Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 94-05; Village Farmers Market; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (4)City of Carlsbad Planning Departnnent NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: West side of Roosevelt Street, between Garlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue, in the Gity of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of Galifornia PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A weekly Gerdfied Farmer's Market for a maximum of 33 booths within an exisdng commercial parking lot, resuldng in lot closure from 1:00 PM to 8:00 PM every Wednesday. The Gity of Garlsbad 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 Gity of Garlsbad. 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, Garlsbad, Galifornia 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4499. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: MARCH 16, 1995 RP 94-05 MICHAEL J. H Planning Director MILLER VILLAGE CERTIHED FARMER'S MARKET PUBUSH DATE: MARCH 16, 1995 MG:lh:vd 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 CAL^RNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH GAME PO BOX 944209 SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2090 CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title/Location (mclude county): RP 94-05 VILLAGE CERTIHED FARMER'S MARKET West side of Roosevelt Street, between Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of Califomia Name and Address of Applicant: Carlsbad Village Business Association 2774 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Project Description: A weekly Certified Farmer's Market for a maximum of 33 booths within an existing commercial parking lot, resulting in lot closure from 1:00 PM to 8:00 PM every Wednesday. Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary): 1. The City of Carlsbad Plamiing Department has completed an Enviromneiital Initial Study for the above referenced property, mcluding evaluation of the proposed project's potential for adverse enyironmental impacts on fish and wildlife resources. 2. Based on the completed Environmental Initial Study, the City of Carlsbad Plamiing Department finds there is no evidence before the City of Carlsbad that the proposal will have potential for an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. 3. The City of Carlsbad has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in AB 3158 Chapter 1706 Section 753.5(d). Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based on the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. MICHAEL7. HOLZMILLER Title: Planning Director Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad Date: March 13. 1995 Section 711.4, Fish and Game Code DFG: 12/90 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ETE WILSON, Governor GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 April 14, 1995 MIKE GRIM CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 Subject: VILLAGE CERTIFIED FARMER'S MARKET - RP 94-05 SCH # 95031037 Dear MIKE GRIM The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call Mark Goss at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Michael Chiriatti, Jr. Chief, State Clearinghouse ^J«et TitiM mi»m eaetiflmA fmm^ « mrkmt - •» 9k-ai LMd A9«Ky: SltY Irf Gymi Contact ^Mnt ftrto City: 95031087 mt> tfi u«i. ntl Mtt CMMCyt JMUUlML MOjfCT umriflis County: lon D>i^ Crooo Strovto: ,|«tmit %\tm Wl ClTtil Within 2 Nlloo: ttM* Mfy ft 1-| City/MoTMt CoMnlty: VI Uooo Dr<v SKtion: Airports: lieCtoiioi> • 9mi.* MCUMHT rm. lorly COM 1 Hof Doc Oroft ilt •uppttMnt/IUtaoaMint l» mSrnr KM Ito.) _ ©M»or UKM. tctim vm Oonorot Pim MfiOM fionorol PVon Oonorol Plan It CoMMnity PKm mmtarma vm Rooidontiot: Unit* Offico: K). H X Cooiwrcfot: Sq. fx Ifxluotrloli Sq. M fducotionol Rocroottonol •* *nm fit MMI Joint fSmi LMi tiv1«f«i (tMMIv(*<«n. »or««t 9m, Trait Mp. t««.} CowtaiTiniiiit I.Ka ww4>-^^ , ^loyooo »er«» loplayooo WMcr PwilHIwt TMM Tr«M|Nr««t<flRt Typt ^ lUiMilit Mintrtt fmmi TMH ^ MMIM TrMtMM! TIP* MMtoi Ty»o Uatts PKUfCT ItBJM Bl AoottMtie/Viauot Agricultural Lani Air Ouolity Archoooloflcol/Niatoricol Cooatol Zona Oratnofo/Akaorptian iconoMic/Joto Fiscal Flooi Ptain/Ftoailm Foroot Lani/Firo Mauri toalatic/aalaaic IMnorata Moiaa HM*tian/Mauaini talam PulMie •orvieos/Focllltii toerootioiVParlta tdwala/llniwaraltioa lytic tail ifatlaMtaiNMitiafVtrMHiit tai 14 ytt* Toaia/tatarthiw TraffIe/Cir«u4at4*n Vaiatatian JL_ UK«r tuality HWir tiipty/ JL. Wattvi^itarian JUMlMifa flrawlii iniuKini Ciau4ai<«a iffoct Prmmit Lani Uoa/»MwliM/»—i at Parkina tot/V-l (Villag* )/V (ViUata) Projoct rtptian A Moeitly Cortif fai FarHH' • Narlwt far a •aiiauB of 31 kaattia aitiifa an aatatfai froa 1:00 PR to ttW Ml avary tiat »arki«i lat. iwittiat <n >•* claauro CLEAKINGHOUSI CONTACTt Mark Gosa (916) 44S-0613 STATE WtVIIW BICXKi DEPT RSV TO AOCNCYt AGENCY RBV TO SCH I SCH COMPL IMICB t PMiMi Ign Ufa BMn OB MA CTHmim PIRiCTLT AQMD/APCD Raaourcaa cn sm .Boating .Coaatal Coaaa .Coaatal Conav .Colorado Rvr Bd .Conaarvation ^ _Fiah S Qama w .Foraatry .Parka C Rac/c»iP .Haclaaation .BCDC .DUR Baa TraMf) WOOB .Aaronautica Caltrana j/l Trana Planning "* Houaing i Itaval fp—Baaltli • Valfara Drinking H30 ^Madicai Waata •tata/C Oanaral Sarvicaa CMA (Sehoola) Cal/IM MtB Ok Naata NgMt Bd HWtCB I —Oranta aWWBi—Oalta ^.SilUCBi—lltr Quality _Si«Cit—ntr Mghta «QCt # 7 DTSC/CTC ' Ttk/Adlt CkMmetioMi Corractions Saargy COMB mac PUC Banta Hn IKna Stata Landa OOMB ^Talioa Rgl Plan Othan City of Carlsbad Planning Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: West side of Roosevelt Street, between Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue, in the City of Garlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A weekly Certified Farmer's Market for a maximum of 33 booths within an existing commercial parking lot, resulting in lot closure from 1:00 PM to 8:00 PM every Wednesday. The Gity of Garlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Galifornia Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the Gity of Garlsbad. 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, Garlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4499. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: MARCH 16, 1995 RP 94-05 A MICHAEL J. H( Planning Director MILLER VILLAGE CERTIHED FARMER'S MARKET PUBUSH DATE: MARCH 16, 1995 MG:lh:vd 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART U (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASENO. RP 94-05 DATE: MARCH L 1995 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CASENAME: Carlsbad Village Certified Fanner's Market APPLICANT: Carlsbad Villape Busmess Association ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2774 Jefferson Street. Carlsbad. CA 92008 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 1. 1995 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A weekly Certified Farmer's Market for a maximum of 33 booths withm an existing commercial parking lot, resulting in lot closure from 1:00 PM to 8:00 PM every Wednesday. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one mipact 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 Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation I- 1 Rev. 1/30/95 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the envkonment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X 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 envkonment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is requked. • I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the envkonment, but at least one 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, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION is requked, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the envkonment, 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. • cJ- 7-95 Planner Signature / Date ^ _ Planning Dkect^Sigi^tUre Date 1-2 Rev. 1/30/95 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requkes that the City conduct an Envkonmental Impact Assessment to deteimine if a project may have a significant effect on the envkonment. The Envkonmental 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 knpacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Envkonmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is requked for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an infoimation source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if die referenced infonnation sources show tiiat 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 knpact 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 briefiy 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 H", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the envkonment, 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, then no additional envkonmental document is requked (Prior Compliance). 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 envkonment. 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. When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily requked 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. 1-3 Rev. 1/30/95 • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following ckcumstances: (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 nutigation 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 detemiine the effectiveness of a nutigation 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 discussmg mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be detemiined significant. I - 4 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Sapponiog Infonnatian Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Pot^ally Significant Unless Mitigati(xi Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would tiie proposal: a) Confiict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): ) b) Conflict with applicable envkonmental 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 anangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? ( ) X n. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would tiie proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either dkectiy or indkectiy (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) 1-5 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Siqjporting InformatiGQ Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ni. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would tiie proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault mpture? ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) X c) Seismic groimd failure, including Uquefaction? ( ) 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? ( ) X_ X_ x_ x_ X, X TV, WATER. Would tiie proposal result m: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) 1-6 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Siq)porting Information Sources): c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quaUty (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidky)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes in cunents, or the course or dkection of water movements? ( ) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through dkect additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered dkection 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? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigaticm Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. AIR QUALITY. Would tiie proposal: a) Violate any ak quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected ak quality violation? ( b) Expose sensitive receptors to poUutants? ( ) c) Alter ak movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) X, X_ X, X 1-7 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Siqiporting InformatioD Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Sigmficant Impact No Impact 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 bicycUsts? ( ) f) ConfUcts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, waterbome or ak traffic impacts? ( ) X vn. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or thek habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and bkds? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( ) 1-8 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Siq^porting InformatioD Sources): c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) Vni. 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 availabiUty of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigaticm Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. HAZARDS. Would tiie proposal mvoive: 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 hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) X 1-9 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Supporting Informatioo Sources): e) Increase fire hazard in areas with fiammable bmsh, grass, or trees? ( ) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result m: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Sigmficant Impact No Impact XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would tiie proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fke protection? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) c) Schools? ( ) d) Maintenance of public faciUties, including roads? ( ) JL X e) Other govemmental services? ( ) X_ X xn. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would tiie 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? ( ) X. X I - 10 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Si^orting Information Sources): c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution faciUties? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) g) Local or regional water suppUes? ( Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigaticm Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X xra. AESTHETICS. Would tiie proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) X_ X XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would tiie proposal: a) Disturb paieontological 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 reUgious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) JL X. X I- 11 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Siqiporting Informatioo Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigaticm Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XV. RECREATION. Would tiie proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( JL X XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNfflCANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the envkonment, 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 CaUfomia 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 cunent projects, and the effects of probable future projects) c) Does the project have envkonmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either dkectiy or indkectiy? 1-12 Rev. 1/30/95