Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-08; City Council; Resolution 2006-2241 RESOLUTION NO. 2006-224 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE 3 DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM FOR A CITY-SPONSORED BALLOT MEASURE ENTITLED "PRESERVE THE FLOWER AND 4 STRAWBERRY FIELDS AND SAVE CARLSBAD TAXPAYERS MONEY" TO BE PLACED ON THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL 5 ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 7, 2006. CASE NAME: "PRESERVE THE FLOWER AND 6 STRAWBERRY FIELDS AND SAVE CARLSBAD TAXPAYERS' MONEY" 7 BALLOT MEASURE CASE NO.: El A 06-018 9 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on IQ the 8th day of August 2006, held a hearing to consider said Negative Declaration and ballot measure, and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests, comments, oral and written, from all persons interested in, supportive or opposed to 12 EIA 06-01; 13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of 14 Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the Negative Declaration (Exhibit "ND") and Addendum (Exhibit "A") attached 17 hereto and made a part hereof is adopted, based upon information presented at the hearing and 18 contained in the notice of intent to adopt the Negative Declaration (Exhibit "NOI") dated May 23, 2006 and EIA Part II (Exhibit "Pll") dated May 10, 2006, attached hereto and incorporated 20 herein by reference and based on the following findings: 21 A. The City Council has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative 22 Declaration and Addendum for the City's sponsored ballot measure as contained in EIA 06-01, 23 the environmental impacts therein identified for the measure and any comments thereon prior to approval of the measure; and 25 B. The Negative Declaration and Addendum have been prepared in accordance 7fi with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the 27 Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 28 1 C. It reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad; 2 and 3 D. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial 4 evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 5 // 6 // 7 // 8 // 9 // 10 // 11 // 12 // 13 // 14 // 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 28 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 8th day of August, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: §r~CbRRAfN£Jvl. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) EXHIBIT "ND" City of Carlsbad CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Planning Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION "Preserve the Flower and Strawberry Fields and Save Carlsbad Taxpayers' Money" Measure EIA 06-01 East of 1-5 Freeway along the north and south sides of Cannon Road west of Faraday Avenue and north of Palomar Airport Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a City-sponsored ballot measure to ensure that the Flower Fields and Strawberry Fields area in the City of Carlsbad located along the Cannon Road corridor east of the 1-5 Freeway is preserved in open space, that farming is allowed to continue as a viable open space use and that public access to the area is enhanced. The proposed measure amends the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to designate the area for special planning consideration and to establish the mechanisms necessary to implement the purposes of the measure. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proj ect pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: $Z\ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. I I The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). I I Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: August 8..20Qfespursuant to CrtvTbuncil Resolution No. 2006-224 ATTEST: MARCELA ESCOBAR-ECK Planning director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us EXHIBIT "A1 ADDENDUM TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CITY-SPONSORED BALLOT MEASURE EIA 06-01 The purpose of this Addendum to the Negative Declaration is to acknowledge revisions to the City- sponsored ballot measure relating to the Flower Fields and Strawberry Fields Area and to state the determination that these revisions do not create any new significant environmental effects, that none of the conditions contained in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have occurred and that a subsequent Negative Declaration is not required. Subsequent to the issuance of the Notice of Intent for the Negative Declaration for this project, the City Council reviewed the report from the Citizens Committee studying the area affected by the proposed City ballot measure and the Council decided to accept the Committee's recommendations to make certain revisions to the proposed measure. The revisions include removing from the measure the 48 acre parcel located in the area that is presently designated Travel/Recreation (TR) Commercial and leaving it as presently designated, allowing active as well as passive recreation uses in the area and initiating a public, planning effort for the area if the measure is approved. None of these revisions are considered substantial or significant as they relate to the environmental effects associated with the project or the conditions contained in Section 15162 of CEQA. When City staff conducted the environmental impact assessment for the Negative Declaration, the only area of potential environmental impact identified by staff concerned the re-designation of the 48 acre parcel located in the area affected by the measure from Travel/Recreation (TR) commercial to Open Space (OS). TR uses are a high priority in the coastal zone because they enhance public use and access to and within the City's coastal area. Staff determined that this impact was not significant because an additional 191 acres of TR use was added in the coastal zone in 1996 with the approval of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The 48 acre TR parcel has now been removed from the City-sponsored ballot measure and the designation of TR will be retained. Therefore, the environmental impact associated with the re-designation of this parcel and the resultant affect on public access and use in the coastal zone has been eliminated. Active as well as passive recreational uses are presently allowed in the area. The revision to the City ballot measure to allow active recreation to continue to be an allowed use, reinforces the existing conditions relating to the area and, therefore, no environmental impact to existing conditions occurs as a result of the revisions. The revision to initiate a public, planning effort or process, in and of itself, would not create any new environmental impacts not previously discussed in the Negative Declaration. Date: July 25, 2006 Ma(rcela Escobar-Eck Panning Director EXHIBIT "NOT City of Carlsbad CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Planning Department NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION The Flower Fields. Strawberry Fields, Open Space and Public Trails Protection Act of 2006 EIA 06-01 East of the Interstate 5 Freeway along the north and south sides of Cannon Road west of Faraday Avenue and north of Palomar Airport Rd PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a City-sponsored ballot measure to ensure that the Flower Fields and Strawberry Fields area in the City of Carlsbad located along the Cannon Road corridor east of the Interstate 5 Freeway is preserved in open space, that farming is allowed to continue as a viable open space use and that public access to the area is enhanced. The proposed measure amends the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the City's Local Coastal Program to designate the area for special planning consideration and to establish the regulatory mechanisms necessary to implement the purposes of the measure. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and adoption by the City Council. An additional public notice will be issued when the public hearing is scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Gary Barberio in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4606. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD May 23,2006 through June 24.2006 PUBLISH DATE May 23. 2006 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us EXHIBIT "PN" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY (TO BE-COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: EIA 06-01 DATE: May 10. 2006 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: The Flower Fields, Strawberry Fields. Open Space and Public Trails Protection Act of 2006 / 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Gary Barberio (760) 602-4606 4. PROJECT LOCATION: East of the Interstate 5 Freeway along the north and south sides of Cannon Road west of Faraday Avenue and north of Palomar Airport Road 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad. Ca.. 92008 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open SpaceCOS^ and Travel/Recreation CommercialCT-RI 7. ZONING: OSCQpen Space) and P-U(Public Utility') 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The project consists of a city-sponsored ballot measure to be placed on the November. 2006 ballot entitled "The Flower Fields. Strawberry Fields. Open Space and Public Trails Protection Act of 2006". The purpose of the measure is to ensure that the Flower Fields and Strawberry Fields area in the City of Carlsbad Located along the Cannon Road corridor east of the Interstate 5•*. freeway is preserved in open space and that farming is allowed to continue as long as it is viable. The purpose is also to allow public access to occur in the area in a manner that will not adversely impact farming and the other open space and the environmental resources located in the area. The proposed measure amends the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the City's Local Coastal Program to designate the area for special planning consideration and to establish the regulatory mechanisms to ensure that the area is retained in open space, that farming is allowed to continue 1 Rev. 02/22/06 and that public access is provided to the area. The area affected by this measure is shown on Exhibit A attached. It contains approximately 355 acres of land located in the central portion of the City along Cannon Road east of the Interstate 5 freeway. The area presently consists primarily of open space and existing farming operations and contains the existing Flower Fields located south of Cannon Road and north of Palomar Airport Road and the area generally known as the Strawberry Fields located on the north side of Cannon Road adjacent to Interstate 5 and the south * shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The most easterly end of the area on the north side of Cannon Road contains natural vegetation that is identified in the City's Habitat Management Plan as part of a proposed habitat preserve system. For purposes of the measure the area has been divided into five sub-areas also as shown on Exhibit A. Sub-area A is located at the northeast corner of Cannon Road and the Interstate 5 freeway and is presently farmed. Sub-area B is the remainder of the area located on the north side of Cannon Road adjacent to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. This sub- area contains existing farming operations, powerline easements and some environmentally- sensitive habitat restricted by an open space easement. Sub-area C is the existing Flower Fields that are presently protected as open space as part of the previous approval of the Carlsbad Ranch/Legoland project. Sub-areas D and E are existing open space lots located on the south side of Cannon Road that were originally planned to be part of a larger golf course as part of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan but was never developed as such. Surrounding developments in the area include offices, hotels, retail businesses, the Legoland Theme Park and automobile dealerships. A copy of the proposed ballot measure is attached as Exhibit B. Rev. 02/22/06 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality X. Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Circulation Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 02/22/06 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because sthe mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. t I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. e Pinner Signature Date /1-S577 Planning Director's Signature •5-/18/OG Date' Rev. 02/22/06 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS "'" ' ,11! .,. I |^ _ STATE CEQA GUIDELINES,-Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • ' "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. • Based on an "EIA-Initial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the 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 imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project,- then no additional environmental document is required. • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. •*. • If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. Rev. 02/22/06 • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is^hecked, 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-Initial Study 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 after each related set of questions. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 02/22/06 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact or Dc) Substantially degrade the existing visual character quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a-d) No impact. The proposed ballot measure consists of amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program the purpose of which is to ensure that the affected area is retained in open space, that farming is allowed to continue and that public access to the area is enhanced. The amendments will only allow open space uses in the area. No development projects are approved by this action. As such, the proposed action will not result in any adverse impacts to the aesthetics of the area. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? a-c) No impacts. One of the primary purposes of the proposed ballot measure is to ensure that agricultural uses are allowed to continue in the area as long as those uses are economically viable. Therefore, the proposed project will not have any adverse effects on farming and agricultural operations and, in fact, will benefit existing agricultural uses in the area. Rev. 02/22/06 III. AIR QUALITY -'(Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D Rev. 02/22/06 a-e) No impact. The proposed project does not approve any development project that would affect air quality. The purpose of the proposed ballot measure is to allow only open space uses in the affected area. The project site is located in the San-Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone (O3) and for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10* in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: • Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? • Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp Pendleton. Data available for this monitoring site from 2000 through December 2004, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 10 days during the 5-year period). No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. Open Space uses allowed by the proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. 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 impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. ' As noted above, the proposed action would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No significant, adverse impacts to air quality are associated with this proposed action. Rev. 02/22/06 i. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fjsh 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 California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 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? a-f) No impact. The proposed ballot measure requires that any open space use allowed by the proposed amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program must comply with the City's Habitat Management Plan. The most easterly end of the affected area on the north side of Canfton Road contains environmentally-sensitive, natural vegetation that is identified in the City's Habitat Management Plan as part of a proposed habitat preserve system. Most of this habitat area is also included in an open easement that was dedicated to the California Coastal Commission as a condition of a previously-approved action on the property. The proposed measure acknowledges this and requires all other open space uses to be conducted in a manner that does not adversely affect these biological resources or any other environmental resources located in the area. No development projects are approved by the proposed ballot measure that would impact any biological resources. As such, the proposed action will not have any adverse effects on biological resources. 10 Rev. 02/22/06 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the. signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a-e) No impact. The proposed ballot measure consists of amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Plan the primary purpose of which is to ensure that the affected area is retained in open space and that existing farming operations are allowed to continue. No development projects are approved by this action. The amendments will only allow open space uses in the area. As such, the proposed project will not result in any adverse impacts to cultural resources. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D 11 Rev. 02/22/06 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 the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? a-e) No impact. The proposed ballot measure consists of amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program the primary purpose of which is to ensure that the affected area is retained in open space and that existing farming operations are allowed to continue. No development projects are approved by this action. The amendments will only allow open space uses in the area. As such, the proposed action will not result in any adverse impacts to geological resources. 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 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 list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 12 Rev. 02/22/06 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a-h) No impact. The purpose of the proposed action is to retain the area exclusively for open space uses. Although the proposed measure would promote the continuation of farming and agricultural operations in the area, "these operations are presently regulated by the appropriate governmental agencies regarding the use or transport of hazardous material such as pesticides and other chemicals used for farming operations. The action does not, of and by itself, result in increased agricultural use in the area. The intent is to allow existing farming to continue in the area. No development projects are approved by this action. A portion of the area is located in the Airport Influence Area as shown in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan-Palomar Airport. However, it is located outside of the flight activity zone and any noise contours. The proposed ballot measure prohibits the development of any residential or office uses in the affected area, so the action does not result in any airport safety uses and the adopted CLUP does not present any regulatory issues associated with the proposed action. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 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 permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n n n 13 Rev. 02/22/06 3ft f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) 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? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? a-j) No impact. The proposed ballot measure consists of amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program the primary purpose of which is to ensure that the area is retained for open space uses. No development projects are approved by the action and the proposed measure prohibits residential development in the area so it will not result in exposing people or structures to flooding. The measure promotes the continuation of existing farming operations in the area so it does not result in increasing runoff in the area. As a result, the proposed action will not result in any significant, adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality. IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 14 Rev. 02/22/06 a and c) No impact. The proposed action will not physically divide an established community within the city. The purpose of the proposed ballot measure is to retain the area for open space uses including existing farming and agricultural operations. No development projects are approved by this action. The proposed measure also requires that all permitted uses be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan. Therefore, the measure will-not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. b) Less than significant impact. The area affected by this ballot measure is currently regulated by existing land use documents including the City of Carlsbad General Plan, the City Zoning Ordinance, the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (Sub-areas A and B), the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan (Sub-areas A and B), the Mello II Local Coastal Plan (Sub-areas C, D and E), the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan (Sub-area A), the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (Sub-areas C, D and E) and the City's Growth Management Plan. Sub-area A is located at the northeast corner of Cannon Road and the Interstate 5 freeway. It is presently designated in the General Plan for T-R (Travel/Recreation Commercial) uses. It is designated for TS (Travel Services Commercial) in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan which is the segment of the City's Local Coastal Program in which it is located. The sub-area is presently zoned P-U (Public Utility). The ballot measure proposes to change the General Plan designation, the Local Coastal Plan designation and the Zoning to Open Space (OS). The sub-area is approximately 48 acres in size. The General Plan and Local Coastal Plan designation for the sub- area would allow approximately 48 acres of commercial use consisting of uses that serve the travel and recreational needs of visitors, tourists, residents and employees of business and industrial areas. Examples of these uses include hotels, motels, restaurants, recreation facilities, travel support services, and specialty retail uses catering to tourists. These types of uses are considered to be high priority uses in the coastal zone by the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan. The uses help to enhance public access and use to and within the coastal zone. The loss of 48 acres of this type of commercial use within the coastal zone could be considered a significant, adverse impact to the environment in the area of Land Use and Planning if it were not for certain mitigating factors. The first mitigating factor relates to the previous approval of the Carlsbad Ranch/Legoland project (Specific Plan 207). This project was approved in 1996 and added 191.6 acres of T-R and TS uses to the city inventory of that particular use in the coastal zone. The project contains the Legoland Theme Park (visitor- serving), two hotels and several restaurants. The Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan was approved in 1982 and so, even with a reduction of 48 acres of T-R and TS as a result of the proposed ballot measure, the inventory of this use in the coastal zone and in close proximity to Sub-area A has increased significantly (increase of over 143 acres) from when the Agua Hedionda Coastal Land Use Plan was approved. In addition, the ballot measure proposes to spend $1 million to construct a public access trail through the affected area which will greatly enhance public access in the coastal zone and to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Based on these-mitigating factors, it has been determined that the impacts relating to changing Sub-area A to Open Space is considered less than significant. Sub-area B is the remainder of the area located on the north side of Cannon Road adjacent to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. This sub-area is presently designated for Open Space in both the General Plan and the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan, however except for a small portion, it is presently zoned P-U (Public Utility). The proposed action would change the P-U zone to Open Space (OS) so that the entire sub-area would be zoned consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan. Therefore, regarding this sub-area, the proposed ballot measure would not have any significant, adverse impacts in the area of Land Use and Planning. Sub-area C is the existing Flower Fields located south of Cannon Road and north of Palomar Airport Road. The Flower Fields are presently designated as Open Space in the General Plan, the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program, the Zoning Ordinance and the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The ballot measure proposes to protect the existing Flower Fields and does not propose any changes to the General Plan, Coastal Plan, Zoning Map, or Specific Plan for this sub-area. Therefore, the proposed action has no significant, adverse impacts relating to this sub-area. Sub-areas D and E are located along the southern frontage of Cannon Road. The General Plan, Coastal Plan, Zoning and Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan all designate these sub-areas for Open Space. The ballot measure does not propose any change to this designation. The measure does propose to change some of the specific open space uses permitted by the Specific Plan as the sub-areas were originally planned to be used as part of a larger golf course which was never constructed and is not being considered any longer. Therefore, the proposed action does not cause any significant, adverse impacts relating to these two sub-areas. Overall, it has been determined that the proposed action has less than significant impacts to the environment with respect to Land Use and Planning when taking into consideration the previously-approved net increase in T-R/T-S acreage in the area in close proximity to the proposed action and the proposal to construct public trails in conjunction with the proposed ballot measure. 15 Rev. 02/22/06 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 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? a-b) No impact. The proposed ballot measure consists of amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program the primary purpose of which is to ensure that the affected area is retained in open space and that existing farming operations are allowed to continue. No development projects are approved by this action. The amendments will only allow open space uses in the area. As such, the proposed project will not result in any adverse impacts to mineral resources. XI. NOISE - Would the project result 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 groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 16 Rev. 02/22/06 a-f) No impact. The proposed .ballot measure does not approve any physical development project that would generate any noise or increase ambient noise levels. The purpose of the proposed action is to retain the affected area for open space uses and to allow existing farming operations to continue. Although a portion of the area affected by the proposed ballot measure is located in the Airport Influence Area as shown in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan-Palomar Airport, the entire area is located outside the CNEL 60 noise contour. Therefore, it has been determined that no significant impacts related to noise will result from the proposed action. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a-c) No impact. The proposed action does not involve or approve any development project. Residential development is not presently an allowed use in the area affected by the proposed action and the ballot measure does not propose to allow residential as a permitted use in the area: Only open space uses would be allowed by the proposed measure. Therefore, no impacts would result from the proposed action relating to population and housing. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? 17 Rev. 02/22/06 a) No impact. The purpose of the proposed action is to ensure that the area affected by the action is retained for open space uses. No development proposals are approved by the action. Although certain public facilities such as parks, recreation facilities, and city buildings are allowed in the Open Space designation by Conditional Use Permit, no physical development of these public facilities are specifically approved as part of the proposed ballot measure. Any proposal to develop public facilities in the area would have to go through it own, separate permitting process. The measure does allow consideration of a civic center in the area (except on the existing Flower Fields) but only if it is approved by a majority of city voters at an election specifically for such purpose. As such, the proposed action does not result in any significant, adverse impacts in the area Public Services. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 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? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a-b) No impact. The proposed ballot measure consists of amendments to the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the Local Coastal Program to ensure that the affected area is retained in open space and that farming is allowed to continue in the area. No development projects are approved by the proposed action and, therefore, there are no impacts on existing recreational facilities. Recreational uses are permitted as an open space use. The measure also allows the city to construct a public trail throughout the affected area. As such, there is a positive impact that results from the proposed action and it has been determined that there are no significant adverse impacts on Recreation as a result of the proposed action. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the 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 patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 18 Rev. 02/22/06 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature I • I (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? D e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? a-g) No impact. No physical development projects*are approved by the proposed action. The primary purpose of the action is to amend existing city land use documents to ensure that the area affected by the proposed action is retained in open space and that existing farming operations are allowed to continue. There is no increase in traffic that would result directly from the proposed action. The proposed ballot measure redesignates an approximately 48 acre portion of the area (Sub-area A) from tourist-serving, commercial use to open space. This should substantially reduce traffic generation in the affected area. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Rancho Santa Fe Road El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road SR78 1-5 Existing ADT* 17-35 27-49 10-57 124-142 199-216 LOS "A-D" "A-C" "A-D" "F" "D" Buildout ADT* 35-56 . 33-62 30-73 156-180 260-272 : The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program's (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is "E", or LOS "F" if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS "F" in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region's general and community plans. Traffic from the area affected by this proposed action was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "E" standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. 19 Rev. 02/22/06 The proposed action does not include any aviation components. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. It does not include any parking variances or impacts on public transportation components.. Overall, the proposed action does not result in any significant, adverse impacts traffic or transportation in the affected area. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: > a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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 permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Kl [x] 20 Rev. 02/22/06 a-g) No impact. No development projects which would require new utilities and service systems are approved by the proposed action. The purpose of the proposed ballot measure is to retain the affected area for open space uses and to allow existing farming operations to continue. The action does not result in the need for new water, wastewater or solid waste systems. Therefore, the proposed action will not result in any significant, adverse impacts in the area of Utilities and Service Systems. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless "Mitigation Incorporated 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? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula- tively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? U IEI a-c) No impact. The purpose of the proposed action is to amend existing city land use documents to ensure that the area affected by the proposed action is retained in open space and that existing farming operations are allowed to continue. No physical development is approved by the action. All open space uses allowed by the action must comply with the City's Habitat Management Plan so there will be no impacts to habitat or wildlife. No cumulative impacts or significant, adverse impacts on humans will result from the action. Therefore, it has been determined that there are no impacts associated with mandatory findings of significance. 21 Rev. 02/22/06 3fl XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES ,- Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects -were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. ^c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 22 Rev. 02/22/06 EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION, SOURCES The following documents were-used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment (EIR 94-01). August 1995 23 Rev. 02/22/06 •Tff STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor Director June 21,2006 Gary Barberio City of Carlsbad >. ? "! 1635 Faraday Avenue v ^ Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: EIA 06-01 The Flower Fields, Strawberry Fields, Open Space and Public Trails Protection Act of 2006 (City-sponsored Ballot Measure) SCH#: 2006051105 Dear Gary Barberio: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on June 20, 2006, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, I/ Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 vww.opr.ca.gov STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 320 WEST 4™ STREET, SUITE 500 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 sC-i •pif>,f*<'i-'M-Vi''""t\<f CAV\*f** ~.,,-u June 19, 2006 Gary Barberio City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Barberio: Re: SCH# 2006051105; EIA 06-01 The Flower Fields, Strawberry Fields, Open Space, and Public Trails As the state agency responsible for rail safety within California, we recommend.that any development projects planned adjacent to or near the North County Transit District right-of-way be planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. New developments may increase traffic volumes not only on streets and at intersections, but also at at-grade highway-rail crossings. This includes considering pedestrian circulation patterns/destinations with respect to railroad right-of- way. • Safety factors to consider include, but are not limited to, the planning for grade separations for major thoroughfares, improvements to existing at-grade highway-rail crossings due to increase in traffic volumes and appropriate fencing to limit the access of trespassers onto the railroad right-of- way. The above-mentioned safety improvements should be considered when approval is sought for the new development. Working with Commission staff early in the conceptual design phase will help improve the safety to motorists and pedestrians in the City. , , .. . Please advise us on the status of the project. If you have any questions in this matter, please contact me at (213) 576-7078 or at rxm@cpuc.ca.gov. Rosa Munoz, P. Utilities Engineer . Rail Crossings Engineering Section Consumer Protection & Safety Division C: Richard Walker, NCTD Hi