Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 96-01; Carlsbad Raceway Temporary Access Road; Hillside Development Permit (HDP) (4)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. HDP 96-01 DATE: February 29. 1996 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Raceway Access 2. APPLICANT: Wimpey Commercial, Inc. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 355, San Diego. CA 92122 (619) 550-8000 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 21. 1996 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for an exclusion to the Hillside Development Ordinance to allow the grading of a manufactured slope for the construction of an access road for the Carlsbad Raceway, extending - from the existing terminus of Poinsettia Drive to the existing dirt road system within the raceway property. 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 - Transportation/Circulation - Public Services - Population and Housing - Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems - Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics - Water - Air Quality - Hazards Cultural Resources - Noise - Recreation - Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 3/28/95 r 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. 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. 0 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. 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 / 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. la -3/</qb Planning Direcbd Sigddure Date MGbk 2 Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? - - Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? - - Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? - - Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? - - Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? - - III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 3 Rev. 3/28/95 Potentially Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Issues (an( d Supporting Information Sources): Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amoufit of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 4 Rev. 3/28/95 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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? 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? X - X - 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? X - 5 Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? - - Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 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? - - 6 X - - X - - Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Potentially Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? - Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 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? 7 Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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: Power or natural gas? Communications systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 8 Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? XVI. MANDATORY RNDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 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? 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) Potentially Significant Potentially UnleSS Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X - X - 9 Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses has been conducted on the project site and on the area in general. The previous Conditional Use Permits that allowed the raceway operations and the old children’s recreation area (namely CUP 42(D), CUP 42(E), CUP 42(F), CUP 42(G), and CUP 42(J)) reviewed the potential environmental impacts associated with the use and found that no significant adverse environmental impacts would result from the raceway use. All necessary adaptations to the project required to lower the potential impacts to a level of insignificance were incorporated into project design and operational requirements of the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP 94-12). These features include fire suppression for native vegetation and hazard protection and limits on the hours and types of races allowed on site. The regrading of a manufactured slope and clearing of ruderal, disturbed vegetation for the roadway is in conformance with the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP 94-12) which allows minor modifications to the internal dirt roads and trails within the raceway property. In addition, since the use has been adjusted to the surrounding uses through the Conditional Use Permit process, it is consistent with the zoning requirements. The Zoning Ordinance implements the goals and objectives of the General Plan. The Master Environmental Impact Report (MER) for the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan reviewed the potential impacts of implementation of the General Plan. Therefore, the continued operation of the Carlsbad Raceway and creation of an additional dirt access road will not cause any new impacts that were not previously identified in the prior environmental reviews for the site. All adjustments necessary to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance have been incorporated into the project and no mitigation measures were required of the previous projects. Therefore, none are required with this proposal. 10 Rev. 3/28/95 /- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 11 Rev. 3/28/95 . r FIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) NIA ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) N/A 12 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 13 Rev. 3/28/95