HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 04-12; TUSCANY OFFICE SUITES; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO: ^POV-/^
DATE: V/ /ov
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: 7^SC<y?v/ Of^c-e J +^ 'RP(!)V'/^
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: iSort £>^7-i-h xSS "
4. PROJECT LOCATION: ^3(pJ^SjD^^ S^V . T^Z - (10 -
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS:
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ^
7. ZONING: \/- 7?
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements):
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Rev. 07/26/02
INSTRUCTION SHEET FQR 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 Califomia 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.
Judicial decisions have held that a "naked checklist," that is a checklist that is merely checked
"yes impact" or "no impact," is insufficient to comply with the requirements of the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act. When preparing this form, each "yes impact" or "no impact"
answer must be accompanied by a written explanation justifying the "yes impact" or "no
impact" answer. Any environmental studies (i.e., biological, cultural resource, traffic,
noise) that are necessary to substantiate a "no impact" or "yes impact" determination
should be submitted as an attachment to this Environmental Impact Assessment. 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 Enviroimiental
Impact Assessment Form - Part II.
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 hnpact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
I I Aesthetics
I I Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality
r~| Biological Resources
I I Cultural Resources
I I Geology/Soils Q Noise
• Hazards/Hazardous Materials • Population and Housing
I I Hydrology/Water Quality CH Public Services
I I Land Use and Planning
I I Mineral Resources
I I Mandatory Findings of
Significance
I I Recreation
I I Transportation/Circulation
I I Utilities & Service Systems
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 (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
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 "EIA-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 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.
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
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.
Rev. 07/26/02
• An EIR must 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 EIR 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 eariier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the
EIA-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.
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the Califomia
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 12
• S
• • Kl
nam
• • • H
• m
• m
• M
• m
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by Califomia Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological intermption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
• • • H
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2S
X
• • • IX
• • • E
• • • 0
• • • H
1^
0
• • • H
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 in 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 paieontologi-
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 stmctures 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 Geologist 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 defined in Table 18
- 1-B ofthe Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
• • • B
• • • [3
•
•
•
•
• m
• m
• • • 0
• • •
• • • A
n • •
• • •
• • • n
• • • ^
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be refened to and attached.)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or altemative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or stmctures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
project:
Would the
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
• • • E
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 2
• m
• • 13
• n • H
• • El
• 0
• E]
• m
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? • • • H
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be refened to and attached.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a maimer, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
f) Create or contribute mnoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted mnoff?
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area stmctures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
• • • 0
•
•
•
n
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 0
• • • s
• • • 0
• m
• m
• ^
• E
• • •
• • • m
• • •
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be refened to and attached.)
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following constmction?
o) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) 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?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundboume vibration or groundboume noise
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • X
• n • IK
n • •
• • • K
• • •
• • •
• • • K
• • •
10 Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be refened to and attached.)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastmcture)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the constmction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the constmction of replacement housing elsewhere?
xm. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered govemment facilities, a
need for new or physically altered govemment
facilities, the constmction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
•
•
•
• • • H
• • • [S
• • [S
• m
• H
i) Fire protection? • • n X
ii) Police protection? • • • S
iii) Schools? • • • K)
iv) Parks? • • •
v) Other public facilities? • • • X
• • Kl
11 Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be refened to and attached.)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the constmction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
• • • E
• •
•
•
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the constmction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the constmction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the constmction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the constmction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • H
n
3
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? • • •
f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? • • •
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum-• • •
• m
n m
• • E]
• • a
12 Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be refened 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?
XVn. 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
Califomia 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 cunent 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 indirectiy?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
• • • H
•
•
•
•
• E
• m
D n u m
• • • E
• • • la
XVIII. 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 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. Identity 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 (O3), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
(PMio). 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 Govemments (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 Califomia non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the Califomia 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 mid-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 Califomia 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 Califomia
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 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 obstmct
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 short-term emissions associated with grading and constmction.
Such emissions would be minimized through standard constmction 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 cunently 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, Califomia, 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
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
16 Rev. 07/26/02
'/////////////,
March 12,2004
P.O. Box 1195
Lakeside, Califonua
92040
(619) 443-0060
Bill Daly
P. O. Box 260
Carlsbad, Califomia 92018
SUBJECT: File No. 1106E5-04
SITE INSPECTION
Proposed Office Building Site
2753 JeflFerson Street
CityofCarlsbad
RECaVED
JUN 01 2004
Dear Mr. Daly:
SCOPE
In accordance with your request, a Site Inspection has been performed at the subject site. The
purpose of this uivestigation was to examine existing site conditions and provide engineering
recommendations for the proposed two-story over on-grade parking office buildmg.
FIELD INSPECTION
In order to accomplish this purpose, a representative of this firm visited the site, reviewed the
topography and site conditions and visually and textually classified the surface and near sur&ce
soils. Representative samples of the on-site soils were obtained fi'om two test explorations
approximately 3 feet in depth and tested for density, shear strength and expansive characteristics.
An in-place field density test was taken in accordance with A.S.T.M. Dl556-82 in the bottom
of the Test Exploration No. 1 near the fi-ont of the site. The test results indicate that the relative
compaction of the native soil at that elevation is 88.7 percent.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject site is an undeveloped relatively level property located on the southwesterly side of
Jeflferson Street. Other nearby properties are occupied by both residential and commercial
structures. Man made fill soils were encountered to approximately one foot in depth during the
course of this investigation and native soils were loose and compressible to approximately 2 feet
in depth.
Bill Daly FUeNo. 1106E5-04 March 12,2004
SOIL CONDITIONS
The soils encountered in the provided trench locations were fill materials consisting of loose to
firm, brown, silty, sands with organic materials and clay binder to approximately one foot in
depth. These fill soils were underiain by native, firm but compressible, brown, sDty, sands with
organic materials that became more dense with depth to the bottom of the exploration,
approximately 3 feet in depth. The sandy soils encountered in the test explorations were not
considered to be detrimentally expansive with respect to change in volume with change in
moisture content and will not require special foundation design to resist expansive soils.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. In order to provide uniform support for the proposed stmcture, the existing fill
materials and compressible native soils in proposed buildmg areas should be
excavated to firm natural ground (approximately 2 to 3 feet in depth), replaced and
recompacted to 90 percent compaction in accordance with the following Grading
Specifications. The recompaction should extend at least 5 feet outside the proposed
building footprint. Any organic or other deleterious material that may be
encountered should be removed prior to recompaction.
2. Conventional spread footings founded a minimum of 12 inches below lowest adjacent
grade and having a width determined by the allowable soil bearing value as detailed
above are recommended for foundation support. Footing widths should be at least 12
inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for square footings due to practical
considerations as well as Building Code requirements. This footing design is a minimum
based upon the foundation soil type and does not take into consideration structural
requirements.
3. Reinforcing in footings should consist of at least one #4 steel bar placed continuously in
the top and bottom of continuous footings regardless of stmctural requirements.
Remforcing for isolated footings are dictated by the stmctural requirements. These
recommendations are based upon on the soil type encountered and do not take into
consideration the proposed bearing load.
4. Concrete slabs-on-grade should be constmcted to have a nominal thickness of 4" and
imderlain with a sand blanket of 3 inches in thickness. Provide minimum temperature
reinforcement consisting of 6X6-10/10 welded wire mesh. The sand subbase (sand
blanket) should have a sand equivalent exceeding 30 per ASTM D2419. All slabs
should either have a conventional thickened edge or be poured monolithically with
continuous footings at the slabs perimeter. Conventional thickened edges should be 8"
thick at slab edge, uniformly tapering to 4" thick at 2' fi^om slab edge. The thickened
Bill Daly File No. 1106E5-04 March 12, 2004
edges or monolithic footings should extend completely around the slab's perimeter.
Constmction and expansion joints should be considered slab edges. Maximum spacing
of expansion joints is 50' for mterior slabs and 30' for exterior slabs.
A representative sample of the foundation soil was remolded to 90% of maximum
dry density. Based on the following test resuhs, a safe allowable bearing value of at
least 2500 pounds per square foot may be used in designing the foundations and slab
for the proposed stmcture. This value may be increased by one third for wind
and/or seismic loading.
Angle of Intemal Friction 3 9°
Cohesion 169 psf
Unit weight 119.8 pcf
Maximum Dry Density 131.8 pcf
Optimum Moisture Content 8.7%
Expansion Index 22
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Proposed Office Building Site
2753 Jefferson Street
City of Carlsbad
GENERAL: Soil Testers and 'Soil Engineer* are synonymous hereinafter and shall be
employed to inspect and test earthwork m accordance with these specifications, the accepted
plans, and the requirements of any jurisdictive govemmental agencies. They are to be allowed
adequate access so that the inspections and tests may be performed. The Soil Engineer shall be
apprised of schedules and any unforeseen soil conditions.
Substandard conditions or workmanship, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, or deviation
fi'om the lines and grades shown on the plans, etc., shall be cause fi^r the soil engineer to dther
stop constmction imtil the conditions are corrected or recommend rqection of the work. Refiisal
to comply with these spedfications or the recommendations and/or interpretations of the soil
engineer will be cause for the soil engineer and/or his representative to immediately terminate his
services.
Deviations from the recommendations of the Soil Report, from the plans, or from these
Specifications must be approved in writing by the owner and the contractor and endorsed by the
soil engineer.
Bill Daly File No. 1106E5-04 March 12,2004
SOIL TEST METHODS:
Maximum Density & Opt Moisture
Density of Soil In-Place
Soil Expansion
Shear Strength
Gradation & Grain Size
Capillaiy Moisture Tension
Organic Content
-ASTMD1557-70
- ASTM D1556, D2922 and D3017
-UBC STANDARD29-2
~ASTMD3080-72
- ASTM Dl 140-71
-ASTMD2325-68
~ % Wdght loss after heating for 24 hours
at 300° F and after deducting soil moisture.
UMHING SOIL CONDITIONS:
Minimum Compaction
Expansive Soils
Insufficient fines
Oversized Particles
90% for ^disturi)ed' soils. (Existing fill,
newly placed fill, plowed ground, etc.)
84% for natural, undistiubed soils.
95% for pavement subgrade withm 2' of
finish grade and pavement base course.
Expansion index exceeding 20
Less than 40% passing the #4 sieve.
Rocks over 10" in diameter.
PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL:
Bmsh, trash, debris and detrimental soils shall be cleared from the areas to receive fill.
Detrimental soils shall be removed to firm competent soil. Slopes exceeding 20% should be
stepped uphill with benches 10' or greater in width. Scarify area to receive fill to 6" depth and
compact.
FELL MATERIAL shall not contain insufficient fines, oversized particles, or excessive
organics. On-site disposition of oversized rock or expanswe soils is to be at the written direction
of the Soil Engineer. Select fill shall be as specified by the soil engineer. All filk shall he
compacted and tested.
SUBDRAINS shall be installed if required by and as directed by and detailed by the soil
engineer and shall be left operable and unobstmcted. They shall consist of 3" plastic perforated
pipe set in a minimum cover of 4" of filter rock m a Vee' ditch to intercept and drain free ground
from the mass fills. Perforated pipe shall be schedule 40, Poly-Vmyl-Chloride or Acrylonitrile
Butadienne Styrene plastic. Rock filter material shall confonn to the following gradation:
Sieve size:
%Passing:
3/4"
90-100
#4
25-50
#30
5-20
#200
0-7
Bill Daly File No. 1106E5-04 March 12,2004
Subdrains shall be set at a minimum gradient of 0.2% to drain by gravity and shall be tested by
dye flushing before acceptance. Drains found inoperable shall be excavated and replaced.
CAPPING EXPANSIVE SOILS: If capping expansive soils with non-ejq)ansive soil to
mitigate the expansive potential is used, the cap should be compacted, non-expansive, select soil
placed for a minimum thickness 3' over the expansive soil and for a minimum distance of 8'
beyond the exterior perimeter of the stmcture. Spedal precautions should be taken to ensure that
the non-expansive soil remains uncontamlnated and the minimum thickness and dim^ions
around the stmcture are maintained. The expansive soils underlying the cap of non-expansive
cap should be pre-saturated to a depth of 3' to obtain a degree saturation exceeding 90% before
any constmction supported by the compacted cap.
The non-expansive soil comprising the cap should conform to the following:
Minimum Compaction 90 %
Maximum Expansion Index 30
Minimum Angle of Intemal Friction 3 3 Deg
Cohesion Intercept 100 psf
UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS: Soil Testers assume no responsibility for conditions tiiat
differ from those described in the applicable current reports and documents for this property.
Upon termination of the soil engineer's services for any reason, his fees up to the time of
termination become due and payable. If it is necessary for the soil engineer to issue an
unfevorable report conceming the work that he has been hired to test and inspect, the soil
engineer shall not be held liable for any damages that might result from his 'unfavorable report'.
If we can be of any fiirther assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This
opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated.
Respectfiilly submitted.
JdsephC. Smytii,
JCS/ss
cc: (3) submitted
CHKISTIAN WHEELER.
ENGINEEKING
March 19,2004
Soil Testere CWE 2040048.1
Post Office Box 1195
Lakeside, CA 92040
SUBJECT: SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA, PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING SITE,
2753 JEFFERSON STREET, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
REFERENCES: 1) Site Inspection, Proposed Office Building Site, 2753 Jefferson Street, Qty of
Carlsbad, Califomia tySoil Testers, File No. 1106E5-04, dated March 12,2004.
2) Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in Califomia and Adjacent
Portions of Nevada by Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, dated Febmary
1998.
3) Geologic Maps of the Northwestem Part of San Diego County, Califomia;
Califomia Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-02 ^ Siang S. Tan
and Michael P. Kennedy
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
In accordance wiih your request, we have prepared this letter to present pertinent seismic/geotechnical
infonnation regarding the project site. The scope of our limited study consisted of a review of the
referenced soils report, a review of other pertinent literature, and the preparation of this letter that includes
our findings.
GENERAL GEOLOGIC SETTING: The project site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic
Province of San Diego County and is underlain by C^atemary-age and Tertiary-age sedimentary deposits,
associated surficial soils, and artificial fill. The near-surface materials at the site are described in the
referenced report by Soil Testers.
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS: Based on a maximum magnimde (Mmax) earthquake of 6.9 along
4925 Mercury Street > San Diego, CA 92111 > 858-496-9760 • FAX 858-496-9758
CWE 2040048 March 19, 2004
the nearest portion of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, the Maximum Bedrock Acceleration at the site
would be approxiinately 0.39 g. For stmctural design purposes, a damping ratio not greater than 5 percent of
critical dampening, and Soil Profile Type SD are recommended (UBC Table 16-J). Based upon the location of
the site at approxiinately 7kilometers from the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone (Type B Fault), Near
Source Factors Na equal to 1.0 and Nv equal to 1.1 are also applicable. These values, along with other
seismically related design parameters from the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Volume II, Chapter 16,
utilizing a Seismic Zone 4 are presented in tabular form below.
UBC-CHAPTER 16
TABLE No.
SEISMIC
PARAMETER
RECOMMENDED
VALUE
16-1 Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40
16-J Soil Profile Type SD
16-Q Seismic Coefficient Q 0.44 Na
16-R Seismic Coefficient 0.64 Nv
16-S Near Source Factor Na 1.0
16-T Near Source Factor Nv 1.0
16-U Seismic Source Type B
LIQUEFACTION: Liquefaction is the phenomenon that may result in lar^e total and/or differential
ground surface settlement and possible lateral ground spreading duiing an earthquake. Liquefaction occurs
when loose, saturated, generally fine sands and silts are subject to strong ground shaking. The soil loses all
shear strength and becomes a viscous liquid for a short period of time, and then usually solidifies.
Settlement of the ground surface and failure of foimdations caused by liquefaction is usually only affected
bythe soUs that liquefy within the upper 30 feet; the effect of Hquefaction of soils below this depth is not
usually manifested at the ground surface. Four conditions usually must be present before liquefaction can
occur:
1) The soil is below the groundwater table, i.e., saturated;
2) The soil is composed predominantly of fine sand and silt;
3) The soil is in a loose to medium dense state;
4) The soil is subject to a sufficient magnitude and duration of strong ground shaking.
CWE 2040048 March 19, 2004
Based on the available information, it appears that the ground water table is relatively deep and that the
compacted fill and native materials at the site below the foimdation elevation are generally medium dense
to dense and are not subject to liquefaction.
If you have any questions after reviewing this letter, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Respectfully submitted,
CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING
Curtis R Burdett, CE.G. # 1090
CRB:crb
cc: (4) Submitted
***********************
* *
* EQFAULT *
* *
* Version 3.00 *
* *
***********************
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: 204004 8
DATE: 03-19-2004
JOB NAME: 2753 Jefferson Street
CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 3 3.1638
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3472
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 3) Boore et al. (1997) Horiz. - NEHRP D (250)
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: cd_2drp
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR:
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 0.0
EQFAULT SUMMARY
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
1 1 ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
1 APPROXIMATE
ABBREVIATED 1 DISTANCE I MAXIMUM 1 PEAK |EST. SITE
FAULT NAME 1 mi (km) 1 EARTHQUAKE 1 SITE 1 INTENSITY
j 1 MAG.(Mw) 1 ACCEL, g 1 MOD.MERC.
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 4 . 8 ( 7 . 7) 1 6.9 1 0.386 1 X
ROSE CANYON 1 4 . 9 ( 7 . 9) 6.9 1 0.381 I x CORONADO BANK 1 21.1( 33 . 9) 7.4 1 0.185 1 VIII
ELSINORE-TEMECULA I 24.0( 38 . 6) 6.8 1 0.122 1 VII
ELSINORE-JULIAN I 24.3( 39. 1) 7.1 1 0.142 1 VIII
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY | 33 1 ( 53 3) 1 6 8 1 0 095 1 VII
PALOS VERDES | 35 2 ( 56 6) 1 7 1 I 0 107 1 VII
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY j 44 3 ( 71 3) 1 6 5 1 0 065 1 VI
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) j 45 3 ( 72 9) 1 6 9 1 0 079 1 VII
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) | 46 2 ( 74 4) I 6 7 I 0 085 1 VII
SAN JACINTO-ANZA j 46 5 ( 74 9) 1 7. 2 1 0 090 1 VII
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY | 47 0 ( 75 6) 1 6 9 I 0 077 I VII
WHITTIER I 50 5 ( 81 3) 1 6 8 I 0 069 I VI
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK | 52 6 ( 84. 6) I 6 8 1 0 067 1 VI
COMPTON THRUST | 54 9 ( 88 4) 1 6 8 1 ^ 078 1 VII
ELYSIAN PARK THRUST | 57 6 ( 92 7) 1 6 7 I 0 072 1 VI
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN j 58 6 ( 94 3) 1 6 8 1 0 061 1 VI
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO j 59 2 ( 95 3) 1 6 7 1 0 05 8 1 VI
SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino j 64 6 ( 103 9) 1 7 3 1 0 074 1 VII
SAN ANDREAS - Southern | 64 6 ( 103 9) 1 7 4 1 0 078 1 VII
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO | 66 7 ( 107 4) 1 6 6 1 0 050 1 VI
SAN JOSE 1 67 4 ( 108 4) 1 6 5 1 0 057 1 VI
CUCAMONGA j 70 0 ( 112 7) I 7 0 I 0 072 1 VI
SIERRA MADRE | 70 1 ( 112 8) 1 7 0 1 0 072 1 VI
PINTO MOUNTAIN | 71 6 ( 115 2) 1 7 0 1 0 058 1 VI
SAN ANDREAS - Coachella | 72 9 ( 117 4) I 7 1 I 0 061 1 VI
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) | 74 8 ( 120 4) 1 7 0 1 0 069 1 VI
CLEGHORN | 76 9 ( 123 8) 1 6 5 I 0 042 1 VI
BURNT MTN. | 77 9 ( 125 4) I 6 4 1 0 040 1 V
RAYMOND 1 79 1 ( 127 3) I 6 5 1 0 050 1 VI
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT | 79 4 ( 127 8) 1 6 5 1 0 050 1 VI
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) | 79 .5 ( 128 0) I 6 7 1 0 056 1 VI
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture | 79 9 ( 128 6) 1 7 8 I 0 082 1 VII
SAN ANDREAS - Mojave j 79 9 ( 128 6) I 7 1 1 0 056 1 VI
EUREKA PEAK | 80 .7 ( 129 .8) 1 6 4 1 0 . 039 1 V
VERDUGO I 81 .5 ( 131 2) 1 6 7 1 0 055 I VI
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) | 83 . 3 ( 134 .0) j 6 6 1 0 . 042 1 VI
HOLLYWOOD | 83 .4 ( 134 3) I 6 4 1 0 046 1 VI
ELMORE RANCH | 86 9 ( 139 8) 1 6 6 1 0 041 1 V
LANDERS 1 87 6 ( 140 9) I 7 3 1 0 058 1 VI
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT | 87 9 ( 141 4) I 7 1 1 0 052 1 VI
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)| 87 9 ( 141 5) 1 6 6 1 0 040 1 V
SANTA MONICA | 88 2 ( 142 0) 1 6 6 1 0 049 1 VI
LAGUNA SALADA j 90 0 ( 144 8) I 7 0 1 0 049 I VI
MALIBU COAST | 91 0 ( 146 5) 1 6 7 1 0 050 1 VI
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS| 92 0 ( 148 0) 1 7 3 1 0 056 I VI
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) j 94 . 5 ( 152 1) 1 6 7 1 0 049 1 VI
NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge) | 94 8 ( 152 5) 1 6 9 1 0 054 I VI
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) j 95 3 ( 153 3) 1 6 7 1 0 040 I V
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE | 95 . 7 ( 154 0) 1 6 4 1 0 034 1 V
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. | 95 9 ( 154 3) 1 6 9 1 0 044 I VI
SAN GABRIEL | 96 .3 ( 155 0) 1 7 0 1 0 046 1 VI
ANACAPA-DUME j 96 .4 ( 155 1) 1 7 3 0 066 VI
************************************************ ********************** *********
-END OF SEARCH-53 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS
THE NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE
IT IS ABOUT 4.8 MILES (7.7 km) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.3858 g