The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-05-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 54161 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. 5416 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CITYWIDE UPDATE TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN CASE NAME: PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT UPDATE CASE NO.: GPA 03-03 WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Division, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by the City of Carlsbad, “Owner,” described as CITYWIDE (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of May 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) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration, Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated April 14,2003, and “PII” dated April 10, 2003, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 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 Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbar does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration analyzing the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and b. 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 c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part 11 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 21st day of May, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and White NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Whitton ABSTAIN: None LAN"G COMMISSION ATTEST: \&U t MICHAEL J. HOYLZMILYER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5416 -2- NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: PARKS AND RECREATION GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT UPDATE GPA 03-03LCPA 03-03 CITYWIDE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Adjust park inventories and park buildout requirements based on current population projections; and incorporation of the Cityurlde Trails System. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments fi-om the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvaVadoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608. PUBLIC REvlEW PERIOD APRIL 14,2003 TO MAY 14,2003 PUBLISH DATE APRIL 14,2003 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003 NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: CITYWIDE PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT UPDATE CASE NO: GPA 03-03/LCPA 03-03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Update of Parks and Recreation Element to Adjust Park Inventories and Demand, and Incorporate the Citywide Trails Program. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: IXI 0 0 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: July 8,2003, pursuant to City Council Resolution 2003-185 ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOmILLYR 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: GPA 03-03/LCPA 03-03 DATE: April 10.2003 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Parks and Recreation General Plan Element Uudate LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Liz Ketabian 760.434.2978 PROJECT LOCATION: CITYWIDE PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad - Liz Ketabian GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CITYWIDE ZONING: CITYWIDE OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQURED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): N/A PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Adjustment of Parks inventory and demand based on current population projections; and incorporation of the Citywide Trails Program. No development or trail segment construction is associated with this General Plan Element Update. A copy of the Draft Element Amendment is available for review at the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008. I 1 Rev. 07/03/02 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. Aesthetics Geology/Soils 0 Noise 0 Agncultural Resources 0 HazardslHazardous Materials 0 Popu1ation and Housing Air Quality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Public Services Biological Resources Land Use and Planning c] Recreation Cultural Resources [7 Mineral Resources [7 TransportatiodCirculation Utilities & Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. 07lO3JO2 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD 1 3T have a significant effect on the environment, anc NEGATIVE DECLAFUTION will be prepared. a I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I 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. y- /O 03 Planner Signature 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. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with dormation 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. 0 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. 0 e 0 “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 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 sipficant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 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 significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EM-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIROh4ENTAL EVALUATION. mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Particular attention should be given to discussing c 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated LessThan No Significant Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 0 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? 0 0 OIXI 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: 0 0 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? 0 0 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing enviromknt, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 0 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: 0 0 0 0 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? om b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (inciuding releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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? 7 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rev. 07/03/02 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 CI 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI IXI Ix1 IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance of a hstorical resource as defined in 5 15064.5? Cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to $15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential Substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 1. 11. ... 111. iv. 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. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? Result in Substantial sqil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating Substantial risks to life or property? 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? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated IV. 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: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON om 0 0 om El OIXI 0 OIXI 0 om 0 0 OIXI a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 9 Rev. 07103102 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Sigriificant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 0 cl 0 IXI b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 0 0 0 0 0 1xI IXI c) Impacts to groundwater quality? . d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, whch would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? 0 0 IXI e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site?, 0 0 0 1xI Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storrnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 0 0 IXI g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? 0 0 0 Ixl i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of th failure of a levee or dam? 0 IXI Ixl k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 10 Rev. 01/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated o 0 m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 0 IXI n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 IXI p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? 0 E. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI 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 0 0 IXI c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 0 0 0 17 IXI 0 0 IXI b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? X. NOISE - Would the project result in: 0 0 0 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 IXI b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne. vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incornorated 0 0 OIXI c) A Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private.airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X. 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 idiastructure)? b) Displace Substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace Substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. 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 govemment facilities, the construction of whch 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? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OIXI 0 na 0 0 OM 0 0.a 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XIV. RECREATION Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 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 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. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic 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)? 0 0 o 0 0 17 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? 0 0 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 0 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? 0 0 0 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) 0 0 o 0 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? Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI Ixi 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incomorated No Impact IXI KI IXI IXI IXI IXI Ea IXI 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? 0 0 0 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? cl 0 0 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? cl 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 0 cl cl Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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? 0 0 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 Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the 14 Rev. 07/03/02 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. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AESTHETICS No Impact. Since no development is proposed at this time, there will be no impacts to the aesthetic qualities of the city or future trail areas. All trail development to implement the Citywide Trails Program shall undergo environmental review at that time. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. Park inventory changes will not impact agricultural areas of the City; future trail segments will avoid prime agricultural areas and will be subject to CEQA compliance. AIR QUALITY No Impact. This General Plan Update will not impact the City’s air quality. Providing a program for future trail development and maintenance will not affect air quality. BIOLOGICAL and CULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. Biological or Cultural resources will not be impacted since no development is proposed at this time. Future trails and parks development shall undergo standard environmental review during design and entitlement efforts. GEOLOGY/SOILS No Impact. Geologic instability or the creation of landslides will not result from adjusting parks inventory or incorporating a Trails Program that will involve environmental review for specific, future trail links. HAZARDSMAZARDOUS MATERIALS No Impact. This General Plan Amendment Update does not involve the use or movement of such materials. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY No Impact. No hydrologic or water quality issues or impacts exist since the development of trails or parks are not proposed. LAND USE PLANNING No Impact. The incorporation of the Trails Program into this Element and related Parks inventory changes will not adversely impact any of the land use designations withm the City. The Trails Program is an implementing objective currently with the General Plan; this General Plan Amendment will allow for future implementation of trail and parks projects. MINERAL RESOURCES No Impact. Mineral resources will be unaffected by the proposed General Plan Amendment since no development is proposed. NOISE No Impact. Changes to the parks inventory, and incorporating the Trails Program, will not create a noise source nor impact sensitive noise receptors since no development of parks or trails are proposed at this time. Rev. OllQ3lQ2 16 POPULATION/HOUSING/PUBLIC SERVICES No Impact. These areas will not be impacted since no development is proposed. Nevertheless, the conceptual Trails Program has been designed to not unpact any housing areas or residentially designated lands. All future parks and trail projects will comply with CEQA. RECREATION No Impact. Providing a program for future trails and city parks will enhance recreational opportunities consistent with the requirements of the City’s Growth Management Program. TRANSPORTATIONlTRAFFIC No Impact. Adjusting Park inventories and incorporating the Trails Program does not constitute a development project that will generate traffic for city street systems. 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. 1. M. 17 Rev. 07/03/02