program, and no flarnn brush, grass or trees are proposed, no increase in frre hazards should result. 18 Rev. 312819: 0 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? Since no development is proposed with the specific plan project, no new significant generators will be created. None of the programs proposed in the specific plan would ge significant noise levels. Therefore, no increases in existing noise levels should result due Barrio Specific Plan Project. b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? The prominent noise sources in and around the Barrio are the Interstate 5 freeway and the San Diego Railroad. These noise sources are not considered severe since the railroad nc intermittent and the freeway is elevated above the surrounding properties. Since no develo! is proposed with the Barrio Specific Plan Project, no increase in the current exposure of I to these existing noise levels will occur and no significant adverse impacts should result. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for nt altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? The existing levels of fue protection within the Barrio are adequate and meet current G: Management standards. Since no development is proposed with the Barrio Specific Plan E% .I no significant increase in the required level of fire protection service should result. b) Police protection? The Banio Specific Plan Project calls for increased police protection within the neighbor1 despite the fact that the current levels of service meet the Growth Management requirerr The increases service will likely be in the form of bilingual dispatchers and officers and incrf social programs, thus not putting a significant impact on existing police resources and, there not creating an adverse impact on govemment services. c) Schools? The Barrio is currently served by elementary, junior and senior high schools which are ader to serve the educational needs of the residents. The specific plan mentions a potential conve of Pine School to a community center, however this would only occur if the student body c be accommodated within Jefferson School. Since no development is proposed with the spe plan project, no SigTllfcant adverse impacts to school facilities should result. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? All public facilities within the Barrio are currently, and will continue to be, maintained thn the City’s Community Service Department. Since maintenance of existing public facilities, future, planned facilities, are managed through General.Fund monies, no additional govemml services will be required to meet demands and no adverse impacts to such should occur. 19 Rev. 3/28/95 0 e . e) Other governmental services? As discussed in the specific plan text, all other governmental services are currently adeql accommodate the existing and future needs of the Barrio and no sigmficant adverse imp: such are anticipated. XU. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for ne1 systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas transmission or communication systems? Since no development is proposed with the Barrio Specific Plan Project, no significant net new power or natural gas systems or supplies are required. All existing communication sy should also remain adequate to serve the Barrio and no adverse impacts to such should c Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities, sewer or septic tanks, s water drainage, local or regional water supplies? All water and sewer treatment, distribution, drainage and water supply facilities and sy: needed to serve the Barrio are in place. Some facilities may eventually be upgraded throu buildout of the area and these facilities have been identified in the City's Capital Improve Program and the specific plan text. No septic tanks exist or are proposed within the B; Since the Barrio Specific Plan Project does not propose specific development project! expansion of the existing facilities and systems is needed and no adverse' impacts to such sE i OCCuf. Solid waste disposal? Solid waste disposal is handled by Coast .Waste Management on a City-wide basis. The B Specific Prim Project does not propose any specific development and, therefore, will not in: solid waste disposal systems in a sigruficantly adverse manner. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway of have a demonstrable negative aesthetic afTe No scenic vistas or scenic highways are included in the Barrio Specific Plan Project. specifk plan does call for the development of enhanced street paving and a plaza that may CI small scale scenic vistas, however this would be a positive aspect and no significant adv impacts to scenic resources should occur. Create light or glare? Since no specific development is proposed with the Barrio Specific Plan Project, no new sou of light of glare 'will be created. Some street light augmentation is recommended by the spec plan, however this would bring light to unlit areas rather than producing excess light or gla 20 Rev. 3/28/95 0 e XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological or archeological resources? Since the Barrio area is already developed and no grading or other earthwork is proposec the Barrio Specific Plan Project, no paloentological or archeological resources likely rem will likely be disturbed. No significant adverse impacts to paleontological or archeoll resources should occur. Affect historical resources? Some of the privately-owned buildings within the Barrio area were constructed up to 80 ago and may have some historical value. The specific plan calls for the voluntary preserv and enhancement of those structures in the light of community heritage celebration. All ( potential historic resources have been cataloged in conformance with the City's Cultural Resr Guidelines, therefore no significant adverse impacts to such should occur. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would af'fect unique ethnic cult1 values? The Barrio Specific Plan Project has been designed to accommodate the unique ethnic CUI needs and values of the Mexican/Hispanic population. Any physical changes, such community plaza, would celebrate the cultural heritage of the area, providing a positive in and, therefore, no creating an adverse impact. 1 Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? All currently conducted religious or sacred uses within the Barrio can continue unhampere the specific plan project since no replacement or relocation of such activities is propose required to implement the project. No significant impacts to religious or sacred uses will o XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational faciliti Since no development is proposed with the Barrio Specific Plan Project, no increase ir: demand for recreational facilities will occur. The project does call for augmentation of exi! park/community center facilities, perhaps through acquisition and conversion of Pine Scho b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? As discussed above, existing recreational opportunities will only be increased through the B' Specific Plan Project and no adverse impacts to such will occur. 21 Rev. 3/28/95 a 0 XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substan reduce the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or elim important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As previously stated, no significant habitat exists within the developed, urbanized Barrio a~ significant examples of Califomia history or pre-history are present. Therefore no signij adverse impacts to the quality or quantity or environment, habitat or plant or animal corn should result. below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduc b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considera (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of c current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) Since no significant impacts are anticipated, no development is proposed with the specific project, and the proposal is consistent with the City’s General Plan, no cumulative conside impacts will occur. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effecr human beings, either directly or indirectly? As explained above, no adverse impacts should result from the Barrio Specific Plan Project would indirectly or directly impact human beings since no dangerous conditions will be cre and all required public facilities are in place to serve development. : 22 Rev. 3/28/95 0 e LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) N/A ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) NIA i 23 Rev. 3/28/95 e 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEAS1 AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature i 24 Rev. 3/28/95