HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 95-05; Pine Street Project; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (2)CASE NO.
DATE:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(To be Completed by APPLICANT)
Applicant: John Schilling
Address of Applicant: P.O. Box 417, Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Phone Number: (61 9 ) 890-0808
Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than Applicant): John Schilling
GENERAL INFORMATION: (Please be specific)
Project Description: SEE ATTACHEDea-
Project Location/Address: . 507 Pine Street
Assessor Parcel Number: . 204 081 01
General Plan/Zone of Subject Property: Sub area 4, /C-1 C-2 CM
Local Facilities Management Zone:
Is the site within Carlsbad's Coastal Zone? No
Please describe the area surrounding the site to the
North: Retail Commercial East: Residential R-1
South: Residential R-1 West: Commercial - Industrial
List all other applicable permits & approvals related to this project:
None
INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR FILLING OUT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Form - Part I will be used to
determine what type of environmental documentation (i.e. Environmental Impact
Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration or Exemption) will
be required to be prepared for your application, per the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 19 of Carlsbad's Municipal Code. The clarity and
accuracy of the information you provide is critical for purposes of quickly
determining the specific environmental effects of your project.
Recent judicial decisions have held that a "naked checklist", that is a checklist
that is merely checked "yes" or "no", is insufficient to comply with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Each "yes" or "no"
answer must be accompanied by a written explanation justifying the "yes" or "no"
answer. This is especially important when a Negative Declaration is being
sought. The more information provided in this form, the easier and quicker it
will be for staff to complete the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part
II.
(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.
The site is virtually flat. It has a cross fall 2.8 ft in
139.5 ft.(2%) curb, gutters, and sidewalk exist on North, East
and West no features, land clean and grubbed for construction.
2. Please describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design
and/or operation of the project.
Most glass area on North facing walls.
3. PLEASE AHACH 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).
4 Units, 1 bedroom apartments, 2 units @ 802 sq.ft. 2 units
@ 686 sq.ft. All units located on second floor above retail
space. 4 covered garages provided.
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.
The ground floor space is six retail spaces of 1621 sq.ft.
and 2547 sq.ft. of work shop.
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.
N/A
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.
N/a
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Please 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.
YES NO
1) Could the project significantly impact or change
present or future land uses in the vicinity of the
activity?
EXPLANATION:
2) Could the activity affect the use of a recreational
area, or area of aesthetic value?
EXPLANATION;
3) Could the activity affect the functioning of an
established community or neighborhood?
EXPLANATION: This project could be the
beginning of major renovations of the
Barrio area.
4) Could the activity result in the displacement of
community residents?
EXPLANATION:
YES NO
5) Could the activity increase the number of low and
moderate cost housing units in the city?
EXPLANATION: The residential one bedroom
units will increase the number of affordable
housing units in the City.
6) Could the activity significantly affect existing
housing or create a demand for additional housing?
EXPLANATION:
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? x
EXPLANATION: Joint use of residential and
retail not commonly used.
8) Could the activity significantly affect an
historical or archaeological site or its settings?
EXPLANATION: Enhance the Barrio style
architecture.
9) Could.the activity significantly affect the
potential use, extraction, or conservation of a
scarce natural resource?
EXPLANATION:
YES NO
10) Could the activity significantly affect fish,
wildlife or plant resources?
EXPLANATION:
11) Are there any rare or endangered plant or animal
species in the activity area?
EXPLANATION:
12) Could the activity change existing features of any
of the city's stream, lagoons, bays, tidelands
or beaches?
EXPLANATION:
13) Could the activity result in the erosion or elimin-
ation of agricultural lands?
EXPLANATION;
14) Could the activity serve to encourage development
of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop-
ment of already developed areas?
EXPLANATION: Help improve the Barrio Area.
YES NO
15) Will the activity require a variance from estab-
lished environmental standards (air, water, noise,
etc.)?
EXPLANATION: Parking and landscape variance
16) Is the activity carried out as part of a larger
project or series of projects?
EXPLANATION:
17) Will the activity require certification, authoriza
tion or issuance of a permit by any local, state
or federal environmental control agency?
EXPLANATION:
18) Will the activity require issuance of a variance or
conditional use permit by the City?
EXPLANATION: Redevelopment permit .
19) Will the activity involve the application, use, or
disposal of potentially hazardous materials?
EXPLANATION: Help improve the Barrio area
YES NO
20) Will the activity involve construction of facilities
in a flood plain? x
EXPLANATION:
21) Will the activity involve construction of facilities
in the area of an active fault?
EXPLANATION:
22) Could the activity result in the generation of
significant amounts of dust?
EXPLANATION:
23) Will the activity involve the burning of brush,
trees, or other materials?
EXPLANATION;
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.)
EXPLANATION:
YES NO
25) Will the project substantially increase fuel
consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)?
EXPLANATION:
26) Will the activity involve construction of facilities
on a slope of 25 percent or greater?
EXPLANATION:
27) Will there be a significant change to existing
land form?
(a) Indicate estimated grading to be done in
cubic yards: .
(b) Percentage of alteration to the present
land form: 100% .
(c) Maximum^height of cut or fill slopes:
EXPLANATION:
28) Will the activity result in substantial increases
in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets?
EXPLANATION:
YES NO
29) Will the project significantly increase wind or
water erosion of soils? ^
EXPLANATION:
30) Could the project significantly affect existing
fish or wildlife habitat?
EXPLANATION:
31) Will the project significantly produce new light
or glare?
EXPLANATION;
10
II. STATEMENT OF NOM IGN I FICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFE
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 QUESTIONS IN SECTION I
(If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach
additional sheets as needed.)
Signature
Terson Completing Report)
Date Signed he. /V /"T^r
11
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: RP 95-05
DATE: 7-29-96
BACKGROUND
CASE NAME: Pine Street Proiect
APPLICANT: John Schilling
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P.O. Box 417 Carlsbad CA 92008
(619) 890-0808
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 20. 1995
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Mixed use proiect which includes 4 residential units. 1.537 square
feet of retail space and 1.851 square feet of workshop space at 507 Pine Street.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
I I Land Use and Planning
I I Population and Housing
I I Geological Problems
• Water
Air Quality
I I Transportation/Circulation Q Public Services
I I Biological Resources Q Utilities & Service Systems
I I Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
I I Hazards []] Cultural Resources
I I Noise Recreation
I I Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I I I find 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 the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I I I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant 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. An EIR/Neg Dec
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I I I find 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/Neg Dec pursuant
to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR/Neg Dec, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature / Date
Planning DirecrorVSignafwe Date '
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No 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 firom "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 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, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• 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.
• 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.
Rev. 03/28/96
• 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.
• 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 II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (1,2)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (1,2)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(1)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (1)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (1)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (2,)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (2)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (2)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (2)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (2)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (2)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (2)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (2)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (2)
g) Subsidence of the land? (2)
h) Expansive soils? (2)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (2)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (2)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (2)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (2)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (2)
f) Changes 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? (2)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (2)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (2)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (2)
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (2)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (2)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (2)
Create objectionable odors? (2)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (2)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (2)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(2)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (2)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (2)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative
transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? (2)
Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
b)
c)
d)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Would the proposal result VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES,
in unpacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (1)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)?
(1)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (2)
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wastefiil and
inefficient manner? (2)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of fiiture value to the region and
the residents ofthe State? (2)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (1,2)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (1,2)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (1,2)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (1,2)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (2)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (2)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the 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? (2)
b) Police protection? (2)
c) Schools? (2)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (2)
e) Other govemmental services? (2)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (2)
b) Communications systems? (2)
c) Local or regional water freatment or disfribution
facilities? (2)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (2)
e) Storm water drainage? (2)
f) Solid waste disposal? (2)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (2)
•
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
Rev. 03/28/96
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (1,2)
b) Have a demonsfrate negative aesthetic effect? (1,2)
c) Create light or glare? (1,2)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paieontological resources? (2)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (2)
c) Affect historical resources? (1,2)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2)
e) Resfrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (1,2)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1,2)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or resfrict 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 fiiture projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
1. Village Master Plan and Design Manual, effective date January 12, 1996. This document is
available for review at the Housing and Redevelopment Office, 2965 Roosevelt, Suite B,
Carlsbad, CA 92008.
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
Rev. 03/28/96
Final Master EIR for The City ofCarlsbad General Plan Update (EIR 93-01), March, 1994. This
document is available for review at the City of Carlsbad, Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas
Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fi'om 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.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined fi"om the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The project is a mixed use 4 unit residential over 1537 square foot retail and 1851 square foot
workshop with four garages and associated open parking and landscaping at 507 Pine Street.
The General Plan is V for Village Redevelopment and the Zoning is VR for Village
Redevelopment. The project is in complete accord with the surrounding land uses of residential,
commercial, and light industrial. There is no farmland in the immediate vicinity. The lot is
presently vacant.
POPULATION AND HOUSING:
Properties within the vicinity of the project with residential development have been developed
within the RMH General Plan residential density ranges of up to 15 dwelling units per acre. The
project is proposing 14.8 dwelling units per acre. The site is presently vacant so no existing
housing will be displaced.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS:
The General Plan indicates no unusual problems with this Pleistocene Beach Terrace.
WATER
The site is presently vacant. The development of the .27 acre infill site will take advantage of the
completely developed infrastructure so that there will be no impact.
AIR OUALITY:
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 v^U 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.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
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
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
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 v^U 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 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.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
There are no biological resources present on site.
NOISE
The project is within the noise impact area from the railroad corridor. The building department
will ensure that constmction meets the interior noise requirements for dwelling units per the
11 Rev. 03/28/96
plancheck process. There are no adopted outdoor standards for apartment projects as there is no
required open space.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATESTG MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
13 Rev. 03/28/96
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATESfG MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
14 Rev. 03/28/96