The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 00-33; Car Country Re-Landscaping; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CDP 00-33 DATE: JUNE 28. 2000 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CASE NAME: CAR COUNTRY RE-LANDSCAPING APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD - PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE, CARLSBAD. CA 92008: MARK STEYAERT 760.434.2824 EXT. 2855. DATE El A FORM PART I SUBMITTED: JUNE 1.2000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REMOVAL OF EXISTING PEPPERS TREES ON CALTRANS FREEWAY RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO CAR COUNTRY CARLSBAD. THE PROJECT INVOLVES THE REMOVAL OF 24 PEPPER TREES AND REPLACEMENT AT A 3:1 RATIO WITH A VARIETY OF OTHER TREE SPECIES RESULTING IN 72 NEW TREES. THE PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE BETTER VISIBILITY TO CAR COUNTRY WHILE REPLACING AND RELOCATING EXISTING. MATURE TREES. 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 Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Public Services Utilities & Service Systems Energy & Mineral Resources [XJ Aesthetics Hazards Cultural Resources Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. ftft Q Planner Signature Date Planning Directors Signature Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but 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, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II 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. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the 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)? Potentially Significant Impact n * * D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? D El El III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 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? D a n n IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) b) c) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? D n n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality?) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact nn x n 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 bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? D n n n VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? n » »n VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? 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? D D D D XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools?) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? n IEI XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? X X XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological 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.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or 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 California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? D D D XVII, 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. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. NONE. 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 8 Rev. 03/28/96 mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. NONE. 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. NONE. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION LAND USE PLANNING The proposed re-landscaping will not conflict with the General Plan or zoning designations of the subject project site, which is T-C (Transportation Corridor). The existing landscaping located on the edges of the freeway right of way does not impact the current or future allowed land uses. No agricultural uses occur on the perimeters of the freeway right of way. POPULATION AN D HOUSING The proposed landscaping project will not impact the area or the city's population patterns; nor will affordable housing be diplaced. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS The subject site is not located in an area of geologic instability, eroding soils, landslide or potential liquefaction. WATER No significant changes to the area's drainage patterns, absorption rates or surface runoff characteristics will result from the re-landscaping effort. The plan to replace existing trees with more, new trees will have no affect on the ground water supply or quality. AIR QUALITY The project will not have a significant impact on the air quality of the area or region. Automobiles are the largest contributors of air quality impacts and this proposal does not generate any traffic. Since the 24 existing trees will be replaced by 72 new trees, there will be an incremental benefit to the area given increased photosynthesis processes due to the increase in trees. TRANSPORTATION This project will not generate any traffic. The re-landscaping concept does not involve any structures or new square footage to the area; nor does it propose any new uses besides landscaping so as to generate any transportation related impacts. The project will not hinder the use of the transportation corridor as an interstate highway. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The eastern edge of the freeway is essentially a disturbed environment that has been void of naturally occurring plant and animal species since the construction of the interstate freeway. No biological resources or animal movement or migration corridors will be impacted by the re- landscaping project. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Given the nature and location of this project, there will not be any affect on energy or mineral resources in any way. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 HAZARDS Given the nature and location of this project, there will not be any risk of creating or promoting hazards in any way. NOISE Given the nature and location of this project, there will not be any noise impacts to adjacent businesses from the re-landscaping; likewise, the freeway noise will not impact the new landscaping proposal. PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS No demand to, or impact on, public services will result from the new landscaping concept proposed. The site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 3; this project will not impact the adequacy of Zone 3 to provide the standard range of public services and facilities. The project proposes an agreement between Car Country and the City whereby the City would perform long term maintenance. AESTHETICS The project could result in a potentially significant impact regarding aesthetics since 24 existing, mature Pepper Trees are proposed for removal. However, given the CALTRANS required replacement ratio of 3:1, there will be 72 trees planted to replace the 24 removed. Of those 72 new trees, 1/3 shall be 24" box size and the remaining 2/3 shall be 15 gallon size. The configuration of the new landscaping will involve clusters of plantings so that the gaps between the tree clusters allow visibility to Car Country dealerships. The Pepper Trees will be replaced with Mexican Fan Palms, Queen Palms, Canary Island Pines, California Sycamores and New Zealand Flax. A landscape plan will be required of this project prior to commencing work. The Checklist is marked as "potentially significant impact" but due to the design and description of the project, there will be no additional mitigation required, nor will a significant impact result. CULTURAL RESOURCES Given the nature and location of this project, there will not be any impacts to cultural resources in any way. RECREATIONAL RESOURCES Given the nature and location of this project, there will not be any impacts to recreational resources in any way. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 EARLIER ANALYSES USED None. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) None. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM OF APPLICABLE) None. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 14 Rev. 03/28/96