Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 06-01; Laguna Condominiums; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO:. DATE: BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: (A^b/OA CO^PnfA |Ml0M^ 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: (Z^TT^ CA\lL^^^s^T? 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: 4. PROJECT LOCATION: 13^ LA/<^I^ Pf^/ ^^^^^ <^ 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 7. ZONING: 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, fmancing approval or participation agreements): ^^A^I^^epQ '^Dn J^lDf^Mi^ ^/^.^^Y 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: m-x\-n.HiLy f^€5rPQOt/AL ffi^)g(j^k Rev. 07/26/02 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 1 1 Aesthetics 1 1 Geology/Soils 1 1 Noise 1 1 Agricultural Resources 1 1 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 1 1 Population and Housing 1 1 Air Quality 1 1 Hydrology/Water QuaHty 1 1 Public Services 1 1 Biological Resources 1 1 Land Use and Planning 1 1 Recreation 1 1 Cultural Resources 1 1 Mineral Resources 1 1 Transportation/Circulation 1 1 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 1 Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 07/26/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No hnpact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced infomiation 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 significantiy 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 Sigmficant 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 I", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but aU 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 enviroimiental document is required. • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. • If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. Rev. 07/26/02 • 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 EIA-Part I 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. 07/26/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroimdings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In detennimng whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the CaUfomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the Califomia Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: 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 Califomia 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? 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 obstmct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • m nam • • 0 Rev. 07/26/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directiy 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 Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife 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, policies, or regulations or by Califomia 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, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological intermption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildhfe corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 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? g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • ^ • • • • • • • • • • 0 • ^ • • • ^ • • • ® • • • "0 • • • M • ^ • • • p Rev. 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 in §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) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would tiie project: a) Expose people or stmctures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or ofF-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of tiie Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • ^ • • • 0 • • • ^ • • • K • • • M • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • sl Rev. 07/26/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or altemative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the enviroimient? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste witiiin one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) 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? f) 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or stmctures 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 tiie project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact • • ^ • • • • • • m • • ^ • • JS • • • ^ • K • 0 • m • • • ^ Rev. 07/26/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which pemiits have been granted)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem 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? 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 mnoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? f) Create or contribute mnoff 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? h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area stmctures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) Expose people or stmctures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 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)? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • S • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • S • • • 0 • • • • ^ • m • m • m • ^ • • 0 Rev. 07/26/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fi-esh or wetland waters) during or following constmction? o) Increase in any pollutant to an aheady impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would tiie project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would tiie project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 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 tiie project resuh in: 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundboume vibration or groimdboume noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact • • • • • • • • • • • • , • • • )< • • • X • • • % • • • . • • • • • • % • • • • • Kl • f p(x^(M A/tr ^<^/)iF/c/m' //i/M' TV nh^A^ I 10 Rev. 07/26/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental 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 pubhc akport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? xn. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would tiie project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectiy (for example, through extension of roads or other infi-astracture)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the constmction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the constmction of replacement housing elsewhere? xra. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemment facihties, a need for new or physically altered govemment facilities, the constmction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of thc public services: i) Fire protection? 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • K • • • ® • • • • • • 1^ • • • ^ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11 Rev. 07/26/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the constmction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would tiie project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially 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 in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would tiie project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the constmction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constmction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the constmction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constmction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project fi-om existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • !S • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a • K • • E3 • • • X • • • X • • • K • n • « • • • 0 • • ^ 12 Rev. 07/26/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient pemiitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVH. 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 p>opulation 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 exan^les 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 directiy or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact • • ^ • • • ^ • ^ • • 1^ • • Xl n B a pi XVra. 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 iinalyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fi-om 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 dociunent and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. n Rev. 07/26/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AIR QUALITY—Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (O3), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMio). 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 outiining the pollution controls that will be undertiiken 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 Govemments (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other Califomia non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the Califomia 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 Enviromnental 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 tiie County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its apphcable 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. Section 15125(B) of the State of Califomia 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 Califomia Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: • Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? • Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City's General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstmct implementation of the regional plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. If there is grading associated with the project, the project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and constmction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard constmction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. 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? 14 Rev. 07/26/02 Less Than Significant 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. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative unpact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 15 Rev. 07/26/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE^ ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM riF APPLICABLE^ 16 Rev. 07/26/02 Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STATEMENT Consultation Of Lists of Sites Related To Hazardous Wastes (Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 65962.5) Pursuant to State of California Government Code Section 65962.5, I have consulted the Hazardous Wastes and Substances Sites List compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency and hereby certify that (check one): 21 The development project and any alternatives proposed In this application are not contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the State Government Code. • The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application arg contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the State Government Code. Name: APPLICANT Address: 6*75 oJ. C,\clc n5<> UiUA^ Dy7. PROPERTY OWNER Name: ^6<^v Z^^^f^f Address: ^5 C LAJ^^^ ^ CAi^lsLot4, Cfr< ^Z^# Phone Number: Address of Site: Phone Number M Local Agency (City and County):_ Assessor's book, page, and parcel number: 2i)^^ ^ i^ " 4^ ^ 2^3~f fO Specify list(s):. Regulatory Identification Number: Date of List: Applicant Signature/Date Admin/Counter/HazWaste y Owner Sig^^re/Date Property Owr 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ^ The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese List) is a planning document used by the State, local agencies and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List Below is a list of agencies that maintain information regarding Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites. Department of Toxic Substances Control www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/calsites Calsites Hotline (916) 323-3400 State Water Resources Controi Board wvyw.swrcb.ca.gov/cwphome/Iusl1s County of San Diego Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Mike Dorsey Chief, Hazardous Materials Division Department of Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Division Mailing address: P.O. Box 129261 San Diego, CA 92112-9261 (619) 338-2395 Call Duty Specialist for General Questions at (619) 338-2231 fax: (619) 338-2315 www. CO. sa n-d iego. ca. us Integrated Waste Management Board www.ciwmb.ca.gov 916-255-4021 Environmental Protection Agency National Priorifies Sites ("Superfund" or "CERCLIS") www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites (800) 424-9346 National Priorities List Sites in the United States www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/npl.htm 5/19/03