HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 95-01; Parker Office Building; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
May 25, 1995
BRIAN HUNTER
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2 075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
Subject: PARKER OFFICE BUILDING, RP 95-01/CDP 95-01 SCH #:
95041054
Dear BRIAN HUNTER:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental
document to selected state agencies for review. The review pe.riod
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.
Sincerely,
Michael Chiriattj^ Jr.\
Chief, State Clearinghouse
INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR FILLING OUT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Form - Part I will be used to
determine what type of environmental documentation (i.e. Environmental Impact
Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration or Exemption) will
be required to be prepared for your application, per the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 19 of Carlsbad's Municipal Code. The clarity and
accuracy of the information you provide is critical for purposes of quickly
determining the specific environmental effects of your project.
Recent judicial decisions have held that a "naked checklist", that is a checklist
that is merely checked "yes" or "no", is insufficient to comply with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Each "yes" or "no"
answer must be accompanied by a written explanation justifying the "yes" or "no"
answer. This is especially important when a Negative Declaration is being
sought. The more information provided in this form, the easier and quicker it
will be for staff to complete the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part
II.
m 2 1 1335
ft. f'
CASE NO.
DATE:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(To be Completed by APPLICANT)
Applicant: ^AKU^Y P^kett
Address of Applicant: <!>^\^ MA^^L LAMfej rj^fXCot^MO^ r^. ^/iMP:/
Phone Number: {(D\<\ )
Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than
Applicant): ^^^^
GENERAL INFORMATION: (Please be specific)
Project Description: p>eL^Ti^N X/lh^ ^f;,^iM(^L6 ^tv^ ^ffi^
Ait£A ^ PAi^\Uf:i I ^ Aot/^^ d K/^g ^t./^. > folH^r^j^ I N^UATI^
Project Location/Address: VA^MT ^M^L - ^4^^C-n^ Q/\^^0\ Uh/^C^W / \Nim
y[A^\(m t kKtlt)eet/\ ^i^bb^ Viil^g. l/>. fify-^nj 1)
Assessor Parcel Number: - "j^oA - l6>
General Plan/Zone of Subject Property: v/iUA"^^ f^i^VI^U^'l'/ \/\\A//^^
Local Facilities Management Zone: _|
Is the site within Carlsbad's Coastal Zone? Y£5 ^ lAitiHiM c-w^'S CQASIAI. AJTHC^ITY
Please describe the area surrounding the site to the
North: /^i^U^i/u| /^MM'l^ East: %>b/^e^ ^M'U f .^^m^
South: tt^^f^ rm\A'\^ f ^rrii:^ west: ^k/^^Y /^^'L-^^^ 4 ^^^^.^
List all other applicable permits & approvals related to this project:
^.tOt^t^fVitM /j-A^il-^ fci)lLi^r^/^if
(Please be Specific. Attach Additional Pages or Exhibits, if necessary)
1. Please describe the project site, including distinguishing natural and
manmade characteristics. Also provide precise slope analysis when a slope
of 15' or higher and 15% grade or greater is present on the site.
f^NW^ ^ rtiu. u?mmm^G? Au^t-i AT f^?-
2. Please describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design
and/or operation of the project.
3. PLEASE AHACH A PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET WHICH SHOWS THE FOLLOWING:
a. If a residential project identify the number of units, type of units,
schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of
household size expected, average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG
rates).
b. If a commercial project, indicate the exact type, activity(ies),
square footage of sales area, average daily traffic generation
(latest SANDAG rates), parking provided, and loading facilities,
iH^^TAf^-l^Ai^
JM^^^P k/i^^icvsi^ ^rf\^ " iviMPfi^ iNd::i^^?«^i^, i^mnc^B^
c. If an industrial project, indicate the exact type or industry(ies),
average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG rates), estimated
employment per shift, time of shifts, and loading facilities.
m Af^iCA^it^
d. If an institutional project, indicate the major project/site
function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy,
loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the
project.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Please Answer each of the following questions by placing a check in the
appropriate space. Then, fully discuss and explain why each item was
checked yes or no. Provide supporting data if applicable. Attach
additional sheets as necessary.
YES NO
1) Could the project significantly impact or change
present or future land uses in the vicinity of the
activity? X
EXPLANATION: ft^fa^T Rg^?^l^ A RtsuxATtoN ^ AN
TUg NORTA lAyiN TUS SAME f)^g AfcEA
2) Could the activity affect the use of a recreational
area, or area of aesthetic value? x
EXPLANATION: of TKI^ IN-FiUL |4^T niU. KoT \hAf^T
ftSClg&^noHAL USE ACCESS AKJ^g l£XTEl2.le>g
jj^EMO^ IS INI KiSfcPIM^^ V4/ VlLLAr^E Z&OtLSJSUDPUtHT
3) Could the activity affect the functioning of an
established community or neighborhood? X
OF
EXPLANATION: |^gux:A-T[0»4i^TMlt) |5r<g>7iNr^ 05& uoiu, f^Ave
no AfH=ECT OH CoMMliMirC| g>]/A/aV^ »ja/'^tf&Dg^koo
ftlNCTPHlf^ff :
4) Could the activity result in the displacement of
community residents? X
EXPLANATION: gf^iosMTS IMIU. g£ O^saAcaa ^|
YES NO
5) Could the activity increase the number of low and
moderate cost housing units in the city? 2S_
EXPLANATION: h0 A I^|SLCX:AT!£10 oste ^ Tf4e pjggJECT tOiiL
MOT IMPACT U^lAJ/MoiQEieATK COST ^k?U£)^Uf^.
6) Could the activity significantly affect existing
housing or create a demand for additional housing?
EXPLANATION: As A ggLOG^T&o ose, Ti-vg PiftPJtSCl
7) Are any of the natural or man-made features in the
activity area unique, that is, not found in other
parts of the county, state or nation?
EXPLANATION: Taisfgfc A\g.E Ng> >4A-ro^^Lov ^AAM-UA^Qe.
8) Could the activity significantly affect an
historical or archaeological site or its settings? x
EXPLANATION: TAgR& Av^ts MO P&M^KieTRATEto
f4)5TOieiCAL or AiecAAlSOPCr^lCAL f^gAT(3fcfeS .
9) Could.the activity significantly affect the
potential use, extraction, or conservation of a
scarce natural resource? >c^
EXPLANATION: TM£r2£ taid. MOT fo£ A -sr^MlflCAMT c^w^.
TO PbTt^NTIAL AC^&SS To AMCj &g'500Rgfe - N/? ^^I^Cg
MATut^L agsoog.c£ \^ (teM i/)eMoNfeT;^Tt£^:7.
YES NO
10) Could the activity significantly affect fish,
wildlife or plant resources? A
EXPLANATION: Pyz-OJECT LOO^TtoN \T> ^4oT V^MTMm AK
PLAMT g.E50UgCg5
11) Are there any rare or endangered plant or animal
species in the activity area? A
EXPLANATION: Mo M^JS c:>iL^H\PAHC^&0 PLAMTog.
AHtMAL -speafe^ l4AVg teM \/)e^UT>Tl^T&^.
12) Could the activity change existing features of any
of the city's stream, lagoons, bays, tidelands
or beaches? ^
EXPLANATION: Pitoj^iSCT LCJCATI^K IS MOT V)\Ti\\H AM AteeA
Tt-VAt IMOtJUg Oll«2.tfCTUt[ AFfHSCT kJATl£^e> M£ATDfc£S
TMI£ HATUi/ie. usnstp ABcVg / ^1*2.
13) Could the activity result in the erosion or elimin-
ation of agricultural lands? x
EXPLANATION: fT2g>4lsct is Mor ott MEAP..
Africa L-RJPAL LAMlQg^
14) Could the activity serve to encourage development
of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop-
ment of already developed areas? ^
EXPLANATION: A3 A g£ua:ATC(p f)^ lormiri SAME o^e
YES NO
15) Will the activity require a variance from estab-
lished environmental standards (air, water, noise,
etc.)?
EXPLANATION: Mo ^PgciAL ggg?o^]f^£Mg.MTS mu^&£^
CjfeMEHf^d-TfeO 60] TMIS R.ltU3>C«.TE<C> OUlUQlklf^ .
16) Is the activity carried out as part of a larger
project or series of projects? x
EXPLANATION: THt P^oaEcT feMvoLVBs ie.feLccATiKi/^
OMg BOILVOIklf:^ TO TM£ P<gC?.-i£CT SITE. THt£ feXI3T. ^^^il^L
0\t^U:>fW m A C(Mm%<:A/^\^ WJ^CT A "SlfPAlV^TtS^
fp^J&CT fC7t.LO><J|W0r PEU?C?VTloN Of Sae^JG-CT EXilLOJNOr.
17) Will the activity require certification, authoriza-
tion or issuance of a permit by any local, state
or federal environmental control agency? ^
EXPLANATION: MlsigcAc^ voAgrte Cxm^a^a^ is eoRjiecT
TO fefiVlWnMMeKlTAU CbNlTfi^e. i4A»JOUM6t c^f
18) Will the activity require issuance of a variance or
conditional use permit by the City? X_
EXPLANATION: ^epfevjtei^MisMT ptA^ B>oiLto<ur;|- I^NMTS
AMP ^g?ASTAL, PgO<^ffSSiMf ^ \A)ITV4IM CtTV'S AuTHPg-lTY
19) Will the activity involve the application, use, or
disposal of potentially hazardous materials?
EXPLANATION: TRASh\ fstsM^AL IMC^IOISMTAL TO A
Ti^Ml^ plAC£0 m eSMJSi^ GoMTArVfei^S AWtO PfCl::if[D-Op
7
YES NO
20) Will the activity involve construction of facilities
in a flood plain? x
EXPLANATION: PieoJECT SITE 15 MoT UxAT&D> VuiTUiM
A ^uooQ PLAlKl.
21) Will the activity involve construction of facilities
in the area of an active fault?
22)
EXPLANATION:
Uf? mom ACtN£ Ofi PPTeKlTIAUL^ ACTNC FACJLtS
Aug. SM(71^NI Pr;g>USaeD »MP3 (N TMH VlctMtTC| c3>f=-
TMfc t!>[TE (t JeiAi/^»:A^3 m^D. P^tl^. feOi^l^M lAI^OU^
Could the activity result in the generation of
significant amounts of dust? _
EXPLANATION: As A t^EuocATfcO ^-TieocTUiie& ^ CoMSTi&oaioM
IOP:)T K}ifjL fcfe uige»e>TMAN KIEW cgMsrrzucTioM-. SITE
23) Will the activity involve the burning of brush,
trees, or other materials?
EXPLANATION: OMU^ oME Tieas ^udi e?UAUu MirtAL 'S^\0
\ji^\\JL \he t^EMz^EO TO A PfiOPEJ<L POMP «3rr&.
24) Could the activity result in a significant change
in the quality of any portion of the region's air
or water resources? (Should note surface, ground
water, off-shore.)
EXPLANATION: A }fL\^\A^T&lP eTRIXLTUt^ T^^ fmifiCT
KtiLc MOT Pto>QOC€ A ^mm^i cuAMf^ye jA\K8>\f6{ov
liUAtf^ ^mmf^jt. i^toa^ ^IT^ ie> 0MIW/L T>UM T>^&
)$J()5T ^ITIS AMl^ tUl^l^rCHU£ \\)|U. ^NTI^)i^T6 1-6^^ m-C^f-
8
YES NO
25) Will the project substantially increase fuel
consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)? X
EXPLANATION: As A I2EUXAT&O 6uiu?iwr;^ ^ TME oae
lOiLL MOT ^uegTAMTIALLC] oMAMf^ I^SOOKCg-
CoM^MPTlOVl.
26) Will the activity involve construction of facilities
on a slope of 25 percent or greater? x
EXPLANATION: -PITE it) ESSfcMTiALCu^ ^UAT
27) Will there be a significant change to existing
land form? X
(a) Indicate estimated grading to be done in
cubic yards: iicp .
(b) Percentage of alteration to the present
land form: [(P */» .
(c) Maximum height of cut or fill slopes:
f-iU^ ^u>pfe s IC" .
EXPLANATION: fedST. eiTE POES MOT DPAIKI pfiopEyaL^
m)MT g>F^\TE VOILL && fHULED APPlg^?<.. |.4' I^ITV4 A
MEIAJ fSl^PE TQTME ALLEY AT t^EAR 1M\T4 AfPROX . f^ILL
PISPTH AT /ABOUT t'^pCM AUJE^ I9SVIM(;(-
28) Will the activity result in substantial increases
in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets? ^
EXPLANATION: A^ A ie4£LQCATEi6> OSE T)-4iagE UJILC fie HO
^nt^AMTIAL /MOeifA^fe.
#
YES NO
29) Will the project significantly increase wind or
water erosion of soils? X
EXPLANATION: T\^ PiilQdtfCT R)(CL MoT sir^^Miyic&TigLjUj
30) Could the project significantly affect existing
fish or wildlife habitat? X
EXPLANATION: TUE Pf^JECT iibiLL MoT C^^TE coMtPmoMs
TMAT UJCXJU9 ^irTillFtCAMTLC^ APfgCt ^l^\\.^\^t^
ibiuouipe i4^iTAT - hlo fWbiTAT ^Ae> feeK
[^^EM^>MS>Tf^TE.iP,
31) Will the project significantly produce new light
or glare? x
EXPLANATION: Tm RELOCATEI/^ (hoWJOlUO^ gb£5 MoT
Pl^P^er AlglOlTlOMAC U^lrHTIM/-:^ - l£?(\g>T UK^^MTINICf
le LlKAlTtiO ICP SKAAU^itotOLOATTA^^]) EMm^MCE LI/V^^TIM^T
10
3^ II. STATEMENT OF NON-SIGNTFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
If you have answered yes to any of the questions in Section I but think
the activity will have no significant environmental effects, indicate your
reasons below:
III. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN SECTION I
(If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach
additional sheets as needed.)
(Prison Completing Report)
Date Signed
11
PROJECT DATA / ^UMMAF^Y
OWNER : Mr. Oakley O. Parker
3215 Maezel Lane, Carlsbad, CA 92003
Tel. 619 729 - 5560
51TE : . Madison Street, Carlsbad, CA 92003
LEGAL PE5CRIPTI0N : Tract 775, aiock 53, Lot 25 & 26,
Town of Carlsbad
A55E550R5 PARCEL No. 203-504-15 , ,
QUANTITY OF GRADING ::.\\0 0-{. ( Foilndaiion trenchlnj^ 6 CY.)
PLANNING COMMiSSION OR CITY COUNCIL ACTION :
Variance Conditional U s e Pe rmit Tra ct o r Parcel Map Zone Change
Planned Development <^Kedeveloif)ment Permj^
Site Development Flan Hone
GENERAL PLAN PESIGNATION :_VIPUAC^ . Z^?Nej-_Vl^^A^ 'Cl
LOT AREA : 7,000 SF. BUILPING AREA : 1,2<37 SF.
SUMMARY
Carlsbad Sewer District... Carlebad Water District...
Carlebad Unified School District... Land use : exieting vacant
Parking : Recjuired = 1/200 sf.= 6.5 spaces
Provided = 3 (including 1 Handicap )
Duilding coverage : 1,237 sf... Building 5c|^. footage : 1,237 sf.
Percent Landscaping : 22.5 %
Average Dally Traffic : existing = '50 /^N(QAC^ MAI2£:H'=13
No area of site appliee to the rec^uirements set forth in Zoning Ordinance
Section 21.53.230
Project sign: f^>^l^iN6\ ; l^^f: d ^^>'V 4'2-" PAlH1$:[)P
MEDICAL BUILDING
MADISON STREET
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
• •
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART n
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. RP 9S-01/CX>P 95-01
DATE: APRIL 17. 1995
BACKGROUND
CASE NAME: Parker Office Building
APPLICANT: Oaklev Parker
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3215 Maezel Lane
Carlsbad CA 92008
(619) 729-5026
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 2L 1995
PROJECT DESC:RIPTI0N: Relocation and exterior remodel of 1287 square foot single-storv medical
office from 660 Carlsbad Village Drive to 2963 Madison Street. Removal of 150 square foot metal shed
and one tree within proposed paridng area. Parking for 8 autos with one handicapped space. Associated
landscape improvements to include hardscape and physically challenged ramp. The Carlsbad Village Drive
site will have the sewer capped and the utilities removed.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air (Quality
DETERMINATION.
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Rev. 1/30/95
(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. KT
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 enviromnent, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required. •
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one 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 required, 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 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. D
Planner Signature Date April 17, 1995
Planning Director SlgBature ^ Date
Rev. 1/30/95
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to detemiine 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 infonnation 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 die 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 Uian 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 IT, 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, then no additional environmental document is required (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 environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are
mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are
agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
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.
Rev. 1/30/95
• 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 die 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. 1/30/95
Issues (and Suppoiting Infonnation Sources):
PDtemiany
Significant
In^Mct
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
In^Mct
L LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would die proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( )
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? ( )
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? ( )
n. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would tiie proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectiy (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( )
c) Displace existing housing, especially aifordable
housing? ( )
in. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would tiie proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
{ )
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Sqjpocting Informatioo Sources):
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? ( )
IV. WATER. Would tiie proposal result in:
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 fiooding? ( )
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? ( )
f) 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
capabiUty? ( )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
( )
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
SigniHcant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Inipact
No
Impact
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Sq)porting Information Sources):
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
( )
V. AIR QUALITY. Would tiie 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? ( )
Potentially
Significant
bnpict
Potentially
SigniHcant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would tiie
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? ( )
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
( )
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
( )
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle
racks)? ( )
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? ( )
Rev. 1/30/95
Potentially
SigniHcant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Sigmficant Mitigation Sigmficant No
Issues (and Siqsporting InformatioD Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
vn. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would tiie 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? ( ) X
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
( ) _ _ _ -X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) X
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal
Pool)?( ) _ _ _ ^
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) X
vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would tiie
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
( ) _ _ _ ^
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ) X
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? ( ) X
DC. HAZARDS. Would tiie proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? ( ) X
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) X
c) TTie creation of any health hazard or potential X
healtii hazard? ( )
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ( )
e) 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 tiie proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services
in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( )
b) Police protection? ( )
c) Schools? ( )
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
( )
Potentially
SigniHcant
In^Mct
e) Other govemmental services? ( )
xn. UTn^rriES 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? ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (
e) Storm water drainage? (
)
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigatitm
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
In^t
No
Impact
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
f) Solid waste disposal? ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( )
xm. AESTHETICS. Would tiie proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( )
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
( )
c) Create light or glare? ( )
xrv. 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 religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( )
XV. RECREATION. Would tiie proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) _
10 Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Informatioo Sources):
XVL 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 Califomia history (x 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 envhx>nmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directiy or indirectly?
XVn. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially
Significant
Inflect
PotentiaUy
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Sigmficant
Impact
No
Impact
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
11 Rev. 1/30/95
DISCUSSION OF ENVmONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project is a nullity as regards an environmental impact evaluation. Hie project is located in the Redevelopment
Area within Subarea 1. The project is an existing medical building fronting on Carlsbad Village Drive that is to
be relocated approximately 200 feet to the north where it will front on Madison Street. TTie project requires a
Redevelopment Permit and a Coastal Development Permit to remove the structure from the Coastal Zone. The
Redevelopment Permit not only acts from a strict redevelopment perspective, but meets the requirement for a
structure relocation permit per Section 18.24 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The existing and proposed parking
for the project loads off the alley between Madison and Rooseveh. The site moved from will have the sewer
capped and the utilities removed. No other improvements are planned to the Carlsbad Village Drive site at this
time. The site moved to will require the removal of one tree and a metal storage shed, as well as, hardscape
improvements for sidewalk and parking. A trash dumpster structure and a physically challenged ramp will also
be added. Landscaping will complete the improvements to the proposed site.
Am OUALITY:
Hie implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan
will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result
in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and
suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San
Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are
considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out 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 build-out, a variety of mitigation
measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection
improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the
implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative
modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site
design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project
or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-
attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project
is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification
of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding
Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no fiirther enviromnental
review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at tiie Planning Department.
aRCULATION:
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 build-out 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
12 Rev. 1/30/95
along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a numba- of intersections
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, 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 altemative 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. Hie diversion of regional through^ffic 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 build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". Hiis project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an
EIR is not required because the recent certification of Fmal Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No.
94-246, included a "Statement Of Oveniding Considerations" for circulation impacts. Uiis "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.
13 Rev. 1/30/95
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESSA-OCATION: 660 Carlsbad Village Drive/ 2963 Madison Street
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit to
exteriorly remodel and relocate a 1287 square foot medical office
building from 660 Carlsbad Village Drive to approximately 200
feet north at 2963 Madison Street. Project involves the capping of
the sewer and the removal of the utilities at the Carlsbad Village
Drive address. Hie Madison address will require site
improvements to include parking, trash dumpster, sidewalk with
physically challenged ramp, and landscaping.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental (Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project Justification for this action is on file in
the Planning Department
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning Depaitment at
(619) 438-1161, extension 4457.
DATED: APRU. 25. 1995
MICHAEL J. HOLZMIKLER
CASE NO: RP 95-01/CDP 95-01 Planning Dkector
CASE NAME: PARKER OFFICE BUILDING
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 25, 1995
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619)438-1161 ^