The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRP 90-05; Roosevelt Street Parking Lot; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (2)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. RP 90-5/CDP 90-2 DATE: August 15, 1990 BACKGROUND CASE NAME: Roosevelt Parking Lot 2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 r6l9) 438-1161 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 6, 1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt concrete and landscaping for a parking lot. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to detennine 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 or Negative Declaration. * 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. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant. These findings are shovm in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" and 'YES-insig" respectively. 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. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig) YES (insig) NO 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? X X 4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? 6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? 7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? 8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significant archeological, paieontological or historical site, structure or object? X X X X X X X X -2- BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: ^S NO 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? _X. 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? X 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? X 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) Cinsig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? X 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? X -3- HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES (sig) ^^g) NO 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 20. Increase existing noise levels? 21. Produce new light or glare? 22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? 24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 25. Generate substantial additional traffic? X X X X X X 26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? 27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present pattems of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 28. Alter waterbome, rail or air traffic? 29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 30. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? 31. Obstmct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X X X X X -4- MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the enviroimient, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or v^ld- life species, cause a fish or v^ldlife 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 en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory. X 34. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the enviroimient is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X 35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively con- siderable" means that the incremental effects of an individual 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.) X 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _Ji_ -5- DISClUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project v^U consist of the constmction of a public parking lot on a previously developed site in downtown Carlsbad. Effects on the land will be limited because the site has been previously graded and developed. Since the site was previously developed and is located in the developed downtown portion of the city, impacts on plant and animal life are insignificant. Development inducement will be insignificant because the surrounding area is already developed. The project will provide increased parking for the downtown area and help further the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Because of the small size of the project and its location on a previously developed site in a developed area, it will have insignificant environmental impacts. Present use of the site v^ll be changed from a vacant lot to a public parking lot which will have a beneficial effect on the human environment by providing additional downtown parking. -6- ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) altemate site designs, c) altemate scale of development, d) altemate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) altemate sites for the proposed, and g) no project altemative. a) Phased development of this small site would be impracticable. b) A number of altemate site designs were considered. The proposed site design provides the maximum number of spaces consistent with City standards. c) The size of the development is the maximum number of spaces which can be accommodated on the site. Reduction in scale would yield no significant environmental benefits while reducing the amount of downtown parking. d) Altemate uses would not provide public parking. e) Development at a future time would delay provision of needed public parking and would yield no significant environmental benefits. f) Selection of an altemate site would not result in any significant environmental advantage. g) Not constmcting the project would leave a vacant site in the already developed downtown area and would have the negative effect of reduced parking. Due to the small size of the site, the fact it was previously developed and the fact it is in a developed downtown location, there are no significant negative environmental impacts anticipated from the proposed development. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there v^U not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature Date Planning Director LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE! ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -8- APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature -9-