HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 94-05; Village Farmers Market; Redevelopment Permits (RP)bXHIBIT 5
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NEGATTVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: West side of Roosevelt Su-eet, between Carlsbad
Village Drive and Grand Avenue, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of Califomia
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A weekly Cerufied Farmer's Market for a maximum of 33
booths within an existing commercial parking lot, resulung
in lot closure from 1:00 PM to 8:00 PM every Wednesday.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementadon of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act and
thc Environmental Protecdon Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Dedaradon (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject projecL Jusufication for this action is on file in thc
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negauvc Declaration with supporUve documents is on file in thc Planning
Deparunent, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of
date of issuance. If you have any quesdons, please call Mike Grim in the Planning DeparUnent
at (619) 438-1161, extension 4499.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
MARCH 16, 1995
RP 94-05
MICHAEL J. H
Planning Director
ILLER
VILLAGE CERTIHED FARMER'S MARKET
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 16, 1995
MG:Ih.-vd
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161
ENVIRONMEl^L IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORl^PART U
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASENO. RP 94-05
DATE: MARCH 1. 1995
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: (Arlsbad Village Certified Farmer's Market
APPLICANT: Q-lsbad Village Business Association
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2774 Jefferson Street. Carlsbad. CA 92008
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Februarv 1. 1995
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A weekly Certified Farmer's Market for a maximum of 33 booths within an
existing commercial parking lot, resulting in lot closure from 1:00 PM to 8:00 PM every Wednesdav.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTL\LLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a Totentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Sigmficant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated* as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air (pality
Transportation/Chculation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
I - 1 Rev. 1/30/95
DETERMINATION.
(To bi completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[ fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
md a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will bc prepared. X
[ find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
here will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
Ittached sheet have been added to the project, A NEGATIVE DE(XARATION will be prepared. •
. find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, •
find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect
.) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
xien addxessed by mitigation measures based on the earUer analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
ffect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must
nalyze only the efi*ects that remain to be addressed, D
find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
iOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
dequately in an earher EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION puisuant to applicable standards
nd (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE
)ECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
lierefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Q
Manner Signature \ / Date
banning Director'sigiiatUre
I - 2 Rev. 1/30/95
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. Thc Environmental
hnpact 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 Declaratioa,
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 infonnation source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if die referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explamed when there is no source document to refer to,
or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact"
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is sigmficant
Based on an "EIA-Part DT, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but aH potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR at
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
puisuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, then no additional environmental document is required (Price
(Compliance).
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
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are
nutigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are
agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
WTien "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and
the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
I - 3 Rev. 1/30/95
An EIR must be prepared if "F^itially Significant Impact" is checked#d including but not limited to thc
followmg circumstances: (1) die potentiaUy significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier
EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures tiiat reduce
the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statemem of Overriding Considerations" for die significant impact
has not been made pursuant to an earher EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce die im^
to less tiian significant, or, (4) tiuough die EL\-Pait U analysis it is not possible to determine die leveUf
sigmficance for a potentially adverse effect, or determme tiie effectiveness of a mitigation measure in
reducmg a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and tiie proposed mitigation measures appears at die end of die form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FVAIUATTOR Particular attenuTshouid 4 g^^^^^^^^
mitigation for impacts which would otiierwise be determmed significant.
^'^ Rev. 1/30/95
ssues (aod Supponing Inforniadcxi Sources):
PotentkUy
SigtuTic&nt
Impact
id ally
Sigoincant
Unless
MidgatioD
Locorporated
Less Than
Signiflcant
Lmpect
No
Impact
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source #(s): )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( )
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? ( )
e) Disrupt or divide the physical anangement
of an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? ( )
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would die proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastmcture)? ( )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( )
I - 5 Rev. 1/30/95
tssucs (and Supporting Informatioo Sources):
Potentially
SigoiTtcant
Impact
intially
SigniTicant
Unless
MidgatioD
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
m. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would die
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? ( )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( )
0 Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? ( )
g) Subsidence of die land? ( )
h) Expansive soils? ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
_X
JC.
X
X
V. WATER. Would die proposal result m:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( )
1-6 Rev. 1/30/95
issues (a!hd Supporting Informatioo Sources):
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quaUty (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ( )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( )
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capabiUty? ( )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ( )
h) Impacts to groundwater quaUty? ( )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
pubUc water supplies? ( )
Potcnti^y
Significam
Impact
^JLitially
Significant
Unless
MidgatioQ
incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. AIR QUALITY. Would die proposal:
a) Violate any air quaUty standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quaUty violation? ( )
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
X_
JC.
X
1-7 Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (ajvi Supponing Information Sources); ^lec
Potentially
Sigmficant
Impact
^•tiaJIy
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( )
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-she or
off-site? ( )
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicycUsts? ( )
f) ConfUcts with adopted poUcies supporting
altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts,
bicycle racks)? ( )
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic
impacts? ( )
vn. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in knpacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? ( )
b) Locally designated species (c.g. heritage
trees)? ( ) X
I - 8 Rev. 1/30/95
' Issues (and "Supporting Informatioo Sources):
c) LocaUy designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vemal pool)? ( )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
intially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Tban
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) CbnfUct witii adopted energy conservation
plans? ( )
b) Use non-renewable resources m a wasteftil and
inefficient manner? ( )
c) Result in the loss of availabiUty of a known
mineral resource diat would be of future value
to the region and die residents of die State? ( )
X
X
DC. HAZARDS. Would die proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (includmg, but not Umited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? ( )
b) Possible interference widi an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (
c) The creation of any healdi hazard or
potential health hazard? ( )
d) Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential healdi hazards? ( )
) _ _
X
X
X
X
1-9 Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supponing Informatioo Sources):
e) hicrease fire hazard m areas widi flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( )
X. NOISE. Would die proposal result in:
a) Increases m existing noise levels? ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? ( )
XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would die proposal have an
effect upon, or result m a need for new or altered
govemment services m any of die foUowmg areas:
a) Fire protection? ( )
b) Police protection? ( )
c) Schools? ( )
d) Maintenance of pubUc faciUties, including
roads? ( )
e) Other govemmental services? ( )
cn. UTILTTIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would die
proposal result in a need for new systems or
suppUes, or substantial alterations to die foUowing
UtUities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( )
b) Communications systems? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
idally
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Ttan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
— ^
_x.
_JL
_2L
X
_x.
X
I - 10 Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Informatioo Sources):
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution faciUties? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( )
f) SoUd waste disposal? ( )
g) Local or regional water suppUes? (
Potentially
Significant
Impact
^j^tially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
_JL
_JL
_X,
X
XHL AESTHETICS. Would die proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? ( )
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? ( )
c) Create Ught or glare? ( ) X
xrv. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would die proposal:
a) Disturb paieontological resources? ( )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( )
c) Affect historical resources? ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( )
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? ( )
JL
X_
X
_JC.
I-11 Rev. 1/30/95
Issuer (and Supporting Informatioo Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
>tentially
Significant
Unless
MidgatioQ
Incorporated
l>ess Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XV. RECREATION. Would die proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or odier recreational facilkies?
( )
b) Affect existing recreational opportimities? ( ) _
JC.
X
XVL MANDATORY FINDDSfGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quaUty of the environment, substantiaUy reduce
the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of Clalifomia history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individuaUy limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
wiU cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either direcdy or indirectly?
I - 12 Rev. 1/30/95