HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 204C; St. Patrick's School Classroom Addition; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (4)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FO£M - PART H
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CUP 204(C)
DATE: October 16.1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: St. Patrick's School Classroom Addition
2. APPLICANT: Doug Fess (for Don Edson Architects)
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5752 Oberlin Dr.. Suite 104. San Diego. CA
92121. (619) 452-1860
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: June 8. 1995
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of eight modular classroom units over a period of several years
on a site containing an existing school and church campus
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 X Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water Hazards Cultural Resources
_X_ Air Quality Noise Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 3/28/95
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared. El
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. D
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D
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/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. LJ
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WELL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice
of Prior Compliance has been prepared. D
„Planner Signature (Date
Planning Director Signature ^ Date
Rev. 3/28/95
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 aU 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. 3/28/95
• 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
n 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. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(l:Pg 5.6-9, 5.6-10)
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? (l:Pg 5.6-9, 5.6-10)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (l:Pg 5.13-6)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (l:Pg 5.5-3)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects hi an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (l:Pg 5.5-3)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (l:Pg 5.5-3)
HI. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (l:Pg 5.1-12)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (l:Pg 5.1-12)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(l:Pg 5.1-12)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (l:Pg 5.10.1-
4)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (1: Pg 5.1 -12)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (l:Pg
5.1-13)
g) Subsidence of the land? (l:Pg 5.1-11)
h) Expansive soils? (l:Pg 5.1-12)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (l:Pg 5.11-
1, 11-4)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (l:Pg 5.2-8)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (l:Pg 5.10.1-4)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (l:Pg 5.2-8)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (l:Pg 5.10.1-4)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?
f) Change 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:Pg 5.2-8)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(l:Pg 5.2-8)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (l:Pg 5.2-8)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(l:Pg 5.2-8)
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? (l:Pg 5.3-
4, 3-7)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change hi climate? (l:Pg 5.3-4, 3-7)
d) Create objectionable odors? (l:Pg 5.3-4, 3-7)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
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)? (l:Pg 5.7-10 through
5.7-15)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (l:Pg 5.7-10 through 5.7-15)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(l:Pg 5.7-10 through 5.7-15)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(l:Pg 5.7-10 through 5.7-15)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (l:Pg 5.7-10 through 5,7-15)
X
X
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (l:Pg 5.7-
10 through 5.7-15) JL_
VH. 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:Pg 5.4-21) X
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(l:Pg 5.4-21) JL_
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (l:Pg 5.4-21) JL.
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (l:Pg 5.4-21) JL_
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (l:Pg
5.4-21) . JL.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(l:Pg 5.12.1-5) JL.
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (l:Pg 5.13-6) JL.
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:Pg
5.13-6) JL_
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
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:Pg
5.10.2-4 through 2-8)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1 :Pg 5.10.2-4
through 2-8)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? (l:Pg 5.10.2-4 through 2-8)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (l:Pg 5.10.2-4 through 2-8)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (l:Pg 5.12.5-4)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (l:Pg 5.9-9,9-
12)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (l:Pg
5.9-9,9-12)
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? (l:Pg 5.12.5-4)
b) Police protection? (l:Pg 5.12.6-2)
c) Schools? (l:Pg 5.12.7-4)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (l:Pg 5.3-3)
No
Impact
X
X
X
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XH. 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:Pg 5.12.1-4,1-5) X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(l:Pg 5.8-7)
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (l:Pg 5.12.2-5) JL
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (l:Pg 5.12.3-3) __ X
e) Storm water drainage? (l:Pg 5.2-8) X
f) Solid waste disposal? (l:Pg 5.12.4-2) JL
g) Local or regional water supplies? (l:Pg 5.12.2-5) JL
Xm. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (l:Pg
5.11-1,11-4; l:Pg 5.7-15) JL
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
(l:Pg 5.11-1,11-4) JL
c) Create light or glare? (l:Pg 5.10.3-1) JL
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (l:Pg 5.8-7) JL
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (l:Pg 5.8-7) JL
c) Affect historical resources? (l:Pg 5.8-7) JL
10 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (l:Pg 5.8-7)
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (l:Pg 5.12.8-
6)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (l:Pg
5.12.8-6)
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 wild life 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 substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11 Rev. 3/28/95
XVn. 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 EER 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.
12 Rev. 3/28/95
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project is the installation of a total of eight modular classroom units over a period of several
years on a site currently developed with a school and church campus. The site is in an urbanized area.
Another school is located immediately adjacent to the subject development.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
A. Non-Relevant Items
I. Land Use And Planning
b) The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations on the site. There are
no other environmental documents (except CEQA) which are applicable to the project site.
e) There is no established or planned residential community on or adjacent to the subject site. The
site is in a fully urbanized area.
IV. Water
e) There are no water bodies on or adjacent to the site.
XI. Public Services
d) All necessary public services are available or will be provided as a condition of approval should
the project be approved.
XII. Utilities And Services Systems
b) All necessary utilities and services systems are available.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
V. AIR QUALITY
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included hi 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
13 Rev. 3/28/95
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 ah* 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.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/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 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.
EQ. SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (Note: all of the source documents are on file in the Planning Department located
at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161.)
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01,
City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994.
14 Rev. 3/28/95
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM OF APPLICABLE)
N/A
15 Rev. 3/28/95
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
16 Rev. 3/28/95