HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 03-15; Sprint Wireless Facility @ Carlsbad Inn; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (4)BECEIVED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FQRM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
OCT 06
CASE NO:
DATE: _
BACKGROUND
1. CASENAME: Carlsbad Inn
E3 Development Solutions
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: 10680 Treena St., #230, San Diego, CA 92131
3. nnNTArrrPT^soTsT AND PHQ>JE NUMBER: Catherine Strittmatter (858-547-0394) •
4. PROJECT LOCATION: 3001 Carlsbad Blvd., Carlsbad, CA 92008
Sprint PCS Assets, L.LC.
5. PROJECir SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: 2650 Camino Del Rio North #100, San Diego, Ca 92108
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential (R-1)
7 ZONING- Administrative Redevelopment
8. OTEIER PUBUC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval OT participation agreements):
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SEITING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Installation and operation of a wireless telecommunication network.
Sprint PCS' proposed unmanned wireless facilitv and the subiect prooertv are
both located in a Citv of Carisbad Redevelopment Zone. The prooertv is located
along Carisbad Blvd. in a largely commercial area. Zonina for adiacent
properties to the north, south, east and west is also Citv of Carlsbad Rerifivelon-
ment.
Rev. 07/26/02
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY APFECTED:
Tlxe summary of enviromnental fectors checM bdow would be potentiaUy affected by this pr^^^
iZ^^^ one impact that is a 'Totentially Significant Impac V or '«PotentiaUy Sigmficant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checldist on fhe followmg pages.
I I Aesthetics
ri Agricultural Resources
I I Air Quality
I I Biological Resources
I I Cultural Resources
• Geology/Soils • Noise
• Hazaids/HazardousMaterials • Population and Housing
• HydrologyAVater QuaUty D '^^'^^ Services
n Land Use and Planning |Z1 Recreation
I I Mineral Resources []] Transportation/Circulation
• Mandatory Findings of []]utililies & Service Systems
Significance
Rev. 07/26/02
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATB CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires tiat the Crty conduct an Environmental
Inpact Assessment to detennine if a project may have a sigmficant effect on the environnnent The Eavironmental
Inpact Assessment appears in lhe following pages in the fomi of a checklist This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human &ctQrs that might be impacted by the prqposed project and provkles the City with iaformation
to use as fhe basis for deciding whether to pr^are an Environmratal Inpact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief ejcplanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately sipported
by an iaformation source cited in tiie parentheses following each question. A '^o Inpact*' answer is
adequately sipported ifthe referenced information sources show that the inpact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A "No Inpact" answer should be raplained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific &ctors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Inpact" applies where there is supporting evidraice that the potential inpact is not
sigmficandy adverse, and the inpact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Sigmficant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where fhe incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Inpact" to a 'Xess Than Significant Inpact."
The developer must agree to fhe mitigatioii, and fhe City must describe fhe mitigation measures, and briefiy
explain how they reduce fhe effect to a less fhan significant level
• 'Totentially Significant Inpact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
• Based on an "EIA-Part T\ if a proposed project could have a potentially sigmficant adverse effect on fhe
environment but all 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 inposed upon die proposed project, and none of fhe circumstances requiring a
sipplentent to or supplemental EIR are present and all fhe mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental
document is required.
» When "Potentially Significant Inpact" is checked fhe project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if fhe significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and tbe effect will be mitigated, or a "Stetement of Ov^ding Considerations" has been made
pursuant to tiiat earlira- EIR.
» A Negative Declaration may be prepared if fhe City perceives no substantial evidence tiiat flie project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse efifect on the environment
» If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid picpariag an EIR if tiiere
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse inpacts to less fhan significant and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to pubEc review. In this case, fhe appropriate "Potentially
Significant Inpact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
Rev. 07/26/02
• An EIR must be prqjared if '"Potentially Significant Inpact" is checked, and including but not limited to
fhe following circumstances: (1) fhe potentially significant adverse effect has not beai discussed or
mitigated in an earlier EIR. pursuant to applicable standards, and fhe developer does not agree to mitigation
measures tiiat reduce fhe advwse inpact to less fhan significant; (2) a "Statement of Oveaxiding
Considerations" for fhe sigmficant advase inpact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
prqposed mitigation measures do not reduce tiie adverse inpact to less tiian significant^ or (4) througb tiie
EIA-Part I analysis it is not possible to detennine fhe level of signrficance for a potentially adverse effect
or detemiine tiie effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a
level of significance.
A discussion of potential inpacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at tbe end of fhe form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVRONMBNTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for inpacts, which would otherwise be determined sigmficant
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources).
(Sipplemental documents maybe referred to and attached.)
L AESTHETICS-Would tiie project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppuigs, and historic
buildings witiiin a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality ofthe site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nigjittime views
in the area?
E. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether inpacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to fhe
Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment ModeI-1997 prepared by tiie Califomia
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
fhe project
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Inportance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to fhe
Farmland Mappmg and Monitoring Program of tiie
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
m. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, tiie significance
criteria established by fhe applicable air quahty
management or air pollution control district may be reUed
upon to make the following determinations.) Would fhe
project:
a) Conflict with or obstmct inplemeutation of tiie
appUcable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quaUty standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Potentially
Signiticant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Signiticant
Inpact
No
Inpact
• • • X
• • • X
• • •
• • • •
• • • H
• H
• H
• X
• H
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Sipporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)
c) Result iu a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment und^ an appUcable federal or state
ambi^ air quality standard (iucluding releasing
emissions 'vMdt exceed quantitative tiiresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Ejcpose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would tiie project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either direcfly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
sjiecies in local or regional plans, pohcies, or
regulations, or by CsMonm Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and WildUfe Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
poUcies, or regulations or by Cahfomia Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and WildUfe Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of thc
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, ete.) tiurough durect removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or ofher means?
d) Interfere substantially witii the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or inpede the use of native
wiLdlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local poUcies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation poUcy or ordinance?
f) Confiict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
g) Inpact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
PotentiaUy
Significant
Inpact
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incoiporated
Less Than
Significant No
Inpact Inpact
• • • H
• • • H
• •
• •
•
•
• •
• • • .
• • • H
• • • H
• X
• X
•
•
• X
Rsv. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would tiie project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined hi
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directiy or indirectiy destroy a unique paieontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Distmrb any human rcmains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VL GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would tiie project
a) Expose people or stnictures to potential substantial
adverse effects, inchiding the risk of loss, injury or
deatii 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 ofher
substantial evidence of a known &ult? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
PubUcation 42.
u. Strong seismic ground sMking?
in. Seismic-related ground failurc, including
Uquefaction?
iv. LandsUdes?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or fhe loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil timt is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of fhe
project, and potentiaUy result in on- or off-site
landsUde, lateral spreading, subsidence, Uquefaction,
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined m Table 18
- 1-B of tiie Uniform Buildmg Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Potentially
Significant
Inpact
Potentially
Significant
Unless X^ss Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incotporated Inpact Inpact
• • • X
• • • E
• • • X
• • • 0
• • • X
• • • 0
• • • B
• • • 0
• • • 0
• • • X
• • • X
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources).
(Supplemental documents maybe referred to and attached.)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately sipporting fhe
use of septic tanks or altsamative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for fhe
disposal of wastewater?
VH. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS-
Would the project
a) Create a significant ha2ard to tiie pubUc or the
environment tlnrough tiie routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the pubUc or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions, or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a hst of
hazardous materials sites conpiled pursuant to
Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the pubhc or
enviroxnoBnt?
e) For a project witiun an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a pubhc aiiport or pubUc use airport, would
fhe project result in a safety hazard for people
resiihng or working in the project area?
f) For a project witiiin tiie vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safely hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Inpah inplementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or stiructures to a sigmficant risk of
loss, injury or death mvolving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residmces are intemnxed with
wildlands?
VHL HyDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would tiie
project
a) Violate any water quaUty standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
IfolesG
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact In^ct
• • • E
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
X
• • • S
• • • H
• • • 0
•
•
•
0
X
• • •
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be'refenred to and attached.)
b) Subsiantiaiiy deplete groundwater suppUes or
interfere siistantiaUy with ground water recharge
such tiiat there woidd be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existmg nearby
wells would drop to a level whidi would not sipport
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Inpacts to groundwater quaUty?
d) SubstantiaUy alter the existing drainage pattem of tiie
site or area, including through fhe alteration of fhe
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of tiie
site or area, including tiurough the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substentially increase
tiie flow rate or amount (volume) of surfece runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed thc capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
g) Otiierwise substantiaUy degrade water quality?
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundaiy or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or ofher fiood delineation
map?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would inpede or redirect flood flows?
j) Expose people or structures to a sigmficant risk of
loss injury or deatii involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of fhe failure ofa levee or dam?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Inpact
• • • 0
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • E
• • • S
• • • H
k) Inmidation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? • • •
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surfece • • • H waters. • • • H
m) Increased poUutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, • • • X
pathog^, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, • • •
nutrients, oxygai-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or ofher alteration of
receiving surfece water quaUty (e.g., tenperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be refeired to and attached.)
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, firesh or
wefiand watexs) during or foUowing constmction?
o) Increase in any poUutant to an ahready inpaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) Hst?
p) The exceedance of appUcable surfece or groundwater
receivmg water quaUty objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
JX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING-Would tiie project
a) PhysicaUy divide an estabUshed community?
b) Conflict with any ^Ucable land use plan, poUcy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over fhe
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
spedfic plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for fhe purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an aivironmental effect?
c) Conflict with any appUcable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would tiie project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of ftiture value to the region
and fhe residents ofthe State?
b) Result in fhe loss of availability of a locally
inportant mineral resource recovery site dehneated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or ofher land
use plan?
XL NOISE - Would tiie project result in;
a) Exposinre of p^ons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in tiie local general
plan or noise ordinance or apphcable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundboume vibration or groundboume noise
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without fhe project?
d) A substantial tenporary or periodic increase in
anibient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing witiiout fhe project?
Potentially
Significant
Inpact
•
•
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incoiporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
• • • 0
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • S
•1 1 I ! I i
• • 0
• • • 0
• • O 0 0
• O O 0
• S
LX]
0
10 Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Sipplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)
e) For a project located within an aiiport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a pubUc airport or pubUc use auport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to raccessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project ejpose people residing or woiking
in tiie project area to excessive noise levels?
xn. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would tiie project
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directiy
(for exanple, by proposing new homes and
busmesses) or indirectiy (for example, tinough
extmsion of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numba"s of existing housing,
necessiteting fhe construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of pecple, necessitating
fhe constmction of replacement housing elsewhere?
xm. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
ph^^ical inpacts associated with the provision of
MW or physicaUy altered govenunent facilities, a
need for new or physically altered govemment
fecihties, fhe constniction of which could cause
significant environmental inpacts, in order to
Tnn intain acceptable servicc ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) PoUce protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Ofher pubhc fecihties?
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project mcrease fhe use of existing
neigihboriiood and regional parks or ofher
recreational fecihties such tiiat substantial physical
deterioration of the feciUty would occur or be
accelerated?
•
Potentially
Significant
Inpact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
hipact
0 O O X
0
0
o
0
•
o
o
O 0
0 o
0
o
X
X
0
X
o 0 • •
o • o •
0 0 0 0
o 0 0 X
0 0 • X
0 • 0
11 Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be refenred to and attached.)
b) Does fhe project inchide recreational faciUties or
requhe tiie constnction or expansion of recreational
faciUties, which mig^it have an adverse physical
effect on fhe environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAEEIC - Would tiie project
a) Cause an increase in tiraffic, which is substantial in
relation to tiie existing tiraffic load and capacity ofthe
stireet systmi (i.e., result m a substantial increase m
eitiier tiie number of vehicle tirips, tiic volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individuaUy or cumulatively, a level
of service standard estabUshed by tiie county
• congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways? .
c) Result m a change in air traffic patterns, mcludmg
eitiier an mcrease m traffic levels or a change m
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) SubstantiaUy increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result m insufficient parking capacity?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Ifeless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Sigmficant No
Inpact Inpact
g) Conflict Witii adopted poUcies, plans, or programs
supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus tiim-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would tiie
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
appUcable Regional Water QuaUty Confrol Board?
b) Require or result m tiie constiruction of new water or
wastewater freatinent feciUties or expansion of
existing fecilities, tiie consfruction of which would
cause sigmficant environmental effects?
c) Require or result m tiie consfruction of new stonn
water drainage feciUties or expansion of existmg
feciUties, file constiruction of which could cause
significant envnronmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve tiie
project firom existing entitiements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitiements needed?
o 0 o X
0 o o 0
o o • X
0 0 • 0
0 o o X
o o o X
o o • X
0 o X
o o • 0
0 • • X
0 o o X
0 • o X
12 Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Sipplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)
e) Result in a determination by fhe wastewater
freatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it bas adequate capacity to serve fhe
projecfs projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfiU with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Conply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to soUd waste?
XVn. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does fhe project have the potential to degrade the
quaUty of the envfronment, substantiaUy reduce the
habitat of a fiish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaimng
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or resfrict fhe range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
inportant exanples of the major periods of
Califomia history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have inpacts that are individuaUy
• limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula-
tively considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection witii the effecte of past projects, the
effects of ofher cunrent projects, and the effects of
probable future projects?)
c) Does fhe project have envfronmental effects, which
wiU cause fhe substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either dfrectiy or mdfrectiy?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Inpact
0 0 O 0
O
0
o
0
O 0
0 0
0 0 O 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
XVni. EARLIER ANALYSES
. EarUer 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 earher EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the foUowing on attached sheets:
a) EarUer analyses used. Identify earUer analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Inpacts adequately addressed. Identify which efifects firom the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earUer document pursuant to appUcable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on fhe earUer
analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Sigmf«;ant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined firom the earUer document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
13 Rev, 07/26/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION •
AIR QUALITY—Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable afr quality plan?
No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Afr Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area
for ozone (O3), and a state non-attainment area fbr particulate matter less fhan or equal to 10 micarons in diameter
(PMio). The periodic violations of national Ambient Afr Quality Standards (AAQS) in fhe San Diego Afr Basin
(SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foolhiU areas, requfres that a plan be developed outlining fhe poUution
confrols that wiU be undertakcEn to inprove afr quahty. In San Diego County, tins attainment planning process is
embodied in. the Regional Afr QuaUty Strategies (RAQS) developed jointiy by fhe Afr PoUution Confrol District
(APCD) and the San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in. 1994 during the process of updating fhe 1991 stale-
mandated plan. Tbis bcal plan was combined with plans &om all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the CaUfornia State Inplementation Plan (SIP). The Sff was adopted by
fhe Air Resources Board (ARB) after pubUc hearings on November 9fli tiirough 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
tiie Envfronmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with fhe worst smog problen^, EPA approved the SIP in imd-1996.
The prqposed pioject relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through fhe land use and growth assunptions that are
incorporated into fee afr quaUty planning document These growth assunptions are based on each city's and the
County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its appUcable General Plan, then fhe project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional afr quaUty planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
fhe jHroject would not have an adverse regional afr quality impact
Section 15125(B) of the State of Califomia Envfronment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to fhe need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the appUcable afr quaUty
management plan. Transportation Confrol Measures (TCMs) are part of fhe RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth fhe steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal anibient afr quahty standaida. The Cahfomia
Afr Resources Board provides criteria for deterrorning whether a project conforms with fhe RAQS which include the
foUowing;
• Is a regional afr quah^ plan being inplemented in fhe project area?
• Is the project consistent witii the growth assumptions in the regional afr quahty plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Afr Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being
inplemented. The project is consistent with the growth assunptions of fhe City's General Plan and the RAQS.
Therefore, lhe project is consistent with tiie regional afr quaUty plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct
inplementation of the regional plan.
b) Violate any au' quahty standard or confr-ibute substantiaUy to an existing or projected afr qualify
violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest afr quaUty 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 afr quality
violations recorded were for fhe state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in
2001 for fhe federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates
in 1996. No violations of any ofher afr quaUty standards have beai recorded recentiy. if there is grading associated
with fhe project, fhe project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction.
Such emissions would be xmnimized through standard constraction measures such as fhe use of properly tuned
equpment and watering the site for dust confrol. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project
will be minimal. Although afr poUutant emissions would be associated with fhe project, fhey would neither result in
the violation of any afr quaUty standard (conprising only an uicremenfel contribution to overaU afr basin quaUty
readings), nor contribute substantiaUy to an existing or projected afr quaUty violation. Any inpact is assessed as
less than significant
c) Result ia a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria poUutant for which the project
region is non-attafriment under an applicable federal or state anibient afr quahty standard?
14 -Rw 07/7.6/02
liCss Than Significant Impact. The Afr Basin is currentiy in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fiuie
particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution fo a cumulatively considerable potential net
increase m emissions throughout fhe afr basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with, the
proposed project would be miuiTrial. Given the limited emissions potentiaUy associated with the proposed project
afr quahty would be essentiaUy the same whelher or not the proposed project is iixplemmted. According to tiie
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), fhe proposed project's contribution to fhe cumulative inpact is considered
de minimus. Any inpact is assessed as less tiian significant
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in fhe CSty of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Cify of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
Qty of Carlsbad Planning Department March 1994.
15 Rev. 07/26/02
TI^T QF MITIGATINGMEA.'?nPF.R fIF APPUCABLE)
ATTACH MnTGATTnN MONTrm^TKra PROGR AM OF APPLICABLE)
1 Rev. on Iiem