Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 56411 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. 5641 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CITYWIDE UPDATE TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN CASE NAME: CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE CASE NO.: GPA 04-01 WHEREAS, the City’s Public Works 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 request; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of June, 2004, 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 28,2004, and “PII” dated April 22, 2004, 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 2c 21 22 23 24 25 2c 27 28 Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad 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 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 2nd day of June 2004 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MEfISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLxILLbk Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5641 -2- - City of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT PROJECT LOCATION: CITYWIDE CASE NO: GPA 04-01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: implement the City’s Trails Program. Amend the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan to 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 identi@ any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. 0 The proposed project MAY have “potentially significmt 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 hrther 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 27, 2004 pursuant to City Council Resolution Number 2004-252 ATTEST: - Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us a9 - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT PROJECT LOCATION: CITYWIDE CASE NO: GPA 04-01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amend the circulation element to assist in implementation of the citywide trails program. 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 City Council. A copy of the initial study (EL4 Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration are 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 the date of this notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD April 28,2004 to May 28,2004 PUBLISH DATE April 28, 2004 "J'amF@aW."s 63 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-731 4 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: GPA 04-01 DATE: April 22,2004 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Circulation Element Amendment LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Eric Munoz, Senior Planner PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Various ZONING: Various OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The purpose of the proiect is to incorporate policies regarding pedestrian and bicycle trails into the City’s Circulation Element of the General Plan. The revisions to the General Plan are intended to specifically state that trails can be an important part of the overall circulation system of the City. An exhibit is provided which illustrates how trails could be used in place of sidewalks on one side of maior roads. No specific trail alignments are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. 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. u Aesthetics c] Geology/Soils 0 Noise 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 Popu1ation and Housing 0 Air Quality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Public Services 0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Utilities Service Systems u Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. Q7lQ3IO2 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) la 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. 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. Planner Signature Date Planning Director’s 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 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 “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but fl 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 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. Q7l03lQ2 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 Overridins 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 EIA-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 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 Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Sign i fi can t lnipact I No Impact 1. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 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? Substantiafly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? c) 0 0 0 IXI 11. AGRICULTURAL 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-1 997 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 0 Ixl 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 0 OH 0 0 OIXI 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? 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 applicable air quality plan? 0 0 0 o b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 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)? 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? e) IV. 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 US. 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 US. 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? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO Impact El Ixl [XI [XI [XI Ixl IXI [XI Ixl 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact ti0 Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 0 0 0 Ixl 0 0 IXI b) Cause a Substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to $15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 0 IXI Ixl d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 0 0 0 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 0 0 IXI ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction'? iv. Landslides? 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI b) Result in Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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 0 0 Ixl 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? 0 0 0 8 Rev. 07fQ3IO2 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? VII. 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 Impact 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 Less Than Signi fican! Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO Impact [XI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI [XI IXI 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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)? Impacts to groundwater quality? 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, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? 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? Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned 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 Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? 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 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. 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)? 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 0 No Impact IXI [XI IXI IXJ IXI IXI IXI [XI IXI IXI IXI 10 Rev. 07/03/02 .. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fiesh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 Ix1 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 0 0 Ix1 p) 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 CI 0 O 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0 isi 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 Ixl 0 0 isi 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? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: 0 0 IXI 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 0 0 0 Ixl [XI IXI b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 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? 0 0 0 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? 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? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 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)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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 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: 1) ii) iii) iv) v) Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact lxl Ixl [XI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI Ixl IXI 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact o 0 om 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/TRAFFIC - Would the project: 0 OM 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 Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 0 OM 0 OIXI 0 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 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 0 0 OM 0 0 0 Result in inadequate emergency access? OM Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (eg, bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: 0 0 0 0 0 ON 0 OIXI Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? 0 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? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 13 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 ON 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 0 OH f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 OBI g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 0 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0 0 nIX1 b) 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 hture projects?) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 UBI c) 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 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 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. 11. 111. AESTHETICS The project does not have the potential for significant aesthetic impacts because it is solely a policy change to the General Plan Circulation element to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system. No specific trail alignments are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES No agricultural lands will be affected by this amendment to the General Plan. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project 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 (PMlo). 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 andlor 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. In the present case, the project is a General Plan Amendment to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system. Section 15 125(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: Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? 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 or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. In addition to the above, the project under consideration at this time (GPA 04-01) has no potential to create air quality impacts because it is solely a General Plan Amendment to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system. No specific trail alignments are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 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 to the project site 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 fine particulates. As described above, the project has no potential to result in emissions of any kind. Given the lack of emissions associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. concentrations. No impact is assessed. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. As noted above, the project has not potential to result in objectionable odors. 111. IV. VI. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to biological resources because it is solely a policy change to the General Plan Circulation element to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system. No specific trail alignments are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. Any trail alignments that may be proposed individually or as part of public or private development projects will be hlly analyzed with respect to biological resources that may exist on the project site. CULTURAL RESOURCES The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to cultural resources because it is solely a policy change to the General Plan Circulation element to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system. No specific trail alignments are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. Any trail alignments that may be proposed individually or as part of public or private development projects will be fully analyzed with respect to cultural resources that may exist on the project site. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to geology or soils because it is solely a policy change to the General Plan Circulation element to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system. No specific trail alignments are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. Any trail alignments that may be proposed individually or as part of public or private development projects will be filly analyzed with respect to geology and soils that may exist on the project site. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to hazards or hazardous materials because it is solely a policy change to the General Plan Circulation element to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system. No specific trail alignments are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. Any trail alignments that may be proposed individually or as part of public or private development projects will be fully analyzed with respect to hazards or hazardous materials that may exist on the project site. 16 Rev. 07/03/02 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to hydrology or water quality because it is solely a policy change to the General Plan Circulation element to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system. No specific trail alignments are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. Any trail alignments that may be proposed individually or as part of public or private development projects will be hlly analyzed with respect to hydrology and water quality. IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING The proposed project is a Land Use and Planning action in that it consists of a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element. The project will not divide an established community because it consists solely of policy statements acknowledging that trails are an important part of the City’s circulation system. The project is consistent with all other elements of the General Plan and the City’s codes and regulations. Specifically, the Open Space and Conservation Element contains numerous policies supporting trails. The Parks and Recreation Element was amended recently to add policies regarding trails similar to the policies proposed for the Circulation Element. The proposed amendments are consistent with other policies in the Circulation Element because alternative modes of transportation are already encouraged. The City of Carlsbad has a Habitat Management Plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act and the State of California’s Natural Community Conservation Planning program. The proposed project is consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and other laws regarding wildlife conservation because these plans and laws allow for appropriately sited trails, subject to proper site-specific review and approval. NO grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. Any trail alignments that may be proposed individually or as part of public or private development projects will be fully analyzed with respect to consistency with the Habitat Management Plan. X. MINERAL RESOURCES The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to mineral resources because it is solely a policy change to the General Plan Circulation element to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system. No specific trail alignments are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. Any trail alignments that may be proposed individually or as part of public or private development projects will be fully analyzed with respect to mineral resources. XI. NOISE The project does not have the potential for generating significant noise impacts because it is solely a policy change to the General Plan Circulation element to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system. No specific trail alignments are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. Any trail alignments that may be proposed individually or as part of public or private development projects will be fully analyzed with respect to noise. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to population or housing because it is solely a policy change to the General Plan Circulation element to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system. No specific trail alignments are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. Trail projects by their nature do not involve impacts to population or housing. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to public services because it is solely a policy change to the General Plan Circulation element to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system. No specific trail alignments are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. Although trail projects in general require maintenance and enforcement efforts, these activities are typically very minor in scale and would not constitute significant impacts to public services. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 XV. RECREATION The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to recreation because it is solely a policy change to the General Plan Circulation element to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system. No specific trail alignments are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. Trails also serve a recreational purpose as well as a transportation purpose. The recreational value of trails has already been recognized in a previous amendment to the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan (2003). XVI. TRAMPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project: Questions a - c No Impact. The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to transportation or vehicular traffic because it is solely a policy change to the General Plan Circulation element to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system. No specific trail alignments are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. Trails by their nature tend to encourage walking or bicycling as an alternative to driving and thus would involve no adverse impacts to transportation or traffic. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All trails or other circulation improvements are designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. As discussed under Land Use and Planning, the proposed project is consistent with the other Elements of the City’s General Plan. Therefore, if would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. Departments. No impact assessed. All trails are designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police 9 Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. Trail projects by their nature require minimal parking. The trail system has been designed to connect with City parks and other facilities where parking lots are provided. Additional trailhead parking will be provided at appropriate locations. No impact assessed. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. Provision of trails implements adopted City General Plan policies regarding alternative transportation by facilitating walking and bicycling. No impact assessed. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to utilities and services systems because it is solely a policy change to the General Plan Circulation element to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system. No specific trail alignments are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. 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. 2. 3. City of Carlsbad General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element, Parks and Recreation Element. City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan (1992). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (1999, with addenda). City of Carlsbad Planning Department 18 Rev. 07/03/02