HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 04-24; Madison Square; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE:
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: MAtPj^^M ^UA^B
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: ^ ^<<7 ^ i <.-h Ct^ rU
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: ^r^^g^ g», ^^Ke'V ^ 2 ^ /^
4. PROJECT LOCATION: On hAAclk^^H hehuee/\ ^v'dr\A Av(^.4 L 4^ u.'^ <2
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: t>^(Jc-e 3. g?a/<tgV- '^'^~^'^.^/>
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Y ^
7. ZONING:
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPRQYAL IS REQUIRED (i.e permits, financing
approval or participation agreements):
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETITNG AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
p'l^o^^/i, (Mm rm y^^ie^. ^^v^ ^J^AVA tAiAO' Uoi^/^ <>p^<ce<^<
f^^Xft^eAX Pz?^T^^7^;^^ f^}c//y^
OFf^l^<^ OQ^XG ^/m:rT TcP ^^T;
Rev. 07/26/02
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., Enviromnental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Negative Declaration or Exemption) will be required to be prepared for your
apphcation, per the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 19 of Carlsbad's
Municipal Code. The clarity and accuracy ofthe information you provide is critical for puiposes
of quickly determining the specific environmental effects ofyour project.
Judicial decisions have held that a "naked checklist," that is a checklist that is merely checked
"yes impact" or "no impact," is insufficient to comply with the requirements of the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act. When preparing this form, each "yes impact" or "no impact"
answer must be accompanied by a written explanation justifying the "yes impact" or "no
impact" answer. Any environmental studies (i.e., biological, cultural resource, traffic,
noise) that are necessary to substantiate a "no impact" or "yes impact" determination
should be submitted as an attachment to this Environmental Impact Assessment. 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.
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
I I Air Quality
I I Biological Resources
I I Cultural Resources
• Geology/Soils [U Noise
• Hazards/Hazardous Materials • Population and Housing
I I Hydrology/Water Quality O Public Services
I I Land Use and Planning dl Recreation
I I Mineral Resources Transportation/Circulation
• Mandatory Findings of [-] ^^^^.^^ ^ ^^^.^^ ^^^^^^
Significance
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 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
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 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 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
measiffes 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 Impact" 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 impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" for the significant adverse impact 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 tbe 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 of the 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 impacts 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 Importance (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 result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
III. 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
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 0
• 0
• • M
• • ^
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attaclied.)
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 Califomia 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 weflands 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 Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless . Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
• • • K
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
n •
•
•
• 0
n a n M
• 0
•
• • • sr
•
•
• • •
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) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of fonnal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture 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
Publication 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 ofthe 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
• • •
• • •
• • • 0
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • m
• • •
• • • 0'
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be refened 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 hazeirdous 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 pursuant to
Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public 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 result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures 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 - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
n n 0
•
•
• •
• B
• H
• Kf
• • •
• • • M
• • • ^
• • • Ef
• • • H'
• • • Kf
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be refened 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 pennits
have been granted)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem ofthe
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 mnoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
f) Create or contribute mnoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted mnoff?
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 stmctures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
j) Expose people or structures 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?
I) 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)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
• • • 0
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • 0
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be refened to and attached.)
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetiand waters) during or following constmction?
o) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
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 future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result 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)
d)
A substantial pennanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• • •
• • •
• • • m
• • •
• • • Ef
• • • 0
• • • Bf
• • •
• • • m
• • •
• • •
• • • Kf
10 Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be refened 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 aiiport, 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?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectiy (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastmcture)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the constmction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Xni. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result 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 constmction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, 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?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
• •
• •
• •
•
•
•
•
• J2f
• M
• ^
• 0
• • •
• • •
• • • .X
• • •
• • •
• • •
11 Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be refened to and attached.)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the constmction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
• u M
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity ofthe
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?
c) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in insufficient parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus tum-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the constmction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the constmction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the constmction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the constmction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
u u u u
• • • 0f
• • • M
• • •
• • • X
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • X
• • •
• • • Ef
12 Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be refened 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?
XVII. 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 jjeriods of
CaUfomia 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 cunent 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?
XVni. EARLIER ANALYSES
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
• •
•
•
•
•
• •
• •
• •
• 0
• 0
•
• m
• p
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 eariier 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.
13 Rev. 07/26/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
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). The 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 outlining the pollution
controls that will be undertaken to improve 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 Govemments (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 from all other Califomia non-attainment 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 planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the
County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its 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 Califomia 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 detennining 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
implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions 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 obstruct
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 recently. If there is grading associated
with the project, the project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and constmction.
Such emissions would be minimized through standard constmction 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 (comprising 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? /f CJ
14 Rev. 07/26/02
Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is cunentiy in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine
particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively 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), the 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 Plaiming
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carisbad Planning Department. March 1994.
15 Rev. 07/26/02
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
16 Rev. 07/26/02
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - TflWIESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT
DFG 753.5a (8-03)
Lead Agency: City of Carisbad
270572
Date: 04/17/2006
County/StateAgency of Filing: San DlegO Document No.:
Project Title: Madison Square (RP 04-24)
Project Applicant Name: Bruce B. Baker Phone Number: (858) 717-2929
Project Applicant Address: P. O. Box 27796, San Diego, CA 92198
Project AppWcar^t (check appropriate box): Local Public Agency School District Olher Special District [ [
state Agency Private Entity
CHECK APPUCABLE FEES:
$850.00
$1,250.00
$850.00
$850.00
$25.00
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
— ^ TOTAL RECEIVED
Signature and title of person receiving payment:
WHITE - PROJECT APPLIGANT YELLOW - DFG/FASB PINK-LEAD AGENCY GOLDENROD - STATE AGENCY OF FILING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -iTC RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 270572
ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT
DFG 753.5a (8-03)
Lead Agency: City Of Carlsbad Date: 04/17/2006
County / State Agency of Filing: San DIegO Document No.:
Project Title: Madison Square (RP 04-24)
Project Applicant Name: Bruce B. Baker Phone Number: (858)717-2929
Project Applicant Address: P. O. Box 27796, San Diego, CA 92198
Project Applicant (c/iec/capprapr/afe tox): Local Public Agency School District Other Special District | |
state Agency Private Enfity
CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:
) Environmental Impact Report $850.00
) Negative Declaration $1,250.00
) Application Fee Water Diversion (Sfafe IVafer Resources Contmi Board Only) $850.00
) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs $850.00
) County Administrative Fee $25.00
/) Project that is exempt from fees
— ^ TOTAL RECEIVED
Signature and title of person receiving payment:
WHITE - PROJECT APPLICANT YELLOW-DFG/FASB ' ^ PINK - LEAD AGENCY GOLDENROD - STATE AGENCY OF FILING