Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCD 98-01; Agua Hedionda Visitor/Nature Center; Planning Commission Determination (PCD) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP 98-15/CDP 98-59/PCD 98-01 DATE: September!. 1998 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Agua Hedionda Visitor/Nature Center 2. APPLICANT: Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation 3. 4. 5. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P.O.Box 4004 Carlsbad. CA 92018 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 14. 1998 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Relocation of a 3.600 square foot structure for use as a visitor/nature center •• SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ | Land Use and Planning | | Population and Housing | | Geological Problems Q Water [ | Air Quality | | Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services |^| Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems | | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics [~~1 Hazards . | | Cultural Resources | | Noise | [ Recreation |~~) Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. Q 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. Q I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets | | 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 Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date Planning DirectX's Signature Date Rev. 03/28/96 IMP/rcENVIRONMENTAL 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 adversely significant, 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 significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated hi an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (The proposed project does conflict with the existing General Plan and Zoning designations. In addition, it is an allowable use, consistent with the existing Kelly Ranch Master Plan, which allows tourist-recreational uses. City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance Title 21, Kelly Ranch Master Plan). b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (The proposed project is consistent with the Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Program. A Section 4(d) permit wiO be required to confirm this consistency. In addition, the proposed project does not preclude the implementation of the City's General Plan, including the Open Space Element. General Plan, MEIR 93-01, Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities 12/1/97). c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Surrounding existing land uses are primarily historical agricultural and native open space uses. The proposed project will not be incompatible with these uses. MEIR 93-01,Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98). d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (The impacts of unban land use and the discontinuance of agriculture in this area have been addressed in the City's General Plan EIR, and the General Plan does not consider agriculture a permanent land use; The proposed project will not directly affect existing agricultural uses. Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98). e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (The proposed temporary storage project is to be located within an area which is presently undeveloped, is not near or adjacent to any low-income or minority neighborhood, and w'lll not divide or displace any existing neighborhoods; Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact i X X X X X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (The proposed Visitor Center project will not generate any population). b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (The proposed project is planned for an area that has been designated for urban uses in the City General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Growth Management Program. As a result, it will not affect or induce additional planned growth in any significant way; MEIR 93-01, Zoning Ordinance Title 21, City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program). c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (The proposed project site is currently undeveloped and installation of the Visitor Center facility wfll not affect any existing residences; (Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98). III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (The proposed project will not result in exposure of people or property to known geologic or seismic hazards beyond those identified generally in the City's General Plan EIR and the Kelly Ranch EIR, since there is no active or potentially active geologic faults identified within or near the construction zone; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83- 04 Kelly Ranch EIR). b) Seismic ground shaking? (See above; Also, soils in the area of the proposed storage are of sufficient compaction and no landslides or other soils problems are anticipated within the construction area; MEIR 93-01). c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (See above; Also, the City General Plan Master EIR concluded that significant soils and geology impacts throughout the City of Carlsbad can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measures. These measures are the General Plan Public Safety Element Implementing Policies and Action Programs, EIR 83-04). d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (The proposed project is not located in an area identified in the City's General Plan EIR as susceptible to Seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact i X f X X X X X X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) e) Landslides or mudflows? (See above; MEIR 93- 01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR). f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fiD? (The subject project will involve grading of approximately 2.5 acres. Erosion control wil be included consistent with the City of Carlsbad requirements. Only minor topographical changes are proposed. All runoff wil be directed into the existing desittation basin located at the westerly edge of the subject site; EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR). g) Subsidence of the land? (The proposed Visitor Center project wiO comply with the City of Carlsbad's policies regarding soil protection as defined and concluded in the General Plan Master EIR as described above; MEIR 93-01). h) Expansive soils? (The proposed project will be installed on a concrete slab, constructed consistent with Carlsbad building requirements and as recommended through Geotechnical Evaluations; MEIR 93-01, Pacific Soils Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation, 7/23/98) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (No unique physical features exist within the boundaries of the proposed project; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR). IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (The proposed project will not significantly change drainage patterns, runoff, flooding hazard, nor impact groundwater quality. All runoff will be channelized in improved storm drain facilities to the existing desittation basin at the westerly end of the subject site. (MEIR 93-01). b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (The proposed project will be situated at approximately elevation 75 msl, which is significantly above the 100-foot flood stage. As a result, it will not be exposed to flooding potential; MEIR 93-01). c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (The proposed project will not involve discharge of any surface waters which will it result in an alteration of water quality, since it will be consistent with Carlsbad water quality and erosion control requirements; MEIR 93-01). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (The proposed project wil not discharge directly or in an uncontrolled manner into any surface waters, modify surface water paths to any significant degree whatsoever, nor result in an alteration of water quality; Potential temporary erosion impacts during the pad grading period may occur, but wfll be mitigated through standard Carlsbad erosion corrtroal methods. City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance). e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (The proposed project will result in no substantive change in the course or direction of water movement as concluded in the City's General Plan EIR; MEIR 93-01). f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (The proposed temporary building storage does not involve any withdrawals or additions to the groundwater; MEIR 93-01). g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (See above; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR). h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (The proposed project will not result in impacts to groundwater quality; MEIR 93-01). i) Substantial ' reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (The proposed project will not result in impacts to groundwater or water otherwise available for public water supplies; MEIR 93-01). V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (The proposed project will not generate air pollution, or generate significant amounts of vehicular traffic, and as a result, will not impact or affect the region's air resources; MEIR 93-01). b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (The proposed project will not create any impacts to sensitive receptors; MEIR 93-01). c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (The proposed Visitor Center project will not invoke climatic or air mass changes; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) d) Create objectionable odors? (The Visitor Center project will not create noxious odors; MEIR 93-01) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (The proposed project will generate only a minimal amount of destination vehicular trips, and as a result will not create traffic congestion; MEIR 93- 01). b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (The proposed project will achieve access to Cannon Road via an access point consistent with City of Carlsbad standards; MEIR 93-01). c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (The proposed project will not affect approved emergency access to the area in compliance with applicable City codes; MEIR 93- 01). d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (The proposed building storage project win not require or necessitate vehicular parking. Permanent vehicular access for routine maintenance will be provided for the project; MEIR 93-01). e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (The proposed Visitor Center project will not create any significant hazard or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists; MEIR 93-01), f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (The proposed project will not affect alternative transportation methods in any way; MEIR 93-01). g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (The proposed project will not affect rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts in any way; MEIR 93-01) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (The proposed project is anticipated to affect approximately 0.39 acres of coastal sage scrub and 0.67 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub vegetation, and a single coastal California gnatcatcher (poloptila califomica);Ke//y Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98). b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (No locally designated species are located within the subject area; Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98). c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (The proposed project will affect 0.39 acres of coastal sage scrub and 0.67 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub which are considered sensitive coastal resources, and are determined to be sensitive in the Draft Carlsbad Habitat Management Program. Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98, Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities within the City of Carlsbad). d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (The proposed project will not affect any wetlands; Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98). e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (The federally threatened California gnatcatcher occupies the identified coastal sage scrub in the area; Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98). VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (The proposed project will be constructed in a fashion which is consistent with City of Carlsbad policies regarding energy conservation; MEIR 93- 01). b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (The proposed project wil not involve the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner, and will be consistent with City of Carlsbad policies regarding energy conservation; MEIR 93-01). c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (No known mineral resources occur within the area of the proposed Visitor Center; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated X X Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X X X 10 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) IX HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (The proposed Visitor Center project will not involve risk of these circumstances as determined in the City's General Plan EIR; MEIR 93-01). b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (The proposed building storage wil not impede emergency response; MEIR 93-01). c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (The proposed Visitor Center project will not create any health hazards as concluded in the City of Carlsbad General Plan Master EIR; MEIR 93-01). d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (The proposed win not expose people to existing sources of health hazards as determined in the General Ran Master EIR; MEIR 93-01). e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (The proposed project wBI comply with City of Carlsbad fire suppression programs, and will not increase fire hazard). X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (The proposed Visitor Center structure and use wiO not increase noise levels to any significant degree; Kelly Ranch Core Area Draff EIR July 1998). b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (No significant impacts from Cannon Road or other sources win occur as a result of the proposed project; Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR July 1998, MEIR 93-01). XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (No fire hazard, nor significant additional need for fire protection will be required as a result of the proposed project. (MEIR 93-01). b) Police protection? (No additional police protection requirements will result from installation of the subject Visitor Center structure; MEIR 93-01). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No : Impact ' X X X X X X X X X 11 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) c) Schools? (The proposed project wiS not generate a demand tor schools; MEIR 93-01). d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (The project is located within an area designated by the General Plan, Zoning Map and Kelly Ranch Master Plan as future urbanizing area, and as a result no unanticipated substantive increase in road maintenance will be necessitated by the project; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR). e) Other governmental services? (The proposed project will not require significant additional governmental services; MEIR 93-01). XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (Development of the proposed project wfll not create any significant demand for new power or natural gas facilities or services. MEIR 93-01). b) Communications systems? (The proposed project will not create a significant new demand for major facilities or to require substantial alterations to existing facilities; MEIR 93-01). c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (The proposed project will not result in significant increase in sewage generation or water usage, and as a result, will not significantly affect local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR). d) Sewer or septic tanks? (The proposed project will not result in any significant demand for new, or unplanned sewer facilities.). e) Storm water drainage? (The proposed Visitor Center building will not result in a need for significant storm water drainage facilities. Runoff from the subject site will drain into the existing desiltation basin located at the westerly edge of the subject site; MEIR 93-01). f) Solid waste disposal? (The proposed project will not result in a significant increase in solid waste; MEIR 93-01). g) Local or regional water supplies? (The proposed project will not result in a significant increase in demand for local or regional water supply, and will increase the opportunity tor supply of reclaimed water for the City. MEIR 93-01). Potentially Significant Impact - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X 1 X X X X X X X X X 12 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (The proposed building wil be visible from Park Drive, however, due to its small size, should not constitute a significant visual impact; Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98). b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (The proposed project is single story in size and scale, is aesthetically and architecturally pleasing, and as a result wiO have no negative aesthetic effect). c) Create light or glare? (No light or glare wll result from the proposed project; MEIR 93-01). XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (There are no known paleontological resources within the subject area; EIR 83-04). b) Disturb archaeological resources? (The proposed project site is not within an area identified as posessing archaeological resources;E/R 83-04). c) Affect historical resources? (There are no known historical features within the alignment of the proposed project; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR). d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (The proposed project is located within an area which is not known to contain unique ethnic cultural resources; MEIR 93-01). e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (The proposed project is located within an alignment which does not restrict religious uses or impact sacred areas; MEIR 93- 01). XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (The proposed project will create no additional need for parks or other recreation facilities. MEIR 93-01). b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (The proposed project will not affect existing recreation opportunities; MEIR 93-01). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • j X 1J i X X X X X X X X X 13 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 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? (The proposed project does have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment as a result of its impacts to coastal sage scrub and disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat, and its potential impact on a single California gnatcatcher. It however, will not affect the habitat of fish populations, and as conditioned with mitigation, should not result in a significant impact on wildlife species.; Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98). b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The proposed project does not have the potential to result in cumulatively considerable incremental impacts to a significant degree. The project is temporary in nature, and will not cumulatively impact growth). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposed Visitor Center project will not cause substantial adverse impacts, either directly or indirectly on human beings, since it is to be utilized as an amenity for public use. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated X Less Than Significant Impact No Impact i X X 14 Rev. 03/28/96 XVII. 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. a) ANALYSIS Earlier analyses used in conjunction with this assessment are the: 1. City of Carlsbad General Plan, 1992, 2. Carlsbad Growth Management Program, 1987, 3. Carlsbad General Plan Master EIR (MEIR 93-01, 4. Kelly Ranch EIR (EIR 83-04), 5. Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR, dated 7/98, 6. Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance Title 21, 7. Pacific Soils Engineering Geotechnical Evaluation, dated July 23, 1998. b) DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact" yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout 15 Rev. 03/28/96 according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors. AIR QUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin," any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin," therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact." This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. 16 Rev. 03/28/96 To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through- traffic, however, project related impacts are considered to be below a level of significance with mitigation identified in the Zone 19 LFMP. The "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact." Development of the subject is consistent with the current General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94- 246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS: The proposed project involves the disturbance of 0.39 acres of coastal sage scrub and 0.67 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub. In addition, a California gnatcatcher has been sighted on the subject property, and disturbance of this treatened species may occur. Mitigation for these impacts will be necessary in order to result in a finding of no significant impact. VISUAL IMPACTS: The proposed building is not anticipated to result in a significant impact to visual resources. This is because the subject building is single story, low in scale, and the greatest potential for visual impact occurs along Park Drive, which is located over 2000 horizontal feet away. The building however, must be installed in an architecturally and aesthetically pleasing manner. 17 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Army Corps regarding any obligation to obtain State and/or Federal permits for the disturbance of jurisdictional vegetation and the California gnatcatcher. 2. Disturbance to .32 acres of coastal sage scrub and .67 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub shall be mitigated through the preservation of .64 acres of coastal sage scrub and .67 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub onsite. 3. "Take" of .99 acres of coastal sage scrub shall require issuance of a 4(d) Habitat Loss Permit. 4. All areas of habitat protection shall be staked and flagged to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. A note to this effect shall be placed on the grading plans. 5. All exterior lighting shall be located as low in height as is practical to provide sufficient night visibility yet protect offsite areas from light overspill. 18 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 19 PROJECT NAME: Agua Hedionda Visitor/Nature Center APPROVAL DATE: FILE NUMBERS: SDP 98-15/CDP 98-55/HDP 98-16/PCD 98-01 MITIGATED NEC. DEC.: 9-9-98 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game regarding any obligation to obtain State and/or Federal permits for the disturbance of jurisdictional vegetation and the California gnatcatcher. The property owner shall place 1.33 acres of coastal sage scrub and .72 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub onsite into a conservation easement as mitigation for the disturbance to .32 acres of coastal sage scrub and .67 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub. The easement shall be submitted for recordation prior to the issuance of a grading permit. "Take" of .99 acres of coastal sage scrub shall require issuance of a 4(d) Habitat Loss Permit. The Habitat Loss Permit shall be approved by City Council prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All areas of habitat protection shall be staked and flagged to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to commencing construction. A note to this effect shall be placed on the grading plans. All exterior lighting shall be located as low in height as is practical to provide sufficient night visibility yet protect offsite areas from light overspill to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Monitoring Type Project Project Project Project Project Monitoring Department USFWS CDFG Planning Department Planning Department Engineering Department Planning Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks mz 55 O m i 3 oo Xmo o at(Q (D Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure, information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P.