Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-22; Planning Commission; Resolution 53601 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. 5360 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND ADDENDUM #2 TO THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ADD HABITAT CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION STANDARDS TO THE REMAINING UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES IN THE CITY’S COASTAL ZONE. CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN CASE NO.: LCPA 02-10DI 02-01 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has filed a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program and an Addendum to the Habitat Management Plan affecting properties located within the boundaries of the City’s Coastal Zone; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 22nd day of January, 2003 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated December 20,2002, and “PII” dated December 16,2002 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: 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 a. b. C. d. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN - LCPA 02-10/DI 02-01, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 22nd day of January, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Whitton, Dominguez, Heineman and Segall NOES: Commissioner White ABSENT: ABSTAIN: c- PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5360 -2- __. City of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddressLocation: CITY OF CARLSBAD - COASTAL ZONE Project Description: Local Coastal Program Amendment to incorporate the Habitat Management Plan and Second Addendum to the Habitat Management Plan. The project consists of amending the City of Carlsbad’s certified Local Coastal Program to include references to the Habitat Management Plan and revisions to the Habitat Management Plan needed for consistency between the two documents. 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 fiom 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 Don Rideout in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4602. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: PUBLISH DATE: December 20,2002 LCPA 02- 10 Local Coastal Program Amendment for Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan December 20,2002 Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ~~ ~~~~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: LCPA 02-10 DATE: December 16.2002 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Local Coastal Promam Amendment for Carlsbad Habitat Management PladSecond Addendum to Habitat Management Plan LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER. Don Rideout. Principal Planner PROJECT LOCATION: Coastal Zone PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive. Carlsbad, CA 92008 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Various ZONING: Various OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commidsion PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The Citv of Carlsbad is proposing an amendment to its certified Local Coastal Promam (LCP) to incorporate the Habitat ManaPement Plan (HMP) and to make other revisions to the LCP necessary for consistency with the conservation provisions of the updated Habitat Manavement Plan. The HMP is a Citvwide urogram for conserving wildlife species and their habitats, particularly species listed as endangered or threatened. The HMP was adouted by the Citv Council in September 1999. The existing LCP for Carlsbad consists of six segments, of which three will be amended by the proposed action. The sements that will not be amended are the Village Redevelopment Area, West Batiquitos and East Batiauitos. The three segments to be amended currently contain policies and requirements for wildlife conservation that pre-date the HMP. In order to ensure consistency between the HMP and the LCP. both documents are being amended to refer to each other. The HMP revisions are titled “Second Addendum to the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan Based on Comments from the California Coastal Commission and Including Miscellaneous Revisions” dated December 16,2002. The proposed action is the establishment of land use remlations and not a develoDment Droiect. It involves amending the Local Coastal Program to incorporate an existinp policy and rewlatorv document. the Habitat Management Plan, Therefore, the following environmental analysis deals only with the potential for the proposed regulations to result in an adverse imuact on the environment. 1 Rev. 07103102 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 Aesthetics Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources u Geology/Soils HazardsMazardous Materials HydrologyiWater Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources [7 Noise 0 Population and Housing [7 Public Services 0 Recreation u TransportatiodCirculation u Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) IXI 0 0 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. 1;?/16/07 Date ' 3 Rev. 07/03/02 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. Thls checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EM-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Ovemding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the sigruficant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part II 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. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? 0 0 0 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model- 1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 0 111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 0 applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 oIx1 0 0 0 0 UIXI 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to Substantial pollutant .concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a Substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Have a Substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 Have a Substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or -by California Department of Fish and Game or US. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 Have a Substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? 0 0 0 0 0 UIXI OIXI 0 UIXI 0 0 0 OIXI OIXI 0 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change m the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 0 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? 0 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- 0 0 cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 0 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including El liquefaction? 0 iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? 0 d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1 997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 123 0 0 0 Less Than Significant No Impact Impact OH OH 0 DEI 0 0 0 0 0 DIXI Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? W. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: . Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated impact 0 0 .El 0 0 0 ntx1 0 0 'W 0 OM El 0 El 0 0 No Impact 0 0 0 IXI W W 0 OW 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge U UISI such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the 0 course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? 0 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the 0 course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned D stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or D Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation 0 I"p? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including 0 flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 0 0 Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, D nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? nrxl 0 o(x1 DIXI DM 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 DIXI 0 om b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 OIXI c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 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? 0 Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 OIXI Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 0 om f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 0 would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce Substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 0 b) Displace Substantial numbers of existing housing, 0 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace Substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XUI. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of . new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION 0 0 0 0 a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that Substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 0 0 OB 0 ON 0 OIXI 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, ,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATIONiTRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffk load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 om 0 0 OIXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OIXI OIXI OIXI 0 om 0 OIXI 0 OIXI 0 om 0 OIXI 13 Rev. 07l03l02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 0 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 0 om 0 OIXI Does the project have the potential to degrade the 0 quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 OIXI 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? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) 0 0 OIXI Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 0 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 A Mitigated Negative Declaration was previously prepared and certified for the Habitat Management Plan. This document is on file with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department nnder file number EM 99-04, That document analyzed all of the potential environmental effects of implementation of the Habitat Management Plan and concluded that there will be potentially significant impacts to biology and land use unless mitigation measures are adopted. Mitigation measures were adopted as part of the certification of EIA 99-04 that adequately reduce the impacts to below the level of significance. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The following is an analysis and discussion of the potential environmental effects of the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and the Second Addendum to the HMP. I. II. 111. AESTHETICS. Amending the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program to include the already adopted Habitat Management Plan will not have any effect on aesthetics. All development projects will be required to undergo environmental review during which aesthetics will be analyzed. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES (c) ’ Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Less than significant. LCPA 02-10 could potentially result in a decrease in the amount of agricultural land due to the proposed policy which requires creation of habitat as partial or full mitigation for impacts to biological resources. The creation of habitat may take place on agricultural land if such land is purchased by a project applicant for mitigation purposes. In that event there would be a conversion of the mitigation land from agricultural use to wildlife habitat. However, this impact will be less than significant. The conversion of agricultural land to another type of open space use is qualitatively different from urban development and does not entail any of the same impacts. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. Amending thc Carlsbad Local Coastal Program to include the already adopted Habitat Management Plan will not have any effect on air quality. The following discussion provided more detailed background on the status of air quality in Carlsbad and the region. Carlsbad is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMIO). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? 0 Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? No Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended frne particulates. As described above, however, there would be no emissions associated with the proposed project because the project is purely regulatory and does not authorize any development. Given the lack of emissions associated with the proposed project, air quality would be the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i)(3), the proposed project will not make any contribution to cumulative impacts. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As described above, the proposed project would not result in any pollutant emissions or concentrations. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. As described above, the proposed project would not result in any pollutant emissions or objectionable odors. IV. Biological Resources No impact. The proposed project deals primarily with biological resources in that it involves incorporating the Habitat Management Plan into the City’s Local Coastal Program. This action does not authorize or permit any development project or any impacts to biological resources. The proposed action modifies certain provisions of the Local Coastal Program to provide higher levels protection for biological resources. The present Local Coastal Program provides some protection for wetlands and habitats located on steep slopes. The proposed LCPA 02-10 provides greater protection for wetlands and for habitats located on areas other than steep slopes. In addition, the proposed LCPA 02-10 includes enhanced buffer requirements and the requirement for a long-term management and monitoring program for species and habitats. Any development projects which would have the potential to impact biological resources are currently required to undergo an extensive review and permitting process which includes biological surveys of the project site, compliance with the Habitat Management Plan, compliance with the Local Coastal Program (for properties located inside the Coastal Zone), CEQA compliance, public hearings, issuance of local . permits, and issuance of ,state or federal permits if required. These existing plans and regulatory mechanisms ensure that potentially significant biological impacts are disclosed and fully mitigated. 16 Rev. 07/03/02 The proposed project supports and strengthens the existing regulatory process by incorporating the adopted Habitat Management Plan into the Local Coastal Program and making miscellaneous adjustments for consistency. V. Cultural Resources No Impact. Because the proposed project does not authorize any grading, excavation, or soil disturbance of any kind, the project will not have any effect on cultural resources. Protection of cultural resources will continue to be governed, both inside and outside the Coastal Zone, by the City of Carlsbad Cultural Guidelines dated December 1990 which are incorporated in the General Plan. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS No Impact. As noted above the proposed project does not authorize any grading, excavation, or soil disturbance of any kind. The project does not modify any of the existing regulations dealing with grading or earth moving. Therefore, the project will have no impact on geology and soils. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less than Significant Impact. Because the proposed project is a purely regulatory action that does not authorize any development, it will not have the potential to create a hazard to the pubic or the environment. The project does not authorize the transportation, use, or release of any hazardous materials or waste. By encouraging the conservation of native vegetation in the Coastal Zone, the project has the potential to result in a slight increase in the risk of wildland fires. However, the proposed project contains within it regulations regarding fuel modification zones and setbacks of development from native vegetation. Therefore, the potential impact is less than significant. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. No Impact. Because the proposed project is a purely regulatory action that does not authorize any development, it will not have the potential to affect hydrology or water quality. All development projects are required to meet all federal, state, and local regulations, including the federal Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, and specific basin plan objectives identified in the “Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin.” The Water Quality Control Plan identifies specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit and its subareas. All development projects must obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect water quality. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING No Impact. The proposed LCPA 02-10 does not have the potential to divide an existing community because it is a purely regulatory action dealing with conservation of biological resources. The project will not conflict with any adopted plan, regulation or habitat conservation plan because the purpose of the project is to bring applicable plans and regulations into consistency with each other. This will be accomplished by amending the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program to incorporate by reference the Habitat Management Plan, and making other miscellaneous changes. X. MINERAL RESOURCES No Impact. Because the proposed project is a purely regulatory action that does not authorize any development, it will not have the potential to affect mineral resources. Existing locations for mineral extraction exist outside the Coastal Zone and will not be affected by the proposed LCPA. XI. NOISE No Impact. Because the proposed project is a purely regulatory action that does not authorize any development, it will not have the potential to create any noise impacts or expose sensitive receptors to noise. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 W. POPULATION AND HOUSING No Impact. The project consists of amending the Local Coastal ProgrA to incorporate an existing policy document, the Habitat Management Plan. This action has no potential to induce growth or to displace existing housing or people. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES No Impact. The proposed project has no potential to impact Fire, Police, Schools, Parks, or other public services. .. XIV. RECREATION No Impact. The project has no potential to impact recreational facilities. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFC No Impact. Because the proposed project is a purely regulatory action that does not authorize any development, it will not have the potential to create any transportation or traffic impacts. The proposed project will not add any trips to existing roads. The project does not modify or conflict with the regional congestion management plan. The project does not include any aviation components and would not result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. The project will not affect any emergency routes. The project will not affect parking capacity. The project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS No Impact. Because the proposed project is a purely regulatory action that does not authorize any development, it will not have the potential to create any impacts to utilities or services systems including water, wastewater, storm drainage, or landfills. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 5 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration EL4 99-04, Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, April 1999, on file in the Planning Department. 18 Rev. 07/03/02