Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 98-58; Ross Residence; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (4)NOTICE OF EXEMPTION To: County Clerk County of San Diego Mailstop 833, Attn: Mita PO Box 1750 San Diego CA 92112 From:CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drhl? fl JL,as amas r , JR) Carlsbad CA 92009 WJ-Smlth'Rfloord9r/Cou"'ycierk (760)438-1161 MAY 1 4 1999 Subject: Filing of this Notice of Exemption is in compliance with Section 21 152b of the Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act). Project Title: CDP 98-58 - ROSS RESIDENCE _ Project Location - Specific: East side of Surfside Lane (APN 214-022-10) __ Project Location - City: Carlsbad _ Project Location - County: San Diego _ Description of Project: 2.415 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached 553 sq. ft. garage Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Carlsbad _ __ DEPUTY Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Carlsbad Exempt Status: (Check One) X Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(l); 15268); Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269 (b)(c)); Categorical Exemption - State type and section number: Class 3. 15303 (a) Statutory Exemptions - State code number: Reasons why project is exempt: Single family residence not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units _ Lead Agency Contact Person: Barbara Kennedy Telephone: (760) 438-1161. ext. 4325 If filed by applicant: 1 . Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? _ ^ MICHAEL J. HOLZMrLLER^lanning Director Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant Date Revised October 1989 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 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 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" cr "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. 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894 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 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) I. 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 D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact D D II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly orb) indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) 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 D D D D D D D D D D D D D n n n D D nnn IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( )D n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) 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? VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b)andUse non-renewable resources in a wasteful inefficient manner? ( ) 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 D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D Less Than Significan t Impact D D D D D D D 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? () n D D D D D D D D D D D D D Q 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 JZT XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) c) Schools? ( ) D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attache^) 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact D D D 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. 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. Rev. 03/28/96 are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, 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 alternative 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. The diversion of regional through-traffic 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 buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, 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 recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "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. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 10 Rev. 03/28/96