HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 95-02; Blockbuster Video; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (4)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART U
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. RP 95-02 / CDP 95-02
DATE: SEPTEMBER 12. 1995
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Blockbuster Video
APPLICANT: Blockbuster Video
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4805 Murphv Canvon Road. San Dieeo. Ca.
92123. (619) 279-5001
DATE EL\ FORM PART I SUBMITTED: June 22. 1995
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Maior Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the
demolition of a vemacular style house and garage presentiy used as a modeling agencv and nail salon to
allow the constmction of a 5400 square foot retail establishment with attendant 18 parking spaces (10
standard. 7 compact. 1 physically challenged) and trash enclosure on a 15.500 square foot site located at
660 Carisbad Vaiaee Drive (APNs 203-304-24.26. and 28).
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 "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
X Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
X Mandatory Findings of Significance
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Rev. 1/30/95
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Kl
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to tiie project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. •
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. •
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a sigmficant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. D
Planner Signature Date
Planning DirectorSignatwe Date
Rev. 1/30/95
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires tiiat tiie City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration,
or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact."
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, then no additional environmental dociunent is required (Prior
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
mitigation 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.
When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and
the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
Rev. 1/30/95
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the
following circumstances: (1) the potentially 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 that reduce
the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact
has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact
to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part H 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 detemiined significant.
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Inf(xmaticHi Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Tban
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
L LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would tiie proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source #(s): 1)
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) Dismpt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? ( )
X
X
n. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would tiie 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? ( )
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
m. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would tiie
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
a) Fault mpture? ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
c) Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? ( )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( )
f) Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( )
h) Expansive soils? ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
X
X
X
IV. WATER. Would tiie proposal result in:
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? ( )
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Si^orting Infcnmaticm Sources):
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (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
capability? ( )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ( )
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
IncorpcH'ated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
V. AIR QUALITY. Would tiie proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (#1)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
X
X
Rev. 1/30/95
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VL TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (please
see site plan ) X
b) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) X
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( ) X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (please review site plan ) X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ( ) _JC_
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) X
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic
impacts? ( ) JC_
vn. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? ( )
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? ( )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
IncorpcH'ated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) X
IX. HAZARDS. Would tiie proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? ( )
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
c) The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? ( )
d) Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? ( )
X
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Infomation Sources):
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
bmsh, grass, or trees? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. NOISE. Would tiie proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? ( ) X
XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would tiie proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
govemment services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( )
b) Police protection? ( )
c) Schools? ( )
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ( )
e) Other govemmental services? ( )
X
X
X
xn. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would tiie
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( )
b) Communications systems? ( ) X
10 Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources):
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
xm. AESTHETICS. Would tiie proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? ( )
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? ( )
c) Create light or glare? ( )
X
X
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would tiie 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? ( )
X
11 Rev. 1/30/95
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Sigmficant Mitigation Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XV. RECREATION. Would tiie proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
( ) _ _ _ _x
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) X
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNfflCANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially 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 Califomia history or prehistory? X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects) X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directiy or indirectly? X
12 Rev. 1/30/95
XVn. 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. See source documents nos. 1 through 3.
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. See discussion under Air Quality, Circulation, and Mandatory Finding of
Significance.
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. 1/30/95
DISCUSSION OF ENVmONMENTAL EVALUATION
Enviromnental Setting and Proiect Background
The project area is located within the Coastal Plain, has an average rainfall of approximately 13 inches, and
moderate temperatures. Geologically the site is located on Pleistocene marine and marine terrace deposits. The
land type is Terrace Escarpment, characterized by 4 to 10 inches of loamy or gravelly soil over soft marine
sandstone, shale, or gravelly sediments.
The 15,500 square foot site is located along the main east-west cortidor in the Village Redevelopment Area
(Carlsbad Village Drive) approximately one half mile east of the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of 50 feet above
mean sea level. The site presently contains a medical office (approved for relocation per Redevelopment Permit
95-01) and a Vemacular style house and garage that has been converted to a modeling agency and nail salon
(which are to be demolished). The project site was included in the "Cultural Resource Survey, City of Carlsbad"
conducted by Roth and Associates, dated Febmary 18, 1990, and no significant resources were identified.
The project consists of a Redevelopment and a Coastal Development Permit to allow the constmction of a 5400
square foot video store with 18 parking spaces, driveways, trash enclosure, and landscaping. The site will be
accessed by vehicle from Madison Street and the alleyway between Madison Street and Roosevelt Street off of
Carlsbad Village Drive. Pedestrians have direct access to the site from Carlsbad Village Drive, as well as the
aforementioned parking areas. Additional public parking is available immediately to the west of the alley at the
comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt Street.
In addition to the techiucal analysis conducted as a part of this Redevelopment Permit, the City has certified a Final
Master Environmental Impact Report for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The certified Master Environmental
Impact Report is on file in the Planning Department. The Master Environmental Impact Report serves as the basis
of environmental review and impact mitigation for projects that are consistent with this plan, including projects
within the Redevelopment Area.
This Redevelopment Permit does not constitute the addition of a major new land use or a significant increase in
an existing land use, therefore, the following "environmental evaluation categories" either result in "no impact" or
are not applicable due to the nature of the project and there is not a discussion or evaluation in the text of this
Initial Study:
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING: d) and e)
n. POPULATION AND HOUSING: a) tiu-ough c)
vn. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: a) tiu-ough e)
vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES: a) tiu-ough c)
IX. HAZARDS: a) through e)
X. NOISE: a) and b)
XL PUBLIC SERVICES: a) tiu-ough e)
14 Rev. 1/30/95
xn. UTn^mES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS: a) tiu-ough g)
xm. AESTHETICS: a) tiu-ough c)
XV. RECREATION: a) and b)
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The retail use proposed is consistent with the General Plan and the Village Redevelopment Plan. The Village
Redevelopment Plan Area is the heart of Carlsbad, and was one of the first sections of the City to be settled in
the 1880's. The Redevelopment Plan for the Village Redevelopment Plan Area calls for the expansion of
mercantile activity. The project is located within Sub-Area 1 of the Redevelopment Plan. Sub-area 1 has
traditionally functioned s the central business district of Carlsbad. Its one and two story shops and offices met the
mercantile and service needs of Carlsbad for several decades. Extemal factors, specifically the El Camino Real
Shopping Center and the reorientation of the major north/south thoroughfare from Carlsbad Boulevard to Interstate
5, have affected the economic viability of the downtown area. The project is further defined locationally by being
in the Village Centre Special Treatment Area which is intended to serve as the focal point for Sub-Area 1 and
become the major attracting force for the redevelopment project.
AIR OUALITY:
The continued commercial use of this site was considered in the updated 1994 General Plan. The implementation
of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in
increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases
in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended
particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air
Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will
have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation
measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection
improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the
implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative
modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site
design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project
or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-
attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project
is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification
of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding
Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no furtiier environmental
review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Plaiming Department.
15 Rev. 1/30/95
CmCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan
will result hi increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic;
however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the
City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections
along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation
measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of
circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop altemative modes of transportation such as
trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and conunuter rail systems; and 3) participation in
regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections
at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an
EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No.
94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including
this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
xrv. CULTURAL RESOURCES: See discussion under "Environmental Setting and Background".
XVI. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE: See discussion under "Air Quality" and "Circulation".
Source Documents: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department at 2075 Las Palmas Drive.
1) Carlsbad General Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report, dated September 1994.
2) Village Design Manual, City of Carlsbad, Revised April 1988.
3) Cultural Resource Survey, City of Carlsbad, Roth and Associates, Febmary 18, 1990.
16 Rev. 1/30/95
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MQNITQRDVG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
17 Rev. 1/30/95
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WTTH MITIGATION 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
18 Rev. 1/30/95
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
I I III I Jl II I. I mil 11 llillll I, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 - 91^5-0613
'Project Title: BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO
Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD
Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92009
Contact Person: BRL\N HUNTER
Phone: (619) 438-1161 extension 4457
_ County: SAN DIEGO
See NOTE Below:
SCH #
PROJECT LOCATION:
County: SAN DIEGO City/Nearest Community: CARLSBAD
Cross Street: CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE/MADISON
Assessor's Parcel No.: 203-304-26 Section:
Within 2 Miles:
Twp.:
_ Total Acres: _0.355831 Acres
Range: Base:
State Hwy #: INTERSTATE 5
Airports: _
Waterways: PACIFIC OCEAN
Raihvays: AT&SF Schools: OAK
DOCUMENT TYPE:
CEQA: NOP
Early Cons
X Neg Dec
Draft EIR
Supplement/Subsequent
EER (Prior SCH No.) _
Other
NEPA: NOI
EA
Draft EIS
FONSI
OTHER: Joint Document
Final Document
Other
LOCAL ACTION TYPE:
Genera Plan Update
General Plan Amendment
General Plan Element
Community Plan
Specific Plan
Master Plan
Planned Unit Development
Site Plan
Rezone
Prezone
Use Permit
Land Division (Subdivision,
Parcel map, Tract Map, etc.)
Annexation
X Redevelopment
X Coastal Permit
Other
DEVELOPMENT TYPE:
Residential:
Office:
X Commercial:
Industrial:
Educational:
Recreational:
Units
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft. 5.400
Sq. Ft.
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Employees
Employees
Employees
Water Facilities:
Transportation:
Mining:
Power:
Waste Treatment:
Hazardous Waste:
Other:
Type_
Type_
Mineral
Type_
Type _
Type_
MGD
Watts
PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT
Aesthetic/Visual Flood Plain/Flooding
Agricultural Land Forest Land/Fire Hazard
X Air Quality Geologic/Seismic
X Archaeological/Historical Minerals
Coastal Zone Noise
Drainage/Absorption Populations/Housing Balance
Economic/Jobs Public Services/Facilities
Fiscal Recreation/Parks
Schools/U niversities
Septic Systems
Sewer Capacity
Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading
Solid Waste
Toxic/Hazardous
X Traffic/Circulation
Vegetation
Water Quality
Water Supply/Ground Water
Wetland/Riparian
Wildlife
Growth Indudng
X Landuse
Cumulative Efifect
Other
Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use
Medical Office/Nail Salon/Modeling Studio Village Redevelopment Zone/Village General Plan
Project Description
5,400 square foot video store with 18 parking spaces, landscaping, drive aisles, and trash enclosure.
NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exist for a project (e.g., from
a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. Revised October 1989
City of Carlsbad
Planning Departnnent
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 660 Carisbad Village Drive, Carisbad, Califomia
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal
Development Permit to allow the constmction of a 5,400
square foot video store with concomitant 18 parking
spaces, landscaping, driveways, and trash enclosure on a
site presently used as a modeling agency and nail salon.
The medical office is to be relocated on the lot
immediately adjacent to the north, while the converted
house and garage will be demolished.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation ofthe Califomia Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Califomia 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 questions, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning
Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4457.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
RP 95-02/CDP 95-02
BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO
MICHAEL J. HOLZ
Planning Director
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
BH:kr
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 (619) 438-1161
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART U
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. RP 95-02 / CDP 95-02
DATE: SEPTEMBER 12. 1995
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Blockbuster Video
APPLICANT: Blockbuster Video
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4805 Murphv Canvon Road. San Dieeo. Ca.
92123. (619) 279-5001
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: June 22. 1995
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Pemut to allow the
demolition of a vemacular style house and garage presentiy used as a modeling aeencv and nail salon to
allow the constmction of a 5400 square foot retail establishment with attendant 18 parking spaces (10
standard. 7 compact. 1 physically challenged) and trash enclosure on a 15.500 square foot site located at
660 Carisbad Village Drive (APNs 203-304-24.26. and 28).
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 "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
X Air (Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
X Mandatory Findings of Significance
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Rev. 1/30/95
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wiU be prepared. B
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the enviromnent,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to tiie project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. •
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVmONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. •
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by nutigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless nutigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MTTIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to tiiat earlier EIR / MTTIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or nutigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. D
Planner Signature Date
Planning DirectorSignatBre Date
Rev. 1/30/95
E^^VIRONMENTAL 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 nught be impacted by the proposed project and provides tiie City with infonnation
to use as tiie 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 requured for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact."
The developer must agree to the nutigation, and the City must describe the nutigation 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 sigruficant.
Based on an "EIA-Part H", if a proposed project could have a potentially sigruficant effect on the
environment, but aU potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior
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
mitigation 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.
When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and
the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Oveniding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
Rev. 1/30/95
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the
following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier
EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to nutigation measures that reduce
the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact
has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact
to less than significant, or, (4) through the EIA-Part n analysis it is not possible to determine the level of
significance for a potentiaUy adverse effect, or detennine the effectiveness of a nutigation 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 detennined significant.
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Si^jporting Infonnatioa Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
SigniHcant
Unless
Mitigaticxi
Incorporated
Less Than
Sigmficant
Impact
No
Impact
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would tiie proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source #(s): I)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jiuisdiction
over the project? ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
viciiuty? ( )
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? ( )
e) Dismpt or divide the physical arrangement
of an esrablished community (including a low-
income or minority commimity)? ( )
n. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would tiie 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? ( )
X
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting InformatioQ Sources):
m. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would tiie
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
a) Fault mpture? ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
Potentially
Sigmficant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Sigmficant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? ( )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcaiuc hazard? ( )
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( )
f) Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( )
h) Expansive soils? ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
X
X
X
rv. WATER. Would tiie proposal result in:
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? ( )
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting InformatioD Sources):
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ( )
e) Changes in cunents, 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
capability? ( )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ( )
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigati<m
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
V. Am QUALITY. Would tiie proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (#1)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
X
Rev. 1/30/95
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigaticm Sigmficant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (please
see site plan ) X
b) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) X
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( ) X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (please review site plan ) X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ( ) _X.
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) X
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic
impacts? ( ) JC_
vn. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? ( ) JC_
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritoge
trees)? ( ) JC_
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Infonnatioa Sources):
c) Locally designated natural commimities
(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
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient maimer? ( )
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
inineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State? ( )
IX. HAZARDS. Would tiie proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? ( )
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (
c) The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? ( )
d) Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? ( )
X
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting InformatiGD Sources):
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
bmsh, grass, or trees? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? ( )
XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would tiie proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
govemment services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( )
b) Police protection? ( )
c) Schools? ( )
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ( )
e) Other govemmental services? ( )
Xn. UTH-rriES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would tiie
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( )
b) Communications systems? ( )
10 Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supposing InformatioD Sources):
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? (
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigaticm
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
xm. AESTHETICS. Would tiie proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? ( )
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? ( )
c) Create light or glare? ( )
xrv. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would tiie 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? ( )
11 Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Siqjporting Information Sources):
XV. RECREATION. Would tiie proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
( )
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigaticm
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
) _
XVL 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 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 Califomia history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directiy or indirectly?
12 Rev. 1/30/95
:^Vn. 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. See source documents nos. 1 through 3.
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. See discussion under Air Quality, Circulation, and Mandatory Finding of
Significance.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refmed from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
13 Rev. 1/30/95
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Setting and Project Backeround
The project area is located within the Coastal Plain, has an average rainfall of approximately 13 inches, and
moderate temperatures. Geologically the site is located on Pleistocene marine and marine terrace deposits. The
land type is Terrace Escarpment, characterized by 4 to 10 inches of loamy or gravelly soil over soft marine
sandstone, shale, or gravelly sediments.
The 15,500 square foot site is located along the main east-west corridor in the Village Redevelopment Area
(C!arlsbad Village Drive) approximately one half mile east of the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of 50 feet above
mean sea level. The site presently contains a medical office (approved for relocation per Redevelopment Permit
95-01) and a Vemacular style house and garage that has been converted to a modeling agency and nail salon
(which are to be demolished). The project site was included in the "Cultural Resource Survey, City of Carlsbad"
conducted by Roth and Associates, dated Febmary 18, 1990, and no significant resources were identified.
The project consists of a Redevelopment and a Coastal Development Permit to allow the constmction of a 5400
square foot video store with 18 parking spaces, driveways, trash enclosure, and landscaping. The site will be
accessed by vehicle from Madison Street and the alleyway between Madison Street and Roosevelt Street off of
Clarlsbad Village Drive. Pedestrians have direct access to the site from Carlsbad Village Drive, as well as the
aforementioned parking areas. Additional public parking is available immediately to the west of the alley at the
comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt Street.
In addition to the technical analysis conducted as a part of this Redevelopment Permit, the City has certified a Final
Master Environmental Impact Report for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The certified Master Environmental
Impact Report is on ftie in the Planning Department. The Master Environmental Impact Report serves as the basis
of environmental review and impact nutigation for projects that are consistent with this plan, including projects
within the Redevelopment Area.
This Redevelopment Pemut does not constitute the addition of a major new land use or a significant increase in
an existing land use, therefore, the following "environmental evaluation categories" either result in "no impact" or
are not applicable due to the nature of the project and there is not a discussion or evaluation in the text of this
Initial Study:
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING: d) and e)
n. POPULATION AND HOUSING: a) tiu-ough c)
vn. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: a) tiu-ough e)
vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES: a) tiu-ough c)
DC. HAZARDS: a) tiu-ough e)
X. NOISE: a) and b)
XL PUBLIC SERVICES: a) tiu-ough e)
14 Rev. 1/30/95
xn. UTH-ITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS: a) tiu-ough g)
Xm. AESTHETICS: a) tiirough c)
XV. RECREATION: a) and b)
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The retail use proposed is consistent with the General Plan and the Village Redevelopment Plan. The Village
Redevelopment Plan Area is the heart of Carlsbad, and was one of the first sections of the City to be settled in
the 1880's. The Redevelopment Plan for the Village Redevelopment Plan Area calls for the expansion of
mercantile activity. The project is located within Sub-Area 1 of the Redevelopment Plan. Sub-area I has
traditionally functioned s the central business district of Carlsbad. Its one and two story shops and offices met the
mercantile and service needs of Carlsbad for several decades. Extemal factors, specifically the El Camino Real
Shopping Center and the reorientation of the major north/south thoroughfare from Carlsbad Boulevard to Interstate
5, have affected the economic viability of the downtown area. The project is fiirther defmed locationally by being
in the Village Centre Special Treatment Area which is intended to serve as the focal point for Sub-Area 1 and
become the major attracting force for the redevelopment project.
Am OUALITY:
The continued commercial use of this site was considered in the updated 1994 General Plan. The implementation
of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in
increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases
in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended
particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air
Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will
have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of nutigation
measures are reconunended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection
improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the
implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative
modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site
design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General PUm air quality nutigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project
or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-
attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project
is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification
of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding
Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, mcluding this project, therefore, no further environmental
review of air quality unpacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
15 Rev. 1/30/95
CmCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan
will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic;
however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the
City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections
along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation
measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of
circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop altemative modes of transportation such as
trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in
regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation nutigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections
at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an
EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No.
94-246, included a "Statement Of Oveniding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including
this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
xrv. CULTURAL RESOURCES: See discussion under "Environmental Setting and Background".
XVL MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE: See discussion under "Air Quality" and "Circulation".
Source Documents: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department at 2075 Las Palmas Drive.
1) Carlsbad General Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report, dated September 1994.
2) Village Design Manual, City of Carlsbad, Revised April 1988.
3) Cultural Resource Survey, City of Carlsbad, Roth and Associates, February 18, 1990.
16 Rev. 1/30/95
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MTTIGATION MONTTORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
17 Rev. 1/30/95
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WTTH MmOATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MTHGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WFTH THE ADDTnON OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
18 Rev. 1/30/95
BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO
RP 95-02/CDP 95-02
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gowmor
CAUFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO. CA 92108-1725
(619) 521-8036
Date April 19. 1996
Commission Reference # 6-CRL-96-043
NOTIFICATION QF APPEAL PERIOD
TO: City of Carlsbad, Debbie Fountain
FROM: Bill Ponder. Coastal Planner
Please be advised that on April 19. 1996 our office received a
notice of local action on the coastal development permit described below:
Local Permit: CDP 95-02
Name of Applicant: Blockbuster Video
Project
Description, Location: Construction of a 5.400 sq.ft. retail store with 18
parking spaces at 660 Carlsbad Village Drive. Carlsbad.
Unless an appeal is filed with the Coastal Commission, the action will become
final at the end of the Commission appeal period. The appeal period will end
at 5:00 PM on Mav 2. 1996.
Our office will notify you if an appeal is filed.
If you have any questions, please contact,
at the District Office noted above.
Bill Ponder
(6157N)
COASTAL. Cc>»^>Mi5>^fOKj.
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 660 Carisbad Village Drive, Carisbad, Califomia
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal
Development Permit to allow the constmction of a 5,400
square foot video store with concomitant 18 parking
spaces, landscaping, driveways, and trash enclosure on a
site presently used as a modeling agency and nail salon.
The medical office is to be relocated on the lot
immediately adjacent to the north, while the converted
house and garage will be demolished.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Califomia 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 questions, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning
Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4457.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
RP 95-02/CDP 95-02
BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO
MICHAEL J. HOLZI
Planning Director
LER
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
BH:kr
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 ®
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NEGATTVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 660 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal
Development Permit to allow the constmction of a 5,400
square foot video store with concomitant 18 parking
spaces, landscaping, driveways, and trash enclosure on a
site presently used as a modeling agency and nail salon.
The medical office is to be relocated on the lot
immediately adjacent to the north, while the converted
house and garage will be demolished.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation ofthe Califomia Environmental (pality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 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 questions, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning
Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4457.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
RP 95-02/CDP 95-02
BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
BH:kr
2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161
CASE NO. p^P fs-o^ycbT^r-o^
DATE: (p-'^-T.-^ r
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORH - PART I
(To be Completed by APPLICANT)
Applicant: Jody Robbins/Blockbuster Video
Address of Applicant: 4805 Murphy Canyon Rd.
San Diego, CA 92123
Phone Number: ( 619) 279-5001
Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than
Applicant):
GENERAL INFORMATION: (Please be specific)
Project Descriptioff: construction of a 5500 scfuare foot retail video store
Project Location/Address: 660 Carlsbad village Dr.
Assessor Parcel Number: 203 - 304 - 26
General Plan/Zone of Subject Property: v / VR
Local Facilities Management Zone: i
Is the site within Carlsbad's Coastal Zone? yes
Please describe the area surrounding the site to the
North: Single family house East: Office building
South: Bank building West: Parking lot
List all other applicable permits & approvals related to this project
Major redevelopnient permit/Coastal development permit
(Please be Specific. Attach Additional Pages or Exhibits, if necessarv)
1. Please describe the project site, including distinguishing natural and
manmade characteristics. Also provide precise slope analysis when a slope
of 15' or higher and 15% grade or greater is present on the site.
flat site currently having a wood frame structure & asphalt parking lot
2. Please describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design
and/or operation of the project.
building is designed to meet all California energy codes
3. PLEASE ATTACH A PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET WHICH SHOWS THE FOLLOWING:
a. If a residential project identify the number of units, type of units,
schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of
household size expected, average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG
rates).
b. If a commercial project, indicate the exact type, activity(ies),
square footage of sales area, average daily traffic generation
(latest SANDAG rates), parking provided, and loading facilities.
c. If an industrial project, indicate the exact type or industry(ies),
average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG rates), estimated
employment per shift, time of shifts, and loading facilities.
d. If an institutional project, indicate the major project/site
function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy,
loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the
project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
t^lease Answer each of the following questions by placing a check in the
appropriate space. Then, fully discuss and explain why each item was
checked yes or no. Provide supporting data if applicable. Attach
additional sheets as necessary.
1) Could the project significantly impact or change
present or future land uses in the vicinity of the
activity?
EXPLANATION: project will redevelop a lot
currently used for a commercial use as a
commercial usg«
2) Could the activity affect the use of a recreational
area, or area of aesthetic value?
EXPLANATION: Replacing one commercial use with
another commercial use should not affect land use.
3) Could the activity affect the functioning of an
established community or neighborhood?
EXPLANATION: Project will be infill in an existing
commercial neighborhood.
4) Could the activity result in the displacement of
community residents?
EXPLANATION: Pi-oject site currently contains no
residential uses.
YES NO
YES NO
5) Could the activity increase the number of low and
moderate cost housing units in the city?
EXPLANATION: No new housing units are provided
in the project.
6) Could the activity significantly affect existing
housing or create a demand for additional housing?
EXPLANATION: Employees and customers are expected
to be drawn from the Village's existing
residential base.
7) Are any of the natural or man-made features in the
activity area unique, that is, not found in other
parts of the county, state or nation? ^
EXPLANATION: Project site has no unique features.
8) Could the activity significantly affect an
historical or archaeological site or its settings? x_
EXPLANATION: Project site is currently commercially
used with no significant affect on any historical
or archaeological.
9) Could the activity significantly affect the
potential use, extraction, or conservation of a
scarce natural resource? ]
EXPU^ATION: There are no scarce natural resources
on the site.
YES NO
10) Could the activity significantly affect fish,
wildlife or plant resources?
EXPLANATION: There are currently no fish, wildlife
or plant resources on the project site.
11) Are there any rare or endangered plant or animal
species in the activity area?
EXPLANATION: There are no known endangered species
in the project area.
12) Could the activity change existing features of any
of the city's stream, lagoons, bays, tidelands
or beaches?
EXPLANATION: The project does not encompass the
city's streams, lagoons, bays, tidelands, or beaches
13) Could the activity result in the erosion or elimin-
ation of agricultural lands? ^
EXPLANATION: Impervious coverage will remain fairly
constant, there will be no significant increase in
runoff and there are no adjacent agricultural lands.
14) Could the activity serve to encourage development
of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop-
ment of already developed areas? X.
EXPLANATION: Project is commercial redevelopment
within an already highly developed area.
YES NO
15) Will the activity require a variance from estab-
lished environmental standards (air, water, noise,
etc.)?
EXPLANATION: Project will not require variances.
16) Is the activity carried out as part of a larger
project or series of projects?
EXPLANATION: Project is not a part of a larger pro^^
ject.
17) Will the activity require certification, authoriza-
tion or issuance of a permit by any local, state
or federal environmental control agency?
EXPLANATION: No certification by any environmental
control agencies is required for the project.
18) Will the activity require issuance of a variance or
conditional use permit by the City?
EXPLANATION: No variances.^ of conditional use
permits will be required.
19) Will the activity involve the application, use, or
disposal of potentially hazardous materials?
EXPLANATION: "^^^ project activities will not
X
involve potentially hazardous materials.
W YES NO
20) Will the activity involve construction of facilities
in a flood plain? X_
EXPLANATION: No facilities will be constructed in
a flood plain.
21) Will the activity involve construction of facilities
in the area of an active fault?
EXPLANATION:
The project site has no knovm active faults.
22) Could the activity result in the generation of
significant amounts of dust? ^
EXPLANATION: The retail use proposed should not
cause generation of significant amounts of dust.
23) Will the activity involve the burning of brush,
trees, or other materials?
EXPLANATION: The project will not involve burning
of any materials
24) Could the activity result in a significant change
in the quality of any portion of the region's air
or water resources? (Should note surface, ground
water, off-shore.) x
EXPLANATION: Redevelopment of existing
commercial development should have no significant
effect on resources.
YES NO
25) Will the project substantially increase fuel
consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)? x
EXPLANATION: Redevelopment is compriable to existing
rnmmprnial development and should not substantially
increase utility usage.
26) Will the activity involve construction of facilities
on a slope of 25 percent or greater? x
EXPLANATION: Site has no slopes greater than
231.
27) Will there be a significant change to existing
land form? _X
(a) Indicate estimated grading to be done in
cubic yards: .
(b) Percentage of alteration to the present
land form: .
(c) Maximum height of cut or fill slopes:
EXPLANATION: site is and will remain level.
28) Will the activity result in substantial increases
in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets?
EXPLANATION: Redevelopment of existing commercial
use should have little effect on use of utilities
or streets.
YES NO
29) Will the project significantly increase wind or
water erosion of soils?
EXPLANATION: Pervious and impervious areas will be
comparable to site prior to redevelopment.
30) Could the project significantly affect existing
fish or wildlife habitat? ^
....-rT«.. Project slte currently contains no fish EXPLANATION:
wildlife or habitat.
31) Will the project significantly produce new light
or glare? ^
EXPLANATION* Project is not expected to increase
light or glare over existing commercial development.
10
MI. ' STATEMENT OF NON-iftN I FICANT ENVIRONMENTAL El II I I |^
If you have answered yes to any of the questions in Section I but think
the activity will have no significant environmental effects, indicate your
reasons below!
III. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE OUESTIONS IN SECTION I
(If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach
additional sheets as needed.)
Signature
(Person Completing Report)
Date Signed
11