HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 99-17; Carlsbad Inn Cell Site; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)NOTICE OF EXEMPTION ^1
To: County Clerk
County of San Diego
Mailstop 833, Attn: Mita
PO Box 121750
SanDiego CA 92112-1750
l^rom: JUL OMARLSBAD
Aventf^^'v.s.^tco.eE^O
'tarlsbaffcA 92008 JUf^i .
(760)^-4600 ^^^^
BV,
Subject: Filing of this Notice of Exemption is in comphance with Section 21152b of the Public
Resources Code (Califomia Environmental Quality Act).
Project Title: Carlsbad Inn Cell Site - RP 99-17
Project Location - Specific: 3075 Carlsbad Boulevard
Project Location - City: Carlsbad Project Location - Countv: SanDiego
Description of Project: Installation of up to ten directional cellular antennas, one four-foot
diameter dish antenna, and related equipment for a cellular telecommunications facility,
architecturally integrated into the existing Carlsbad Inn site development.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Carlsbad
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: J.M. Consulting Group
Exempt Status: (Check One)
I Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268);
Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269 (b)(c));
Categorical Exemption - State type and section number: 15303, section 3
I Statutory Exemptions - State code number:
Reasons why project is exempt: Constmction and installation of small nev^ equipment facilities
Lead Agency Contact Person: Michael Grim Telephone: (760) 602-4623
If filed by apphcant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project?
AEL J. HOLZ>*ILLEfer'Planning D MICHAEL J. HOLZMlLLERr'Planning Director
X Signed by Lead Agency
Date
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK
SAN DIEGO COUNTY QN m OJ-jQSi
POSTED • ^ ' REMOVED JUL fl 6 2QQQ
RETURNED TO AGENCY ON
DEPUTY
JUL 0 8
Revised October 198 )
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR FILLING OUT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORMPART I
This Enviromnental 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 Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Titie 19 of Carlsbad's
Municipal Code. The clarity and acciuracy 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 checklist that is merely
checked "yes" or "no," is insufficient to comply with the requirements of the Califomia
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 fonn, the easier and quicker
it will be for staff to complete the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II.
RECEIVED
CITY OF CARLSBAD
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELfNES, 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 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 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
^ -1-7
I N-iM
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may he referred to and attached)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): ( )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
( )
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? ( )
e) Dismpt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? ( )
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the 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 infrastructure)?
( )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( )
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault mpture? ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
( )
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
( )
Landslides or mudflows? ( )
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( )
h) Expansive soils? ( )
Unique geologic or physical features?
( ^ )
d)
e)
0
i)
IV. WATER. Would the 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? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • Y
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • >^
• • • X
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • '
• • •
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
VII. 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)?
( )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)?
( )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
( )
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
( )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wastefiil and
inefficient manner? ( )
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of fuUire value to the region and
the residents of the State? ( )
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)? ( )
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? ( )
d) Exposure of people to existing soufces of potential
health hazards? ( )
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( )
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
•
( )
• • •
• • • m
• • • m • • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • 1^
• • •
• • •
• • • u
• • •
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment
services in anv of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) • • •
b) Police protection? ( ) • • • 7^ 0 Schools? ( ) • . • • •
V- PrO)if'«^-V prc:>\r(A ^xAA.'i ^I'o.'n^t (
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the envirormient, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significan
Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
•
No
Impact
• ^
• ^
XVII. 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. Identiiy earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an 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 from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96
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.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
10 Rev. 03/28/96