The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCP 03-08; Nowicki Condominium Conversion; Condo Permit (CP) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I ....... (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) ' • .; ..;_;:. ;-. ; ••», /-''CASE NO:- " DATE RECEIVED: BACKGROUND .-'.'j- .'',"'' • '•••' '•• -: '-"-> - - ' - ':':'" '.: j :"'•'-." -if [,'«•:"'.;.. ~-ifl]? be completed by staff) 1.CASE NAME: 2. ; ^ APPLICANT:;'' Vi nne\R -.Mff'gan-'Mown rlctl 3. . ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2 4 26--To3rre1 on Pl-acg , .•'••• • . . Carlsbad, CA 92009 4. •- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Condominiunv.Qorrversion-for . an existing • ..---.-.Duplex.. • . SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. (l Land Use and Planning (| Population and Housing I I Geological Problems Water I | Air Quality | | Transportation/Circulation LJ Public Services | | Biological Resources [ I Utilities & Service Systems [ | Energy & Mineral Resources \ \ Aesthetics [_j Hazards [ | Cultural Resources Noise - -1 I Recreation [^Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. -a) Conflict with general plan designation of zoning? (Source #(s):( -) ; _ ^.^, f - b) Conflict with applicable environmental ...plans :or . policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over'theproject? ( ) ; .; ;;^.;;;:<:;-;^; c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? : • ( ' • . -0 ' r-;x- !.r,;w^u: d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? ( .;. . ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income' or minority community)? ( ) II. 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? ( ) Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significan Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated No Impact u in •*. .•PD D D D D •D D n . n n D ...D D ,ED n n E D D D GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ' ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) 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? ) _ fl I I I ILJ L-J I 1 ^Fl D D n D D D D n n nn n X EJ fx~l IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the I I rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards I I such as flooding? ( ) _ c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of I I surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) D n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 7 movements? ( ) ;3-••-•••--. ;-•••:. -••• f) Changes in the quantity of -ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, -'bf trough interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavationsor•'''''•• through substantial loss of .-groundwater ; recharge capability? ( ;'...:;; t).i --'^f-; -.r - - . Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Potentially ttached) Significant Impact -,.-.- . • •'.-,_.. 4 . in any water 1 1 :tion of water T~~| v- .-:,..- , .,.-. ;:-•. ...... t.;,'.-! 1 .-.•• • waters, either [ | 'rir •Iriirni'tnVl !'S'- ';*•——* Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Dn D ':;; Less Than Significan t Impact D 'QV ;M No . Impact H ;1H i-H g) :.-. . h) i) .... • • . ...... Impacts to groundwater quality? () : Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 1 1 L_J ; f f~~l T 1 Q P V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) 1 1 1 1 D D n n n VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would -the proposal result in: • a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? \ e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? 1 1 ^± n D O Dn n D n nn n n 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)? D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) 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? "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? ( ' ) 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 sources 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? XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect ; upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) c) - Schools? ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? . e) Other governmental services? () 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? ( ) b) Communications systems? ( ) Potentially -Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated•Q n n m D ^D :D :-BD ; :i;n;:;;xr :JS mwn['iDr:v'::TD ;m D D D D D D n n n .n n nn n n [i n aD n n n n nn n . . D : c c i] • n nD n nH ID: L nD n n 3 n: n n LI B "GO H El S 1 s. Ix Y B Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached} . ; -> Significant: - Impact" c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution .-"; I 1 facilities? ( )~' ..«—'•• d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ' ) v-V^; :i.-T~] •- e) Storm water drainage? ( -•--..-. f) Solid waste disposal? ( *~:! ' g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ;Xin. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: .. , '^-, ,, . -, a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? ( ) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological 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? ( ) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ' [~~| • I ~] D P D n I I Potentially - Less Than Significant Significan Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated • ' * D I I FH I I I I T~~] p 3 3 D D P P P D No Impact ULJ fxl [X x" P... D D . D D ,, P X 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 restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? P P P Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) 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 the substantial adverse effects on human beings, ^ v either directly or indirectly? :.;v;^-.;:-::o s;; h-.;.-.:":,,::, XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. . Potentially Significant Impact .D Potentially Significant Unless -. Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact D D D 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 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 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact" yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has adopted a, "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors. AIR QUALITY: . 7 , \ ;,.:;.: 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 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 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 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 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. Rev. 03/28/96 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 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative 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 2426 TORREJON PLACE LOOKING NORTHERLY EASTERLY UNIT SIDE YARD LOOKING NORTHERLY EASTERLY UNIT SIDE YARD LOOKING SOUTHERLY EASTERLY UNIT BACK YARD LOOKING WESTERLY WESTERLY UNIT SIDE YARD LOOKING NORTHERLY WESTERLY UNIT BACK YARD LOOKING EASTERLY SHK^-%s~j»^K-»;f,^ffissiia5».--'-?iv**,r3?<i?«K WESTERLY UNIT SIDE YARD LOOKING SOUTHERLY