Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 59021 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5902 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CITYWIDE UPDATE TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO INCORPORATE REFERENCES AND POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED TO THE CITY’S HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN. CASENAME: LAND USE ELEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS CASE NO.: GPA 05-01/GPA 05-02 WHEREAS, the City, “Applicant,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Citywide (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative D request; and cl ration was repared in junction with said WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of May, 2005, 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, Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated May 22,2005, and “PII” dated March 4, 2005, 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 Findin ~s : 1. The Planning Commission of the City of C rlsbad does her& r 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 18th day of May 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, and Montgomery NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Gairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: h DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5902 -2- - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Amendment To Open Space and Conservation Element and Land Use Element CASE NO: GPA 05-01 and GPA 05-02 PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amend the Open Space and Conservation Element and the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan to incorporate policy statements and reference related to the City’s recently adopted Habitat Management Plan. 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 (EM 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 is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvaVadoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. . PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD March 22.2005 thou& April 21.2005 PUBLISH DATE March 22.2005 fB 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLA”G DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: GPA 05-01 & GPA 05-02 DATE: February 3.2005 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Amendments to the Open Space and Conservation Element and Amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Don Rideout, Management Analyst. (760) 602- PROJECT LOCATION: Citwvide PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008 GENEW PLAN DESIGNATION: Various ZONING: Various OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (ie., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: This project proposes to make amendments to the %en Space and Conservation Element and the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan to incorporate descriptions and policy statements related to the recently approved Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that all future development proiects in the Citv comply with the Habitat Management Plan in order to be consistent with the General Plan and to ensure that the Habitat Management Plan is fully implemented by the Citv. The Habitat Management Plan is a comprehensive program to identifv how the City will preserve the diversitv of habitat and protect sensitive biological resources within the Citv. 1 Rev. 07/03/04 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 17 Geology/Soils 0 Noise Agricultural Resources HazarddHazardous Materials 0 Popu1ation and Housing 0 Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality [7 Public Services Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning Recreation Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/04 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a sigmficant 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 @) 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. Date -2Ld y, zoos Assistant Planning Director’s Signature Date 3 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ4 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 ‘Wo 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 ‘To 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 fi-om “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 &I 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 sipficant, 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. 07/03/04 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 EN-Part 11 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined sigmfkant. 5 Rev. QllQ3lQ4 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Signscant Impact Less Than Significant No Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 123 ow ow b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? 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? 0 II. 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-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 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? 0 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, wluch, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? III. 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? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 6 Rev. 07/03/04 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated El Potentially Significant Impact 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 No Impact Ix) 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)? Ixl d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 0 Ixl e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) 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 0 0 IXI b) 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? c) 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? 0 0 Ixl d) 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? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? cl 0 0 g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? 7 Rev. 07/03/04 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 9 15064.5? 0 0 IXI O b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? 0 IXI c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 0 0 0 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 hown 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. cl 0 IXI ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 0 0 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? 0 0 0 o b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 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 0 0 IXI d) 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? 8 Rev. 07/03/04 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 I7 17 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated El 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Rev. 07/03/04 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 01x1 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 pennits have been granted)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 D1x1 0 nIxI 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, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? 0 0 OM 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 El UIXI Q 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? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 UIXI o 0 OM 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 IlMp? 0 OM i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 OB j) 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? 0 UB 0 0 UM k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 0 UIXI 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)? 10 Rev. 07/03/04 Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 0 0 Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fiesh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 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 0. 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 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 0 ow 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 OB 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: OISI 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 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 0 c) A substantial pennanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 OB d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 11 Rev. 07/03/04 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant No Impact Impact OM 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? UIXI 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? MI. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 0 0 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)? UM b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Xm. 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? 0 0 cl 0 ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) 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? 12 Rev. 07/03/04 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact o 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/TRC - Would the project: 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)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 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 om Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 El om UIXI n(xI Result in insufficient parkmg capacity? 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: 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. 07/03/04 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 OB 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? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 0 El OB r> 0 0 OB g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XM. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 0 0 OBI a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the l$bi&t of a fish or wildlife species, cake a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“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?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 OB 0 0 om Xvm. 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 EIl2 or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identifjr 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 Sigruficant 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. 07/03/04 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. AESTHETICS The project does not have the potential for significant aesthetic impacts because it is solely a policy change to the General Plan to acknowledge the recently adopted Habitat Management Plan. No development projects are proposed or permitted by this action. No gradmg, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this section. 11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES No agricultural lands will be affected by these amendments to the General Plan. ILL AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality pIan? No Impact. The project site 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 (SNAG). 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 fiom 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 and/or 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 incorporate policy statements relating to the recently approved Habitat Management Plan. 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 R4QS which include the following: 0 0 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 has no potential to create air quality impacts because it is solely a General Plan Amendment to incorporate policy statements relating to the recently adopted Habitat Management Plan. No physical development projects are proposed or permitted by hs action. 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 15 Rev. 01/03/04 state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal Show 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. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially 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. 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 no potential to result in objectionable odors. Iv. V. VI. w. vm. Ix. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to biological resources because it is solely an amendment to the General Plan to incorporate references to the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No development projects are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. CULTURAL RESOURCES The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to cultural resources because it is solely an amendment to the General Plan to incorporate references to the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No development projects are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or pennitted by this action. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to geology and soils because it is solely an amendment to the General Plan to incorporate references to the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No development projects are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials because it is solely an amendment to the General Plan to incorporate references to the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No development projects are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. . HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to hydrology and water quality because it is solely an amendment to the General Plan to incorporate references to the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No development projects are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. LAND USE AND PLANNING The proposed project is a Land Use and Planning action in that it consists of a General Plan Amendment to the Open Space and Conservation Element and the Land Use Element. The project will not divide an established community because it consists solely of policy statements and referencing of the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. The project is consistent with the General Plan and the City’s codes and regulations. Specifically, the Open Space and Conservation Element and the Land Use Element already contains numerous policies supporting habitat preservation and the city’s efforts in the preparation of a comprehensive plan to provide for such 16 Rev. 07/03/04 X. XI. m. m. XIV. xv. preservation. Follow-up Zone Code Amendments will be processed to fully implement the Habitat Management Plan. No development projects are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. MINERAL RESOURCES The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to mineral resources because it is solely an amendment to the General Plan to incorporate and reference the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No development is proposed or permitted by this action. NOISE The project does not have the potential for generating significant noise impacts because it is solely an amendment to the General Plan to incorporate and reference the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No development is proposed or permitted by this action. POPULATION AND HOUSING The project does not have the potential for generating significant noise impacts because it is solely an amendment to the General Plan to incorporate and reference the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No development is proposed or permitted by this action. PUBLIC SERVICES The project does not have the potential for generating sigmficant noise impacts because it is solely an amendment to the General Plan to incorporate and reference the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No development is proposed or permitted by this action. RECREATION The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to recreation because it is solely an amendment to the General Plan to include policies referencing the city’s recently adopted Habitat Management Plan. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. TRANSPORTATIONlTRould 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 an amendment to the General Plan to include policies referencing the city’s recently adopted Habitat Management Plan. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. The project proposes adding policies related to the recently approved Habitat Management Plan and therefore, does not allow any development which would result in road design hazard. As discussed under Land Use and Planning, the proposed project is consistent with the existing policies contained in the city’s General Plan. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The project is a General Plan Amendment to reference the city’s Habitat Management Plan and has no impact on emergency access. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project does not impact any parking in that it only relates to the city’s Habitat Management Plan. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The project is a General Plan Amendment to reference the city’s Habitat Management Plan and has no impact on policies related to transportation. 17 Rev. 07/03/04 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 an amendment to the General Plan to incorporate and reference the city’s Habitat Management Plan. 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 hs project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. 2. 3. Final Master Environmental Impact Re~ort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. City of Carlsbad General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element, Land Use Element. City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (2004, with Implementing Agreement and Terms and Conditions). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 18 Rev. 07/03/04 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 19 Rev. 07/03/04 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 20 Rev. 07/03/04