Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 4554.-. I w 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 e 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4554 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROJECTS LISTED IN CATEGORY 111 OF THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1999- 2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET CASE NAME: PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET CASE NO.: PCD/GPC 99-03 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “City”, has filed a verified applicat project described as adoption of the proposed Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Capital Imprc Program Budget (‘TIP’’); and WHEREAS, the CIP consists of various proposed capital and publj activities as described in Exhibits A, B, and C attached to the Staff Report dated 1999; and WHEREAS, an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of adc the CIP was conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (( and WHEREAS, those proposed capital and public works activities liste Category I of Exhibit C have been determined to not meet the definition of a “proj CEQA or are exempt under specified provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, those proposed capital and public works projects liste Category I1 of Exhibit C are currently undergoing CEQA analysis and prepar documents separate from this action to adopt the CIP; and WHEREAS, those proposed capital and public works projects listel Category I11 of Exhibit C have been found to qualify for issuance of a negative dec because, collectively and individually, they will not result in any significant negati on the environment; 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 0 0 WHEREAS, those proposed capital and public works projects liste Category IV of Exhibit C have been found to lack sufficient information to determination of potential environmental impacts at this time and therefore a approved and funded only for purposes of preliminary design and environmental and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared in conjunction 7 project, and issued by the Planning Director on April 16, 1999 covering those cal public works projects listed in Category I11 of Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of May 199’ duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public meeting, upon hearing and considering all t, and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1 relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the 1 Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according tc “ND” dated April 16, 1999, and “PII” dated April 12, 1999, attached he made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinp: 1. An Initial Study has been prepared for all the individual projects listed col as the Project in all categories of Exhibit “C”, especially the projects 1 Category C I11 of Exhibit “C” and said Category C I11 projects have be analyzed with respect to their potential environmental impacts. 11 PC RES0 NO. 4554 -2- - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 2. A Notice of Intent to approve a Negative Declaration, including Uhe Initi: was circulated for public review and comment as required by Section 1507 and Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and no comments were receil any individual or public agency. 3. The projects listed under Category I11 of Exhibit C have been designed negative impacts on the environment, and all such measures to avoid impa been incorporated in the design of the project. 4. The projects listed under Category I of Exhibit “C” have been found Planning Director to not be projects, or be exempt projects within the me CEQA, and the Director will file an appropriate Notice of Determination u] decisionmaker approval of those projects as part of the 1999-2000 Fiscal 1 Budget. 5. The projects listed under Category I1 have been found by the Planning Dil be currently undergoing separate CEQA review, and the final decisionma not make a commitment to such projects by mere approval of the CIP without completion of that separate CEQA documentation. 6. The projects listed under Category IV have been determined by the I Director to be only requesting and being considered for budget aplproval of information gathering, and/or environmental studies, all of which are exeml CEQA Guidelines Section 15262, and the Director will file a Notice ,of Detern upon final decisionmaker approval of those projects as part of the 1999-200 Year CIP Budget. 7. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: (a reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration, the enviro: impacts therein identified for this project, and any comments thereon, ; recommending approval of the project; and (b) the Negative Declaration h prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Enviro, Quality Act, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Protection Procec the City of Carlsbad; and (c) it reflects the independent judgment of the P Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and (d) based on the EIA Part comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence that the projects listec Category I11 of Exhibit “C” will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 1. If at any time following approval of this Negative Declaration there is any cb a project listed under Category 111 of Exhibit C, or if there is any changc environmental circumstances relating to any of said projects, such thal argument could be made that a significant environmental impact could res Planning Director shall prepare a new Initial Study and shall determine WE subsequent environmental document is required to be prepared. The sub environmental document may be either an addendum to this Negative Declar PC RES0 NO. 4554 -3- - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 new Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact report, as necessary by the Planning Director. 2. In the event that a subsequent environmental document is prepared for one of the specific public works projects listed under Category I11 of Exhibit C change in the project’s design or circumstances, this Negative Declaratj remain valid and in full force and effect for the remaining projects liste Category I11 of Exhibit C. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of May 1995 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heure Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: v, , COURTNEY E.%EINEMAN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4554 -4- 0 0 City of Carlsbac 0 - NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddredLocation: CITYWIDE Project Description: ADOPTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 CAPITA IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projec pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act an the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on tk environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in tk Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannin Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public a1 invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of dat of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Don Rideout in the Planning Department E (760) 438-1 161, extension 4212. DATED: APRIL 16,1999 CASE NO: PCD/GPC 99-03 CASE NAME: FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAR BUDGET PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 16,1999 e 2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-08s - e e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: PCD/GPC 994 DATE: April 12. 19! BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRA BUDGET 2. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ADOPTION OF A PROGRAM OF CAPITAL FUNDING FOR LIST OF SPECIFIC PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impat Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation Public Services 0 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems [7 Geological Problems [3 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics 0 Water Hazards Cultural Resources c] Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation c] Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03128196 0 e DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) [XI I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tl. environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatic measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but : least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlic document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatio measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is requirec but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. \ 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentia11 significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicabl standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, includin revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefor< a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. T&d& +I/> 77 Planner Signature Date 4\iz/q5 Date I 2 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cil conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa: effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followir pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum2 factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negatiy Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that a] adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatio sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. , “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, ( it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that tl potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt€ general standards and policies. e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatio of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fiom “Potentially Significant Impact” to “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and th City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce th effect to a less than significant level. a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a effect is significant. e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significar, effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze( adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicablc standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigate( Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up01 the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to o supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prio environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additiona environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirec to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EII pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement 0: Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tha the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing 2 EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, ar those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate( may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includir but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, an the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tha significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact lx not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduc the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is nc possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, ( determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa~ effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tl form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determine significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 a e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18 and 5.12.1-1 to 5.12.8-7 0 and Source #2: Pgs 539 to 814-48 ) policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the 0 project? (Source #l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18 and 5.12.1-1 to 5.12.8-7) 0 to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible 0 land uses)? established community (including a low-income or 0 minority community) ? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or population projections? 0 indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 or extension of major infrastructure)? (Source #l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6 and 5.12.1-1 to 5.12.8-7) housing? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (Source #l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source #l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15 and Source #3: Pgs 17-20 and 29-34) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Source #l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) h) Expansive soils? (Source #l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards rate and amount of surface runoff! such as flooding? (Source #l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impacl Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 ow 0 nw 17 om ow 0 urn 0 ow 17 OH 0 ow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 0 0 e3 [XI rn [XI 0 El [XI [XI El [XI 5 Rev. 03128196 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #2 Pgs 384-5 to 384-28 and Source #3 Pgs 29-34) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? 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 an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source #l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source #l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? VI. a) b) c) d) e) f) g) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source #l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source #2:Pgs 309-310) 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)? (Source #l:Pgs 5.4-1 to 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated' natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #l:Pgs 5.4-1 to 5.4-24) 6 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 Less Than No Significant Impac Impact ow u5 uta OH OH OM om OH tan ow HEI OBI Ow OM OH NO uta OH o[xI UIXI OH Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source #l:Pgs 5.4-1 to 5.4-24) (Source #l:Pgs 5.4-1 to 5.4-24) 0 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? proposal: (Source #l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 to 5.12.1-5 and 5.13-1 to 5.13- 0 inefficient manner? (Source #l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 to 5.12.1- cl 0 5 and 5.13-1 to 5.13-9) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and 0 0 the residents of the State? (Source #l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 to 5.12.1-5 and 5.13-1 to 5.13-9) 9) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 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? (Source #1 :Pgs 5.10.1- c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (Source #l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 to 5.10.1-5) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (Source #l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 to 5.10.1-5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (Source #l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 to 5.10.1-5) 1 to 5.10.1-5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #1 :Pgs 5.9-1 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source to 5.9-15) 0 o #l:PgS 5.9-1 to 5.9-15) 0 El 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? (Source #l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 to 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (Source #l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 to 5.12.6-4) c) Schools? (Source #l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 to 5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 (Source #l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 to 5.12.8-7) 0 0 XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 7 Less Than No Significant Impac Impact ow ow ow ow ow HO ow OH OH OH [XI0 OH OH OH UIXI IXIO u[xI OH Rev. 03128196 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 to e) Storm water drainage? (Source #l:Pg 5.2-8 and source f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? facilities? (Source #l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 to 5.12.2-6) 5.12.3-7 and source #2: Pgs 347-368) #2: Pg 384-5 to 384-28 and source #3 Pgs 17-21) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? (Source #l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #l:Pgs 5.8-1 to 5.8-10) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #l:Pgs 5.8-1 c) Affect historical resources? (Source #l:Pgs 5.8-1 to d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source #1: Pgs 5.8-1 to 5.8-10) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? to 5.8-10) 5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 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 wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“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)? 8 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impac Mitigation Unless Impact Incorporated nw 0 UIXI 0 ow 0 OH 0 ON 0 ow I7 0 NO OH 0 0 n[xI 0 ow o 17 ow I7 0 ow 0 0 om 0 0 ow I7 0 ow 0 ow 0 OH 0 OIXI Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. 0 nEl Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ. process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negatik declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify tk following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availab: for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checkli were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursua to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed k mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatic Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refine from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specif conditions for the project. The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City ( Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 9200' (760) 438-1 161, extension 4471. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Upda. (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 11 (Public Property), Title 13 (Sewers), Title 14 (Water Title 15 (Grading and Drainage) and Title 2 1 (Zoning) 3. Standards for Desim and Construction of Public Works Improvements in the City ( Carlsbad. dated April 20, 1993, City of Carlsbad Engineering Department 9 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION LAND USE AND PLANNING: The projects listed under Category I11 of Exhibit C are all consistent with the General Plan. Thc have been examined in view of applicable plans and policies for environmental protectio: including the Habitat Management Plan and the Coastal Resource Overlay Zone. The projec will not have any effect on environmental plans or policies. The projects will be compatible wil adjacent uses because they are required public improvements that will serve adjacent uses. TI projects are not located on any agricultural lands and therefore will not effect agricultur resources. The projects will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the community. POPULATION AND HOUSING: The projects listed under Category I11 of Exhibit C are items of public infrastructure or pub1 amenities, not housing projects. The projects are needed to serve existing residents and futw residents that will occupy residential developments that have already received all necessa approvals. Therefore, the projects will not impact housing or population in any way. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS: Some of the projects listed under Category 111 of Exhibit C will involve some trenchin, excavation, or earth moving operations. All projects involving earth moving will require on: temporary trenching to install underground utilities. All such sites will be restored to pre-existir grade upon completion of work. None of these projects is located in any area identified as havir risk of fault rupture or volcanic hazard. All areas of southern California are subject to potenti seismic activity from faults that may be located many miles distant. However, such potential hi been taken into consideration in the design of these projects through requirements for proper fj material, compaction of fill, and other measures that are a standard part of the City’s design ( public works projects. Because excavation is involved, there is a slight risk of minor erosion ( mudflows while excavation is in process. However, this risk is reduced to insignificance t implementation of the City’s standard procedures for excavation. WATER: The projects listed under Category I11 of Exhibit C will not result in changes to absorption ratc or drainage patterns because they do not involve a significant increase in the area of imperviol surfaces and they do not involve significant landform alterations. All projects involvir excavation or grading require only temporary trenching to install underground utilities. All suc sites will be restored to pre-existing grade upon completion of work. None of these projects located within the 100-year floodplain. None of these projects will involve deep excavation th could affect groundwater quality or quantity. With any excavation there is a slight risk of minc siltation during storms. However, this risk is reduced to insignificance by implementation of tl City’s standard procedures for erosion control. AIR QUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatt 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mill traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reacti7 organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are tl major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since tl San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are consider< I 10 Rev. 03/28/96 - 0 e cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in th updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variet of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisior for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measurc to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Deman Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including ma: transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and ! participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into tl design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marke “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, tf preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by Cil Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for a quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ applies to all subsequel projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, I: further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at tl Planning Department. In addition to the above discussion of cumulative air quality impacts, the projects listed i Category I11 of Exhibit C may cause a slight, temporary increase in airborne dust due 1 necessary excavation activities to place utilities underground. Such impacts will be reduced to level of insignificance because the areas of excavation are relatively small and standard Cii practices to prevent dust will be followed. Minor objectionable odors may be created temporaril as an unavoidable result of work involving sewage lines. Such odors will be short-term and d not rise to the level of significance. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequal to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severe1 impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. The: generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbz Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectiol are projected 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, numerol mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions . develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalk pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulatic strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic fkom a failing Interstate ( State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eithl been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval 11 Rev. 03128196 c e 0 Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of tl the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because tl recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, include a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement C Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatic impacts is required. In addition to the above discussion of cumulative traffic impacts, some of the projects list( under Category I11 of Exhibit C may result in some minor, temporary barriers for pedestrians ar bicyclists during the construction period. Such barriers will be short-term and will be reduced insignificance because standard City traffic control methods and devises will be used durir construction within any public right-of-way. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: The projects listed under Category I11 of Exhibit C will not result in any impacts to endangere threatened, or rare species of plants or animals or their habitats. The City’s Habitat Manageme Plan includes a reasonably complete inventory of the known locations of such species with Carlsbad. That inventory has been reviewed in light of these projects, and none of the projects located in or immediately adjacent to a known population of the species of concern. The projec will not involve the removal of any mature trees. Excavation, where required, will remove on non-native or ornamental vegetation. The projects will not impact any wetland areas or ar wildlife corridors or linkages. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES: The projects listed under Category I11 of Exhibit C will comply with all adopted programs fi energy conservation. Non-renewable resources will be used efficiently and not wastehlly accomplish the objective of construction of public of public improvements. None of the projec will impact any known mineral resource. . failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefor HAZARDS: Some of the projects listed under Category I11 of Exhibit C will involve the handling l potentially hazardous materials. The Swim Complex Chlorination Equipment will invo1.c installation of equipment that utilizes chlorine, a potentially hazardous chemical. However, tl risk of accidental exposure of persons to chlorine as a result of the project is slight a~ insignificant for CEQA purposes, as the project involves replacement of existing chlorinatic equipment which is older and potentially more likely to result in accidental release. 0th projects may involve the use of other types of materials commonly used in construction, and : applicable laws and regulations will be observed in the handling of such materials. NOISE: The projects listed under Category I11 of Exhibit C may involve some short-term noise impacl as is typical of any type of construction project. These noise impacts will be temporary a1 insignificant. PUBLIC SERVICES: The projects listed under Category I11 of Exhibit C consist of the construction, repair, or upgral of public facilities. Therefore, there will be no significant negative effect on public services, a~ in fact there will be a significant positive effect. Construction of these projects will result in 12 Rev. 03128196 a slight but insignificant increase in the need for maintenance of public facilities, but this increa! has been addressed in the City’s Operating Budget. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS: The projects listed under Category I11 of Exhibit C will not result in the need for new systems ( supplies or alterations to power, natural gas, communications, water treatment or distributio: sewage conveyance, drainage, solid waste disposal, or regional water supplies. AESTHETICS: One project, the El Camino Real Transmission Main from Lisa Street to Kelly Drive, is locatc along a designated Scenic Highway. During construction, the project will have a slight b insignificant affect on aesthetics. Upon completion of construction, the Transmission Main w: be entirely underground and there will be no residual aesthetic effect. CULTURAL RESOURCES: All of the projects listed under Category I11 of Exhibit C are in areas of previous development ( disturbance. No paleontological, archaeological, or historical resources are present on any of tl sites. RECREATIONAL: The projects listed under Category I11 of Exhibit C will not negatively affect any existir recreational opportunity or increase the demand for parks and recreation facilities. Two projec will provide amenities for visitors to existing City recreational facilities. Fire Station No. Storage Building and Public Restrooms will provide permanent restroom facilities for the new construction City Skateboard Park. The Swim Complex Chlorination Equipment project WI provide an improvement to the existing City swim complex. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) NONE * ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) N/A 14 Rev. 03/28/96