Exhibit A Initial Study List
| CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS | Land Use Designation | Consistent | Inconsistent | Comments | ||
| Sphere of Influence Plan | N/A | |||||
| Area Service Plans | N/A | |||||
| Other District Boundaries | N/A | |||||
| General Plan | ||||||
| Community Plan | ||||||
| Specific Plan | ||||||
| Land Use Zone | ||||||
| Airport | N/A | |||||
| Mineral Resource Zone | N/A | |||||
| Resource Conservation/ Open Space | N/A | |||||
| State or Federal Recreation Area Plan | N/A | |||||
AREA OF IMPACT | Potentially Significant | Less Than Significant Mitigated | Less Than Significant None | Comments | ||
| 1. Land use, Sphere of Influence and Boundary Considerations Would the Project: | ||||||
| a. Conflict with any applicable sphere of influence, boundary, district or city operations, resources conservation plan, growth management plan, land use plan, policy or regulation of a local state or federal agency with jurisdiction over the project, including but not limited to a General Plan, Specific Plan adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect? | ||||||
| b. Result in substantial noncontiguous urban development which, in turn, results in adverse impact? | ||||||
| c. Physically disrupt/divide an established community? Area of Impact | ||||||
| 1. Additional Discussion | ||||||
AREA OF IMPACT | Potentially Significant | Less Than Significant Mitigated | Less Than Significant None | Comments | ||
| 2. Population/Housing—Would the project: | ||||||
| a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area by introducing increased densities, new homes and businesses or indirectly by extending infrastructure or increasing the capacity of infrastructure? | ||||||
| b. Displace substantial amounts of existing housing causing replacement housing construction elsewhere? | ||||||
| 2. Additional Discussion | ||||||
AREA OF IMPACT | Potentially Significant | Less Than Significant Mitigated | Less Than Significant None | Comments | ||
| 3. Agricultural and Open Space Resources Would the Project: | ||||||
| a. Result in substantial loss of important agricultural, open space or resource land? | ||||||
| b. Cause premature, ill planned, illogical, or inefficient conversion of prime agricultural, open space, mineral resource or other important resource areas not planned for development in the next five years especially when such land is not located within the Sphere of Influence of a service provider and there is alternative sufficient vacant land available for development? | ||||||
| c. Convert Prime Agricultural Land, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide importance or areas containing prime soils or productive agricultural operations to uses not conductive to agricultural production? | ||||||
| d. Conflict with any existing Williamson Act contract? | ||||||
| e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non agricultural uses? | ||||||
| f. Induce development by permitting uses that adversely impact adjacent agricultural operations, significantly increase the property values of adjacent proximate resource land, or remove natural or man made buffers between urban and agricultural spaces uses? | ||||||
| g. Conflict with agricultural, open space or resource conservation plans or programs of the state or federal government? | ||||||
| h. See Section 15 for consideration of growth inducement on agricultural lands. | ||||||
| 3. Additional Discussion: | ||||||
AREA OF IMPACT | Potentially Significant | Less Than Significant Mitigated | Less Than Significant None | Comments | ||
| 4.Aesthetics—Would the Project: | ||||||
| a. Substantially alter existing viewsheds such as scenic highways, corridors or vistas? | ||||||
| b. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? | ||||||
| c. Create a new source of substantial light, glare or shadow that would result safety hazards or adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. | ||||||
| d. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? | ||||||
| 4. Additional Discussion: | ||||||
AREA OF IMPACT | Potentially Significant | Less Than Significant Mitigated | Less Than Significant None | Comments | ||
| 5. Airports—Would the Project: | ||||||
| a. Result in safety hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of an airport/airstrip? | ||||||
| b. Expose people residing or working in the project area to aircraft noise levels in excess or applicable standards? | ||||||
| c. Result in substantial adverse effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft? | ||||||
| d. Result in a change of traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? | ||||||
| 5. Additional Discussion: | ||||||
AREA OF IMPACT | Potentially Significant | Less Than Significant Mitigated | Less Than Significant None | Comments | ||
| 6. Public Services—Would the Project: | ||||||
| a. Cause the adequacy of services provided to decrease, costs of service provision to rise substantially, or cause those currently receiving service to receive reduced or inadequate services especially when such change may cause adverse health and safety or physical impacts? | ||||||
| b. Cause the infrastructure capacity of a service provider to exceed planned and safe limits especially when such change may cause adverse health and safety or other physical impacts? | ||||||
| c. Cause unnecessary service provision and adversely affects important public resources, or the cost and adequacy of public services to the detriment of the public health and safety? | ||||||
| d. Have an adequate water supply for project buildout? | ||||||
| e. Have an adequate wastewater treatment and disposal facilities for full buildout of the project? | ||||||
| f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? | ||||||
| g. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of new water supply or wastewater treatment and disposal facilities or expansion of existing facilities? | ||||||
| h. Place conflicting land uses within an odor, or other protective barrier for a solid waste disposal site energy facility, wastewater treatment plant or similar facility? | ||||||
| i. Result in substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of storm water drainage facilities? | ||||||
| j. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of electric or natural gas service? | ||||||
| k. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of emergency services? | ||||||
| l. Result insubstantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of public school services? Note: Case law indicates that school over crowding, standing alone, is not a change in physical conditions and cannot be treated as an impact on the environment. (Goleta Sch. Dist. Vs. Regents UC) | ||||||
| m. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of park and recreation services? | ||||||
| 6. Additional Discussion: | ||||||
AREA OF IMPACT | Potentially Significant | Less Than Significant Mitigated | Less Than Significant None | Comments | ||
| 7. Transportation/Traffic—Would the Project: | ||||||
| a. Result in a substantial increase in peak hour vehicle trips that would exceed, either individually or cumulatively, an established level of service? | ||||||
| b. Result in a substantial adverse impact to access or to circulation? | ||||||
| c. Result in substantial adverse impact due to inadequate parking capacity? | ||||||
| d. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle paths, bicycle racks)? | ||||||
| e. Result in substantial impact to public safety on area roadways? | ||||||
| 7 Additional Discussion: | ||||||
AREA OF IMPACT | Potentially Significant | Less Than Significant Mitigated | Less Than Significant None | Comments | ||
| 8. Air Quality—Would the Project: | ||||||
| a. 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? | ||||||
| b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants (e.g. asbestos or lead) or pollutant concentrations in excess of standards? | ||||||
| c. Create objectionable odors, dust, or other nuisances affecting a substantial number of people? | ||||||
| 8. Additional Comments: | ||||||
AREA OF IMPACT | Potentially Significant | Less Than Significant Mitigated | Less Than Significant None | Comments | ||
| 9. Noise—Would the Project: | ||||||
| a. Result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established by the general plan, noise ordinance or noise standards such as OSHA? | ||||||
| b. Result in substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity? | ||||||
| c. Result in substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in project vicinity? | ||||||
| 9. Additional Discussion: | ||||||
AREA OF IMPACT | Potentially Significant | Less Than Significant Mitigated | Less Than Significant None | Comments | ||
| 10. Hydrology and Water Quality—Would the Project: | ||||||
| a. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with ground water recharge? | ||||||
| b. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project area and/or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site? | ||||||
| c. Develop within a 100 year floodplain as mapped on a federal Flood Insurance Rate Map or within the local flood hazard area? | ||||||
| d. Place structures that would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100 year floodplain? | ||||||
| e. Expose people or structures to substantial risk of loss injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? | ||||||
| f. Create or contribute to runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned drainage systems? | ||||||
| g. Create substantial sources of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrade ground or surface water quality? | ||||||
| h. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? | ||||||
| 10. Additional Comments: | ||||||
AREA OF IMPACT | Potentially Significant | Less Than Significant Mitigated | Less Than Significant None | Comments | ||
| 11. Geology and Soils—Would the Project: | ||||||
| a. Cause premature, ill planned, illogical or inefficient conversion of land containing important mineral resources included in a state designated mineral resource zone and not planned for development in the next five years especially when such land is not located within the Sphere of Influence of a proposed service provider and there is alternative sufficient vacant land available for development? | ||||||
| b. Expose people or structures to substantial risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault as found on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map ior other evidence of a known fault? | ||||||
| c. Result in substantial soil erosion, siltation or loss of topsoil? | ||||||
| d. 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 landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, soil expansion, liquefaction or collapse or release of leaching pollutants? | ||||||
| e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available? | ||||||
| f. Result in a substantial loss of an important mineral resource? | ||||||
| g. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site. | ||||||
| 11. Additional Discussion: | ||||||
AREA OF IMPACT | Potentially Significant | Less Than Significant Mitigated | Less Than Significant None | Comments | ||
| 12. Biological Resources—Would the Project: | ||||||
| a. Cause premature, ill planned, illogical, or inefficient conversion of important wildlife resource areas not planned for development in the next five year especially when such land is not located within the Sphere of Influence of a proposed service provider and there is alternative sufficient vacant land available for urban uses? | ||||||
| b. Have a substantial adverse effect on special status species? | ||||||
| c. Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community? | ||||||
| d. Have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands designated as jurisdictional waters of the United States as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act? | ||||||
| e. Have a substantial adverse effect on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species? | ||||||
| f. Result in removal or damage to native/landmark trees? | ||||||
| g. Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? | ||||||
| h. Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, state or federal plan for the conservation of habitat? | ||||||
| 12. Additional Discussion: | ||||||
AREA OF IMPACT | Potentially Significant | Less Than Significant Mitigated | Less Than Significant None | Comments | ||
| 13. Cultural Resources—Would the Project: | ||||||
| a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource? | ||||||
| b. Have a substantial adverse effect on archaeological resource? | ||||||
| c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? | ||||||
| 13. Additional Discussion: | ||||||
AREA OF IMPACT | Potentially Significant | Less Than Significant Mitigated | Less Than Significant None | Comments | ||
| 14. Hazards and Hazardous Materials—Would the Project: | ||||||
| a. Create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? | ||||||
| b. Expose the public or the environment to a substantial hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset conditions involving the release of hazardous materials, emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or wastes within one quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? | ||||||
| c. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 resulting in a substantial hazard to the public or the environment? | ||||||
| d. Impair implementation or physically interfere with an emergency response or emergency evacuation plan? | ||||||
| e. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials substances or waste within one quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? | ||||||
| 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? | ||||||
| 14. Additional Discussion: | ||||||
AREA OF IMPACT | Potentially Significant | Less Than Significant Mitigated | Less Than Significant None | Comments | ||
| 15. Growth Inducement—Would the Project: | ||||||
| a. Include or plan for infrastructure capacity, especially water and sewer lines, that exceeds the needs of the proposed project and may be used to serve areas not | ||||||
| planned for development, especially those containing prime agricultural land, mineral, sensitive plant and wildlife or important resources? | ||||||
| b. Induce substantial growth on important agricultural and open space land because it would: | ||||||
| b(1). Permit the extension of, or require, infrastructure such as flood control levees, or water diversions, electrical, water, or sewer lines, especially trunk lines that would permit new development in a substantial area currently constrained from development? | ||||||
| b(2). Encourage or foster development by permitting uses that adversely impact adjacent agricultural operations, significantly increase property values of adjacent resource lands or remove natural or man made buffers between urban and agricultural, mining, or other conservation areas? | ||||||
| 15. Additional Discussion: | ||||||
AREA OF IMPACT | Potentially Significant | Less Than Significant Mitigated | Less Than Significant None | Comments | ||
| 16. Cumulative Impacts—Would the Project: | ||||||
| a. When considered in conjunction with other recent, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, cause significant adverse cumulative impacts? | ||||||
| b. Be named in any study, assessment or report from other local, regional, state or federal agencies as having problems in providing physical services to existing areas of responsibility? | ||||||
| 16. Additional Discussion: | ||||||
| 17. Other—Would the Project: | ||||||