Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RP 04-04A; Roosevelt Garden Condominiums; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: DATE: BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Roosevelt Gardens Condominiums 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Carisbad Housing & Redevelopment Dept. 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B Carisbad, CA 92008-2389 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Joe Gilbreath 619-247-6399 4. . PROJECT LOCATION: 2578 Roosevelt Street 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: San Diego Habitat for Humanity 10222 San Diego Mission Road San Diego, CaHfomia 92108 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VR 7. ZONING: VR 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: An 11 unit condominium for sale housing proiect, affordable to small households eaming 50% or less of the area mean income. The project will be subsidized (gap financing) by the City. It will contain 8 one bedroom and 3 two bedroom units, within 2 two story structures. Significant landscaping and the proper positioning of the buildings will largely shield the 24 parking spaces from view from the sidewalk. The project is located in the Carlsbad downtown redevelopment district. The minor, and insignificant environmental impacts of the project relate to those associated with the development of a small residential project (i.e. noise during construction, minor drainage run-off, minor traffic increases, etc.) Rev. 07/26/02 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. I I Aesthetics I I Agricultural Resources [[^Air Quality I I Biological Resources I I Cultural Resources I I Geology/Soils Q Noise • Hazards/Hazardous Materials D Population and Housing I I Hydrology/Water Quality Q Public Services I I Land Use and Planning Q Recreation • Mineral Resources Q Transportation/Circulation • Mandatory Findings of Q UtiHties & Service Systems Significance '—' The project will not have any significant adverse impact on the eDvironment. Rev. 07/26/02 % ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Inpact" 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 Inipact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential inpact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Signifkant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. • Based on an "EIA-Part I", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. • When "Potentially Significant Inpact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. » If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. Rev. 07/26/02 % • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse inpact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse inpact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part I analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 07/26/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ofthe site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether inpacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the Califomia Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Inportance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could resuh in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? in. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the appHcable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ^^ntially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • X • • • X • • X • • • X • • • X • • • • • • • • • X • X X • • X Rev. 07/26/02 Issues <and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conser\'ation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially • • ^lli^ntially Significant Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact • • • X • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • X X x x X Rev. 07/26/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paieontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Distiu-b any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or stractures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Ruptiue of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Pubhcation 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X Rev. 07/26/02 it^^reo Issues (and Supporting InformatioWources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or altemative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled piusuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the pubUc or environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project resuh in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair irrplementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or stractures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY project: Would the Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • if^tially ^mficant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact • • • X • • • • • • • • • • • • X • X • • • • • • X X X X X a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Rev. 07/26/02 ia^l^( Issues (and Supporting InformatlBKources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Inpacts to groundwater quality? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface ranoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? 0 Create or contribute ranoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area stractures, which would inpede or redirect flood flows? j) Expose people or stractures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? entially lificant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • • • • • • X • • X • • X • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • X • • X • X X X X X X X Rev. 07/26/02 Issues (and Supporting InformatiolTCources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fi-esh or wetland waters) during or following constraction? o) Increase in any pollutant to an aheady impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? p) The exceedance of applicable siuface or groimdwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of fiiture value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally inportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project resuh in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundboume vibration or groundboume noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic iircrease in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact ll^tially SPnficant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • X • • • X • 10 Rev. 07/26/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? xn. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directiy (for exanple, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectiy (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastracture)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the constraction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the constraction of replacement housing elsewhere? Xin. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project resuh in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemment facilities, a need for new or physically altered govemment facilities, the constraction of which could cause significant environmental inpacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1 Uially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Impact • • • X • • • X • • X • • • • X • • • X • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • 11 Rev. 07/26/02 Issues (and Supporting Informati^^urces). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the constraction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ^intii itially Ficant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact • • • X XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFHC - Would tiie project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? • • • b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? • • X • c) Resuh in a change in air traffic patteriis, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? • • • X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? • • • X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? • • • X 0 Result in insufllicient parking capacity? • • • X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus tum- outs, bicycle racks)? • • • X XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? • • • X b) Require or result in the constraction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constraction of which would cause significant environmental effects? • • • X c) Require or resuh in the constraction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constraction of which could cause significant environmental effects? • • • X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitiements and resources, or • • • X are new or expanded entitlements needed? 12 Rev. 07/26/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVn. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate inportant examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula- tively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable fiiture projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectiy? ^j^tially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • X • • • • X • X • • • • X • • • • • • X XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment dated September 27, 2002, available in the offices of the City of Carlsbad's Housing & Redevelopment Dept. 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. The non-presence of hazardous waste was analyzed in the above mentioned Phase 1 report. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 13 Rev. 07/26/02 DISCUSgfON OF ENVRONMENTAL EVALI^IHTT AIR QUALITY—Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (O3), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMio). Tht periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outiining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to inprove air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Govenunents (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans fiom all other Califomia non-attaiiunent areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the Califomia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality plaiming document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with it^ applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The Califomia Air Resources Board provides criteria for detemiining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: • Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? • Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being inplemented. The project is consistent with the growth assunptions of the City's General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstract implementation of the regional plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recentiy. If there is grading associated with the project, the project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and constraction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard constraction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (conprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? 14 Rev. 07/26/02 t^R Less Than Significant Impact, ^e Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment 2^^^ for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumul^Pely considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), die proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City ofCarlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment dated September 27, 2002, completed for and available in the offices of the City of Carlsbad's Housing & Redevelopment Dept. 15 Rev. 07/26/02 T TQT OF MITIG ATTNG MEAS^ f^^^ APPLICABLE) NA ATTACH MITIGATTr^N MONITHPTMr. PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) NA 1^ Rev. 07/26/02 Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STATEMENT Consultation Of Lists of Sites Related To Hazardous Wastes (Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 65962.5) Pursuant to State of California Government Code Section 65962.5, I have consulted the Hazardous Wastes and Substances Sites List compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency and hereby certify that (check one): The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the State Government Code. • The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the State Government Code. APPLICANT Name:^V^ ^>(£C:r-o ^V^VV [or %ji^»t^\r^ Address: ^^'^^'^ T> i€cro VMI^SIOM 1^^ Phone Number: 0^"^" t-'^'^^'KUS Address of Site: V^'^^ 'R.ooseveu^ PROPERTY OWNER Name: CAe~^^M\> ^\>e^£t&?»^cfvA fccy^^t Address: tR^^ %S^S€W£UT Sr Phone Number C^v^^ ^34- 2-'\35' Local Agency (City and Countv): C ^g- L^^ A . S ' ^ b Assessor's book, page, and parcel number: - 1^"^ " 3S Specify list(s): Regulatory Identification Number: Date of List: 6^ nrs ApplicanrSignature/Date Admin/Counter/HazWaste Property Owner Signature/Date 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ^ The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese List) is a planning document used by the State, local agencies and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing infonnation about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code sectton 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop at least annually an updated Cortese LisL Below is a list of agencies that maintain information regarding Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites. Department of Toxic Substances Control www.dtsc.ca.qov/database/calsites CalSites Hotline (916) 323-3400 State Water Resources Control Board www.swrcb.ca.aov/cwphome/lustis County of San Dlego Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Mike Dorsey Chief, Hazardous Materials Division Department of Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Division Mailing address: P.O. 80x129261 San Diego, CA 92112-9261 (619) 338-2395 Call Duty Specialist for General Questions at (619) 338-2231 fax: (619) 338-2315 www.co.san-dieqo.ca.us Integrated Waste Management Board www.ciwmb.ca.qov 916-255-4021 Environmental Protection Agency National Priorities Sites ("Superfund" or "CERCLIS") www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/cursites (800) 424-9346 National Priorities List Sites in the United States www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/npl/npl.htm 5/19/03 |/^vl STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY ' '""^ DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad 329119 Date: 05/09/2007 County/State Agency of Filing: San Diego Document No.: Project Title: Roosevelt Garden Condominiums (RP 04-04A) Project Applicant Name: Joe Gilbreath. Habitat for Humanity Project Applicant Address: City San Diego 10222 San Diego i\/lission Road State CA Zip Code 92108 Phone Number: (619)283-4663 Project Applicant (check appropriate box): I I Local Public Agency CU School District Q Other Special District State Agency [/] Private Entity Check Applicable Fees: Environmental Impact Report Negative Declaration Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs County Administrative Fee Project that is exempt from fees I I Notice of Exemption I I DFG No Effect Determination (Form Attached) TOTAL RECEIVED $2,500.00 $1,800.00 $850.00 $850.00 $50.00 50.00 Signature and titie of person receiving payment: lUIAL KtUblVbU ^^--"A. Consul 50.00 Deputy WHITE - PROJECT APPLICANT YELLOW- DFG/FASB PINK-LEAD AGENCY GOLDENROD - COUNTY CLERK DFG 753.5a (Rev 1/07) STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT 329119 Lead Agency: City of Carisbad Date: 05/09/2007 County/State Agency of Filing: San Diego Document No.: Project Title: Roosevelt Garden Condominiums (RP 04-04A) Project Applicant Name: Joe Gilbreath, Habitat for Humanity Project Applicant Address: 10222 San Diego Mission Road City San Diego state CA Zip Code 92108 Phone Number: (619) 283-4663 Project Applicant (check appropriate box): I \ Local Public Agency CU School District CU Other Special District CU State Agency [/] Private Entity Check Applicable Fees: $2,500.00 $1,800.00 $850.00 $850.00 $50.00 Environmental Impact Report Negative Declaration Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs County Administrative Fee Project that is exempt from fees I I Notice of Exemption F] DFG No Effect Determination (Form Attached) TOTAL RECEIVED r^^^A. Consul 50.00 Signature and title of person receiving payment: WHITE - PROJECT APPLICANT YELLOW - DFG/FASB 50.00 Deputy PINK - LEAD AGENCY GOLDENROD - COUNTY CLERK DFG 753.5a (Rev. 1/07) H^regory J. Smith COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ASSESSOR/RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK f4 fi Jt ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 103 San Diego, CA 92101-2480 Tel. (619)236-3771 * Fax (619)557-4056 www.sdarcc.com RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 260 P.O. Box 121750 * San Diego, CA 92112-1750 Tel. (619)237-0502 * Fax (619)557-4155 Transaction #: 150232520070514 Deputy: ACONSUL Location: COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 14-May-2007 15:33 FEES: 50.00 Qty ofl Fish and Game Filing Fee for Ref# 329119 50.00 TOTAL DUE PAYMENTS: 50.00 Check 50.00 TENDERED Order copies of fictitious business name statements, recorded documents, property characteristics and parcel maps on-line at sdarcc.com. SERVICES AVAILABLE AT OFFICE LOCATIONS Tax Bill Address Changes Records and Certified Copies: Birth/ Marriage/ Death/ Real Estate Fictitious Business Names (DBAs) Marriage Licenses and Ceremonies Assessor Parcel Maps Property Ownership Property Records Property Values Document Recordings (Except in Keamy Mesa) SERVICES AVAILABLE ON-LINE AT www.sdarcc.com Forms and Applications Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Grantor/ Grantee Index Fictitious Business Names Index (DBAs) Property Sales Weddings on the Web On-Line Purchases Assessor Parcel Maps Property Characteristics Recorded Documents CHULA VISTA 590 Third Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910-2646 (619) 498-2277 BRANCH OFFICES AVAILABLE TO SERVE YOU Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Saturdays at the Keamy Mesa Office 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. EL CAJON 200 South Magnolia Ave. El Cajon, CA 92020-3316 (619)401-5750 KEARNY MESA 9225 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. San Diego, CA 92123-1211 (858)505-6226 SAN MARCOS 141 E Carmel Street San Marcos, CA 92078-4309 (760) 940-6858 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION To: SD County Clerk Attn: Anthony J. Consul Mail Stop A-33 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego CA 92101 From: CITY OF CARLSBAD Housing & Redevelopment Dept. 2965 Roosevelt St Carlsbad CA 92008 (760) 434-2813 Subject: Filing of this Notice of Exemption is in compliance with Section 21152b of the Public Resources Code (Califomia Environmental Quality Act). Project Title: Roosevelt Garden Condominiums (RP 04-04A) Project Location - Specific: 2578 Roosevelt St. APN 203-110-42 & 203-102-33 Project Location - City: Carlsbad Project Location - County: SanDiego Description of Project: Constmction of a two-story, eleven-unit affordable condominium proiect. Name of Public Agency Approving Proiect: CityofCarlsbad Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: CliffJones/ Austin Silva Name of Applicant: Joe Gilbreath, Habitat for Humanity Applicant's Address: 10222 San Diego Mission Road, San l3iego , CA 92108 Applicant's Telephone Number: 619-283-4663 Exempt Status: {Check One) • Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268); • Declared Emergency (Section 210800))(3); 15269(a)); • Emergency Project (Section 210800))(4); 15269 (b)(c)); E Categorical Exemption - State type and section number: 15332 In-Fill Development Proiects • Statutory Exemptions - State code number: Reasons why project is exempt: In-fill development proiect on a site of less than 5 acres in an urbanized area that has no habitat value and is served bv adequate facilities. Lead Agency Contact Person: Austin Silva Telephone: (760)434-2813 Don Neu, ^*lanning Director - Date received for filing at OPR: FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK San Diego County on MAY 0 9 2007 Posted MAY 0 9 M/ Removed Retumed to agency on Deputy A. Oonsul F \ L E B Gregory J. Smith, Recorder/County Clerk MAY 0 9 Z007 A. Consul Revised November 2005 DEPUTY NOISE REPORT SUBMITTAL FORM Exhibit VI-4 Acoustical Analysis Report No.: JN2006-125 Project Address: (Street Address/Tract No.) 2578 Roosevelt Project No. Type of Acoustical Analysis Report ( ) Feasibility Noise Report (XX ) One-Step Complete Noise Report ( ) Phased Noise Report ) No report necessary. The project will satisfy all City of Carlsbad noise exposure limits without a formal analysis and report. Explanation: This submittal is for: Noise Reductton Tentative Tract/Parcel Map Approval Issuance of Grading Permits: Mass/Precise Final Map Recordation Issuance of Building Permits XX Topography Modification Berming Berm/WatI Combination Freestanding Sound Wall Patio Waits Balcony Walls Upgraded Windows Mechanical Ventilation None required 3 copies of Noise Report (one with computer caicuiations copy of project floor plans (1" = 40' minimum scale) copy of project plot plan (1" = 40' minimum scale) folded in 8% x 11 or 8% x 14 format. Contact for Information/Clarification: at Bruce A. Daw (Namel Date: 9/22/2QQ6 Submitted bv: Davy £ AP>Rfi.nirAfec>.Q > . ,Tnn (Phone No.) STATEMENT OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT All information and caicuiations contained herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The project is designed to meet existing acoustical requirements as determined by the City of Carlsbad. i have supervised the preparation of this noise stud^ i am a C Date: 9/22/2006 signed: bunty Certified Acoustical Consultant. FOR CITY USE ONLY Submittal received and accepted for review: Date: By: Acoustical Report reviewed and additional information requested: Date: By: Acoustical Report accepted as complete and adequate: Date: By: Davy Associates, Inc. Consultants in Acoustics 2627 Manhattan Beach Blvd.. Suite 212 • Redondo Beach, CA 90278-1604 • Tel: 310-643-5161 • Fax: 310-643-5364 • Email:DavyAssoc®aol.com ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS Roosevelt Gardens Condominiums 2578 Roosevelt Street Carlsbad, California FOR Habitat For Humanity, Inc. San Diego, California September, 2006 JN2006-125 1.0 Summary At the direction of Habitat For Humanity, Inc., Davy & Associates, Inc. has completed this acoustical analysis of the Roosevelt Gardens Condominiums project in Carlsbad, California. The California State Building Code (Part 2, Title 24, CCR) specifies maximum allowable interior noise levels of CNEL 45 for all habitable spaces in residential buildings where exterior noise from transportation sources exceeds CNEL 60. The results ofthis analysis indicate that the project will comply with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad as contained in the California State Building Code (Part 2, Title 24, CCR). Future year noise levels for the year 2016 will be as follows: Location CNEL SWBIdg Line-Bldg-1 56.1 dB SWBIdg Line-Bldg-2 45.1 With a CNEL 56.1 the Buildings must provide an A-Weighted noise reduction of 11.1 dB to achieve an interior noise level of CNEL 45. Standard construction consists of exterior stucco, interior gypboard, insulation and standard glazing provides a minimum A-Weighted noise reduction of 20 dB. Therefore, the Buildings will comply with the City of Carlsbad requirements in the California State Building Code (Part 2, Title 24, CCR) with no special mitigation. Construction recommendations include: • roof/ceiling construction will be concrete tile on plywood. R-19 insulation will be installed in joist spaces. The ceilings will be one layer of 5/8" gypboard nailed direct. • All exterior walls will be 2x4 studs 16" o.c. with R-11 insulation in the stud spaces. Exteriors will be stucco. The interiors will be 5/8" gypboard. • All windows and glass doors may be standard aluminum sliders. • All entry doors should be 1-3/4" solid core flush wood doors with vinyl bulb weatherstripping on the sides and top. Panel doors with panels less than 1-3/4" should not be accepted. • There should be no mail slots in the entry doors. With windows open, the noise reduction of Building 1 will be approximately 12 dB. Therefore, the units will comply with the CNEL 45 requirement even with windows open. There are no ventilation requirements. 2.0 Introduction At the direction of Habitat For Humanity, Inc., Davy & Associates, Inc. has completed this acoustical analysis of the Roosevelt Gardens Condominiums project in Carlsbad, California. The California State Building Code (Part 2, Title 24, CCR) specifies maximum allowable interior noise levels of CNEL 45 for all habitable spaces in residential buildings where exterior noise from transportation sources exceeds CNEL 60. CNEL is a 24 hour average noise level with 3 dB penalties for evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB penalties for nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. Section 4.0 ofthis report contains the results of measurements and calculations ofthe future exterior noise environment at the site to determine compliance with these requirements and the State Building Code requirements. 3.0 Criteria for Assessment of Impact The City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual as contained in the Noise Element ofthe Carlsbad General Plan indicates that exterior noise levels for multiple family projects shall not exceed CNEL 65. Interior values should not exceed CNEL 45 with windows closed. 4.0 Exterior and Future Acoustical Environment Environmental noise levels were monitored at the southwest building lines of both Building 1 and Building 2 ofthe site in Carlsbad on August 31, 2006, between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. The location of the site is shown In Figure 1. Noise levels at the site are dominated by vehicular traffic on Roosevelt Street to the southwest. No other significant sources of noise were noted during the site visit. Environmental noise levels were measured with a precision integrating Larson Davis Model 820 sound level meter that had been calibrated with a B&K 4230 Acoustical Calibrator immediately prior to use. The sound level meter measures and displays the equivalent noise level (LEQ), as well as the maximum and the minimum noise levels during the measurement period. A copy ofthe analysis ofthe acoustical data is in Appendix A. ^ V'*;^ ^ • 300n m > Si -'Yr^^'^::^h.: Figure 1. Site Location The data thus collected were analyzed to determine the CNEL level at the measurement location. The CNEL value was determined by measuring the equivalent noise level (LEQ) directly, and then calculating the equivalent noise level for each ofthe other 23 hours in the day.^ This CNEL approach has been utilized extensively. The accuracy of this procedure has been established with automatic 24-hour measurements at the same location. The procedure has always been within acceptable accuracy limits. The results of the monitoring and calculations are summarized below in Table 1. Table 1 Measured Ambient Noise Levels in dB Location Peak Hour LEQ CNEL SW BIdg Line BIdg 1 54.2 dB 55.2 SW BIdg Line BIdg 2 43.2 dB 44.2 Section 3501.(c) ofthe State Building Code states the following: Worst-case noise levels either existing or future, shall be used as the basis for determining compliance with this Section. Future noise levels shall be predicted for a period of at least 10 years from the time of building permit application. CALTF^NS, Division of Traffic Operations publishes an annual traffic volume book that contains previous traffic trends. The 2000 traffic volumes on the California State Highway System Book (the latest edition available) lists an average annual increase of 2.2% per year in annual traffic volumes for the years 1994 through 2000. Assuming volumes would increase by a factor 1.24 by the year 2016. This traffic volume increase over the next 10 years would in a 0.9 dB traffic noise increase. Therefore, the projected future year noise level Is summarized In Table 2. Table 2 Future Year Noise Levels in dB for the Year 2016 Location CNEL SW BIdg Line BIdg 1 56.1 dB SWBIdg Line BIdg 2 45.1 ^ See, for example, "Insulation of Buildings Against Highway Noise", Bruce Davy and Steven Skale, Federal Highway Administration FHWA-TS-77-202. 5 With a CNEL 56.1 the Building must provide an A-Weighted noise reduction of 11.1 dB to achieve an interior CNEL 45 volume. Standard construction consisting of 2x4 studs with R-11 insulation, exterior stucco, interior gypboard, and standard glazing provides a minimum A-weighted noise reduction of20dB. Therefore, the Building will comply with the City of Carlsbad requirements in the State Building Code (Part 2, Title 24, CCR) with no special mitigation. 5.0 Construction Recommendations 5.1 Roof ceiling construction will be concrete tile on plywood. R-19 insulation will be installed in joist spaces. The ceilings will be one layer of 5/8" gypboard nailed direct. 5.2 All exterior walls will be 2x4 studs 16" o.c. with R-11 insulation in the stud spaces. Exteriors will be stucco. The interiors will be 5/8" gypboard. 5.3 All windows and glass doors may be standard aluminum sliders. 5.4 All entry doors should be 1-3/4" solid core flush wood doors with vinyl bulb weatherstripping on the sides and top. Panel doors with panels less than 1-3/4" should not be accepted. 5.5 There should be no mail slots in the entry doors. 6.0 Summary of Results The results of this analysis indicate that with no special mitigation, the project will comply with the requirements ofthe City of Carlsbad as contained in the California State Building Code (Part 2, Title 24, CCR). Bruce A. Davy, P.E. Davy & Associates, Inc. I.N.C.E. Board Certified Davy Associates, Inc. Consultants in Acoustics 2627 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Suite 212 • Redondo Beach, CA 90278-1604 • Tel: 310-643-5161 • Fax: 310-643-5364 • Email:DavyAssoc©aol.com JN2006-125 APPENDIX A Site Monitoring Analysis Logs SITE MONITORING NOISE ANALYSIS JN2006-125 PROJECT: LOCATION: TEST DATE: START TIME: END TIME: EQUIPMENT USED: TEMPERATURE: ROOSEVELT GARDENS SOUTHWEST BUILDING LINE - BUILDING 1 AUGUST 31, 2006 3:00 P.M. 4:00 P.M. LARSON DAVIS 820 SLM 1/2" RANDOM INCIDENCE MIC WINDSCREEN B&K 4230 CALIBRATOR TRIPOD WIND SPEED INDICATOR MICRONTA THERMOMETER/HYGROMETER 86°f RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 65% WIND: 0-2 mph LEQ: 54.2 LOO: 43.9 LMAX: 64.6 L50: 50.4 LMIN: 41.7 L25: 55.0 CNEL 55.2 L8: 58.9 LDN: 55.2 L2: 62.2 Ll: 63.6 DAVY & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consultants in Acoustics SITE MONITORING NOISE ANALYSIS JN2006-125 PROJECT: LOCATION: TEST DATE: START TIME: END TIME: EQUIPMENT USED: TEMPERATURE: ROOSEVELT GARDENS SOUTHWEST BUILDING LINE - BUILDING 2 AUGUST 31, 2006 4:00 P.M. 5:00 P.M. LARSON DAVIS 820 SLM 1/2" RANDOM INCIDENCE MIC WINDSCREEN B&K 4230 CALIBRATOR TRIPOD WIND SPEED INDICATOR MICRONTA THERMOMETER/HYGROMETER 86°f RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 65% WIND: 0-2 mph LEQ: 43.2 LOO: 32.9 LMAX: 57.6 L50: 39.4 LMIN: 30.7 L25: 44.0 CNEL 44.2 L8: 47.9 LDN: 44.2 L2: 51.2 Ll: 52.6 DAVY & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consultants in Acoustics