The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHMP 04-03; JAVAHERI RESIDENCE; Habitat Management Permit (HMP)City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Applicant: JARAHERI HENRY Description EIA04007 Receipt Number: R0045541 Transaction Date: 10/01/2004 Pay Type Method Description Carlsbad CA 92008 Amount 715.00 Amount Payment Check 8189 715.00 Transaction Amount: 715.00 \ $1,.A ... t"1tav 2366 .10/01/04 0002 01 02 CGP 71:5 .. 00 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM -PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) cAsENo: e?A olf 007 DATE: ----'-r ...... Q_,_/ ....... t _{..;;;...0 __,_f_ BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. cAsENAME: Ja...va.,,h.erL Resi~c...€..> Ctl";t o..f .(6--('\s b~d • • • LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: l07s-Fo1'M1d.~ ~Jtt.-. C~l$.l?~of, C4-t.rd-€>of - CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Ali S\1\4.pou.n,, lssg) 1"5'7 --8340 PROJECT LOCATION: l-346'. A1-h'Va P[a.&J. Ca.rlsb a.d 1 CA-7'6LO o :z i+~~_)~N:rJ PROJECTSPONSOR'SNAMEANDADDRESS: 5:s-s-{0,fl-1-S.-f ~SiG-, Sao"Oi.e.o/Q 4!: ~.;tJOl OL GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: _I'----. _____________ _ ZONING: -C I OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): _____________ _ PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: i\'\JL '029 osed '2 ro.~ e, cJ--ind u~ Co od:r-uc\ilV\ cYr\d ~ i r'\ °<s-- :6,{' ~ c~s·; ckdJ,JL lk\ ,1-: M'\d 0~ clnv~ "', ~ L'-1- d-l..-ffl-'RMCR-fl , s cu r-re.nHv0 u f\dwdar=4,L iba-. m~r~~ .,(-.-\!ht, (Mt,! \,s d is-lwbe.J N oo -/Vcdn vz G-D,£<; IMd, S-vrrovr()/ i'1} 1wcl us-e__s-~oclv/4-re-5ide~-iiJ AA'\d .e,Vvf'~~ u~ ( ~ :J.-4 NC,, P-C C p) a{) l'\Q_d GD vY\ \'hU ()H1?>1 it) k,ckvein~ j {\ ~- 1 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 fucorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. D Aesthetics D Geology/Soils 0Noise D Agricultural Resources D Hazards/Hazardous Materials D Population and Hqusing D Air Quality D Hydrology/Water Quality D Public Services D Biological Resources D Land Use and Planning D Recreation D Cultural Resources D Mineral Resources D Transportation/Circulation D Mandatory Findings of D Utilities & Service Systems Significance 2 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 (BIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved BIR 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 "BIA-Part I", 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 BIR 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 BIR 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 BIR 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. 3 Rev. 07/26/02 • An BIR !!!!!fil 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 BIR 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 BIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the BIA-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. 4 Rev. 07 /26/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change m 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 paleontologi- 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 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 Qeologist 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 defmed in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? 7 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ No Impact ~ 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 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? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California.history or prehistory? 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? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than Signi:p.cant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ No Impact ~ Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program BIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier BIR 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. 13 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 (03), and a state non-attainment area 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 10th 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 rnid-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 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 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 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 obstruct 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 sho1t-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction 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 impact 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, 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. 15 Rev. 07/26/02