Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 4777a 0 0 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. 4777 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORMA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW REVISIONS AND UPDATES TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE 1999-2004 HOUSING ELEMENT CYCLE. CASE NAME: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CASE NO.: GPA 98-04 WHEREAS, a verified application regarding the periodic update of the Cit: Housing Element of the General Plan has been filed with the City of Carlsbad; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with s, project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of May, 2000, hol, duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimc and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, E considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all facti relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plann: Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plann Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declarat according to Exhibit "ND" dated April 14, 2000, and "PII" dated April 10, 20 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration for GPA 98 Housing Element Update and the environmental impacts therein identified for 1 project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROV. of the project; and 0 0 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 b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidel the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planni Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of May 2000, by following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: d!& Ad WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: was MICHAEL J. MLZI~~LLER Planning Director I 11 PC RES0 NO. 4777 -2- 0 e - City of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: Citywide throughout the City of Carlsbad Project Description: An update to the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan for the 1999-2004 Housing Element cycle as required by California Government Code. The revised element includes: updated demographic data and housing opportunities/constraints, deletion of unusedinapplicable programs, enhanced programs on homeless and persons with disabilities, and quantified housing objectives in accordance with the San Diego County Housing Element Self- Certification Program. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. DATED: APRIL 14,2000 CASE NO: GPA 98-04 CASE NAME: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 14,2000 MICHAEL J. mZI6ffLLER Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: GPA 98-04 DATE: April 10.2000 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Housinp Element Uudate 2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 602-4610 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Not applicable 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An update to the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan for the 1999-2004 Housing Element cycle as rewired by California Government Code. The revised element includes: updated demographic data and housing opportunitieskonstraints, deletion of unused/inapplicable programs, enhanced programs on homeless and persons with disabilities, and quantified housing - obiectives in accordance with the San Diego County Housinp Element Self-certification Program. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [7 Land Use and Planning w TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics Water w Air Quality nHazards Cultural Resources Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev.’03/28/96 0 0 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATJSE DECLARATION will be prepared. - u I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An 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 pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 1 /4"/0-0 Date 4 /m/ilo Planning Direca's Sig(dture Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. e 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. a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. a “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. e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. e Based on an “EIA-Part II’,, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). a When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part 11 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts El 0 adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? 0 to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible 0 land uses? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or 0 minority community)? 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)? housing? 0 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 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 g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 0 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 c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of rate and amount of surface runoff? such as flooding? 0 surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved 0 oxygen or turbidity)? body? 0 movements? 0 d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 5 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 LessThan No Significant Impact Impact UIXI UIXI n[xI OM OH ow ow om 0 0 0 0 0 [XI. [XI [XI H w [XI OIXI om ow HIXI ow ow UIXI ow Rev. 03/28/96 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 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 0 0 0 otherwise available for public water supplies? V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality ,standard or contribute to an b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? existing or projected air quality violation? w 0 0 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)? El 0 0 0 0 0 c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parlung capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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? 0 0’ 0 0 0 El 17 0 0 0 b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? coastal habitat, etc.)? VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 o 0 0 inefficient manner? 6 LessThan No Significant Impact Impact ON om ow om on nm ow OH nu UH om nm Elm OH UEl OH ow ow ow ow ow ow Rev. 03/28/96 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 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 hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? 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? 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 17 0 0 0 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? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? n o 0 0 e) Other governmental services? yo 0 17 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? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 17 0 o 0 facilities? XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? 7 LessThan No significant Impact Impact ow UIXI CIN u[xl UIXI OIXI OIXI UIXI 0 0 Ea IXI la w IXI OBI UIXI Dm OIXI UEI OH ow om OIXI Rev. 03/28/96 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Create light or glare? 0 Potentially Potentially Significit Significait Impact Unless Mitigation I7 0 Incorporated XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 0 O 0 0 would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 0 0 potential impact area? 0 XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? or other recreational facilities? cl 0 0 0 XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 17 0 cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, 0 cl either directly or indirectly? 8 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact nIxI UIXI KIM OM OM ON UIXI ON 0K.l UN UIXI Rev. 03/28/96 0 e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposal involves an update to the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan for the 1999- 2004 Housing Element cycle as required by California Government Code. The revised element includes: updated demographic data and housing opportunities/constraints, deletion of unusedinapplicable programs, enhanced programs on homeless and persons with disabilities, and quantified housing objectives in accordance with the San Diego County Housing Element Self-certification Program. A large portion of the Housing Element consists of demographic and housing production information and a discussion of housing constraints and opportunities. This portion of the Housing Element does not generate any potential environmental impacts since it is purely informational. Therefore, the following environmental evaluation only reviews the potential impacts associated with the programs and quantified housing objectives. The programs can be grouped in six goal areas: preservation of housing; quantity and diversity of housing stock; housing for groups with special needs; housing-jobs-workforce balance; resource conservation; and open and fair housing opportunities. The quantified housing objectives for the 1999-2004 Housing Cycle, divided by income group, are as follows: I 1 QUANTIFIED HOUSING OBJECTIVES - 1999-2004 HOUSING CYCLE Income Group Number of Housing Units IC II i Extremely low (less than 30% of A.M.I.) 210 Very low (30 - 50% of A.M.I.) 170 LOW (51 - 80% of A.M.I.) 260 Moderate (81 - 120% of A.M.I.) 4,955 Above Moderate (over 120% of A.M.I.) 630 A.M.I. = San Diego area median income 6,225 Total Units These housing programs and quantified objectives provide guidance as to how future housing will be developed in Carlsbad. The programs and objectives do not in and of themselves produce housing. The physical expression of these programs and objectives take the form of individual developments that will be reviewed for environmental impacts when they become actual projects. Since the overall housing production planned and anticipated for the 1999-2004 housing cycle does not even approach City buildout, none of the programs or objectives will cause adverse cumulative impacts. The potential impacts of these programs and objectives are discussed below. I. LAND USE AND PLANNING The proposed Housing Element Update is consistent with the applicable portions of the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program. The housing production objectives and needs 9 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e assessments can be accommodated without adjustment to any General Plan Land Use designations and without exposing people to excessive noise. Since all future housing projects will be subject to the City’s Growth Management Program, all required facilities would be in place concurrent or prior to development. Implementation of the Housing Element programs will not restrict coastal access, encroach into sensitive resources, create areas of geologic instability or degrade agricultural or scenic areas. By implementing the Housing Element programs, additional housing affordable to lower income households can be created. Therefore, the Housing Element Update will not result in any adverse impacts to land use and planning. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING As stated above, the quantified objectives and accommodation of the Regional Share Housing Needs Assessment can be accomplished within the City’s Growth Management dwelling unit cap. By following the Growth Management Program, no future development will induce substantial growth in an area since all facilities will be required prior to or concurrent with development. Many of the programs in the Housing Element Update concentrate on preserving existing affordable housing and converting existing buildings into affordable housing. Therefore the proposed Housing Element Update will not cause any adverse impacts to population or housing. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS As previously stated, the housing programs and quantified objectives do not physically produce any housing, rather they guide the types and affordability of future housing developments. The proposed Housing Element update will, therefore, not expose people to potential impacts involving fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides or land subsidence. No significant adverse geologic impacts will occur due to the Housing Element Update. IV. WATER The Housing Element Update does not physically produce housing therefore no direct physical impacts to absorption ‘rates, surface runoff, or surface or groundwaters will result. All housing developments must comply with the City’s Growth Management Program therefore no impacts to water supplies or service systems will occur. V. AIR QUALITY In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR that analyzed the impacts that will result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 a 0 To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation df Congestion and Transportation Demand transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MER. This document is available at the Planning Department. Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR that analyzed the impacts that would result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through- traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master ER. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 a 0 This project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document 7s available at the Planning Department. In addition, the City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Report has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn lanes (northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound). This project has agreed to a condition to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements” thereby guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance. VU. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The 1999 Housing Element Update does not physically produce housing and, therefore, does not remove biological habitats. The element does discuss its relationship with the City’s Habitat Management Plan and verifies that all future residential projects must comply with the City’s habitat preservation policies and the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the Housing Element Update will not result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including wetland habitats and wildlife dispersal corridors. Vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Since the Housing Element Update does not produce housing there will be no related use of non- renewable resources in a wasteful manner nor will it deplete the availability of a known mineral resource of future value. Therefore, no impacts to energy or mineral resources will result due to the Housing Element Update. E. HAZARDS Since no construction activities occur as a direct result of the Housing Element Update, no risk of accidental explosions, release of hazardous substances, or interference with emergency response or evacuation plans will occur. The Housing Element Update will not create any health or fire hazards because it does not produce physical development. x. - NOISE No construction will occur as a direct result of the Housing Element Update, therefore no increase in existing noise levels will occur. The future housing developments guided by the Housing Element Update must conform to the City’s Noise Element, thereby not allowing the exposure of people to severe noise levels. The Housing Element Update will therefore not create any adverse noise impacts. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES As discussed previously, the Housing Element Update guides future residential development in the City. It also contains quantified housing objectives for the 1999-2004 Housing Element cycle. The amount of development proposed in the quantified objectives is well within the growth projections of the Growth Management Program and all future projects must comply with 12 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Growth Management performance standards. Therefore, the Housing Element Update will not have an adverse effect upon, or result in the need for, new or altered government services. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The proposed Housing Element Update does not physically produce housing, therefore no direct impacts to utilities and service systems will result. All housing developed in accordance with the Housing Element policies and programs must also be consistent with the City’s Growth Management Program. Therefore any facility or service system needs generated by a residential development must be addressed with that development. The Housing Element Update will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alteration to power and natural gas systems, communication systems, wastewater treatment facilities, or solid waste disposal systems. XIII. . AESTHETICS The housing programs and quantified objectives of the Housing Element Update do not physically produce housing, therefore the proposal will not affect a scenic vista, scenic highway, create light or glare, or have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect. No adverse impacts to aesthetics should result due to the Housing Element Update. XN. CULTURAL RESOURCES Since the Housing Element Update does not physically produce housing, no disturbance to historical, paleontological or archeological resources, areas of unique cultural values, or areas of religious or sacred uses will occur. XV. RECREATIONAL The Housing Element Update does not, in and of itself, produce housing, therefore no impact to existing recreational opportunities will occur. All future residential development must conform to the performance standards of the Growth Management Program, including the performance standards for public parks. Therefore, no adverse impacts to recreation will occur. EARLIER ANALYSES USED 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, (760) 602-4600. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 e e ADDENDUM TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - GPA 98-04 Subsequent to the preparation of the environmental review for this project, the City Council repealed the moratorium due to intersection failure at Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. As a result, the required mitigation related to this intersection is no longer applicable. The attached Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part I1 refers to this intersection failure and the incorporation of the required mitigation into the project. Since this is no longer applicable, this addendum to the Negative Declaration has been prepared and attached to indicate the item’s inapplicability.