HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-08; Meadow View Townhomes; Tentative Map (CT) (2)City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
East side of Romeria Street between La Costa Avenue and
Gibralter Street.
Regrading of two infill lots totaling .735 acres in the RD-M zone,
and the construction of an eleven unit three-story airspace
condominium with the requisite driveways, parking, and recreation
areas located in the RD-M zone.
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, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at
(760) 43 8-1161, extension 4477.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
October 28, 1998
CT 98-08/CP 98-06
Meadowview Townhomes
PUBLISH DATE: October 28, 1998
MICHAEL J. flOLZMIELER
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-0894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 98-08/CP 98-06
DATE: October 13. 1998
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Meadowview Townhomes
APPLICANT: Shiu-Kuen Fan
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P.O. Box 2202. La Jolla. CA 92038
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 12. 1998
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Regrading of two infill lots totaling .735 acres and construction of
an eleven unit three-story airspace condominium project with the requisite driveways, parking,
and recreation areas.
SUMMARY OF 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.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
[X] Transportation/Circulation | [ Public Services
[~~| Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems
| | Energy & Mineral Resources [ | Aesthetics
| | Hazards | | Cultural Resources
[ | Noise [ [ Recreation
| [ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[X] 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 the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
| | 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 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. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
f~] 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 EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature " (I Date
Planning DirectorV&gnatiife Date
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No 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 adversely significant, 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 significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant 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 (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of
Rev. 03/28/96
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 effect on the environment.
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant 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 impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
D
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
((#l:Pgs5.1-l -5.1.15)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
e) Landslides or mudflows?(#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 -5.1-15, #2)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
D
Dn
n
nn
Dn
nnn
nnn
nnn
n
n
n
n
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?((#l:Pgs5.2-l-5..2-ll)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
D
D
D
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
((#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs
5.2-1 -5..2-11)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1-5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
-5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1-5.7.22)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22)
n
n
D
D
n
n
n
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs5.4-l-5.4-24)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
D
n
n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs5.4-l-5.4-24)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs 5.4-1
- 5.4-24)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1-5.13-9)
c) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1-5.13-9)
D
D
D
D
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
15)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1-5.9-15)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,
pgs 5.12.1-1-5.12.8-7)
D
Daa
a
a
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1
5.12.8-7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
D
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1-5.13-9)
b) Communications systems? (#1; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 -5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (# 1 :Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
D
D
D
D
Da
a
a
aa
a
aa
aaaa
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1-5.11-5)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1-5.11-5)
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5)
n
n
D
n
n
n
n
n
n
XIV.
a)
b)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10)
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-1 -5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
n
nn
n
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7)
D
D
D
D D
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. 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?
("Cumulatively 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?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
D
D D
D D D
Earlier analysis of this proposed 11 unit condominium project has been completed through the
General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-
01). The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent with
the applicable portions of the General Plan and within the scope of MEIR 93-01. There will be
no additional significant impacts due to this development that were not analyzed in the MEIR
and no new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required. This project is,
therefore, within the scope of the prior MEIR and no new environmental document nor Public
Resources Code 21081 findings are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in
MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to the project have been incorporated into the project.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This project is located on Romeria Street, between La Costa Avenue and the La Costa golf
course in the RD-M zone The project site consists of two vacant, infill lots totaling
approximately .735 acres which have been previously graded into terraced lots separated by a 9'
high slope. Existing infrastructure and public utilities are adequate to serve the project. The
project consists of the airspace subdivision of 11 two-story condominium units. Proposed
grading would consist of 2,800 cubic yards of cut, 470 cubic yards of fill, and 2,310 cubic yards
of export required to prepare the site for the gradually terraced project. Public street
improvements and utilities currently serve the project site. The proposed density is consistent
with the applicable General Plan Residential High (RH) density land use designation (15 - 23
du/acre) which would allow for the development of a maximum of 13 detached single family or
multiple family units. The project site, which is currently vacant, is situated between multi-
family projects to the north and south thereby ensuring compatiblity.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Quality
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and within the scope of the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air
quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and within the scope of the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 438-1161, extension 4477.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation- Proposed 11 Unit Condominimum Project Lots
387 & 388 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, City of Carlsbad, California" dated July 17,
1998.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR FILLING OUT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Form - Part I will be used to determine what type
of environmental documentation (i.e., Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Negative Declaration or Exemption) will be required to be prepared for your
application, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 19 of Carlsbad's
Municipal Code. The clarity and accuracy of the information you provide is critical for purposes
of quickly determining the specific environmental effects of your project.
Recent judicial decisions have held that a "naked checklist," that is checklist that is merely
checked "yes" or "no," is insufficient to comply with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality act. Each "yes" or "no" answer must be accompanied by a written
explanation justifying the "yes" or "no" answer. This is especially important when a Negative
Declaration is being sought. The more information provided in this form, the easier and quicker
it will be for staff to complete the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II.
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-O894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE RECEIVED:
(To be completed by staff)
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME:
2.
3.
APPLICANT:.
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
L CA
4.PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
//ft00 7F
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this
project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially
Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist
on the following pages.
[~] Land Use and Planning
| | Population and Housing
| | Geological Problems
Q Water
Q Air Quality
| | Transportation/Circulation
| | Biological Resources
| | Energy & Mineral Resources
| | Hazards
I I Noise
Public Services
Utilities & Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
| | Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No 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 adversely significant, 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 significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant 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 (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant 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 effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant 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 impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): ( )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
( )
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? ( )
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
D
D
D
D
D
No
Impact
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( )
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly orb)
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( )
D
D
D
n
n
n
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
( )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
( )
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( )
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? (
h) Expansive soils? ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
)
n
n
n
n
n
nn
nn
n
nn
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ( )n
n
n n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?( )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ( )
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
( )
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? ( )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
n
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Q
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
n
n
n
n
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
D 0
D ^
D B
D ^
D ^
D Eln Eg
n 0
n 0
n %\
n a
n 0
n 5
n BJ
n ^
n ^
n El
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
( )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
( )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
D
D
D
No
Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
( )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
c) 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? ( )
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? ( )
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? ( )
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ( )
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( )
D.
D
D
D
D
n
D
D
D
D
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?D
D
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( )
b) Police protection? ( )
c) Schools? ( )
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? ( )
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( )
b) Communications systems? ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( )
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare? ( )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( )
c) Affect historical resources? ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( )
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
Dnn
D
n
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
nn
D
n
nn
n
n
n
nnnn
n
n
n
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
D El
n 0
n 0n Mn IE
n H
n 0n a
n 0
n 0
n a
n an ^n 0n s
n s
n H
n s
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
XVI. 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?
("Cumulatively 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?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
D
D
D
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.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact"
yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has
adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation
impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample
text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors.
AIR QUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air
quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
9 Rev. 03/28/96
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE^
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE^)
10 Rev. 03/28/96