Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 00-07; Washington Street; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: DATE RECEIVED: BACKGROUND (To be completed hy staff) 1. CASENAME: Washington Street 2 APPLICANT- Anastasi Development Company, LLC 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: (310) 376-8077 1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite 100, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 6-unit condominium project 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. I I Land Use and Planning I I Population and Housing I I Geological Problems • Water • Air Quality I I Transportation/Circulation Public Services I I Biological Resources Q Utilities & Service Systems I I Energy & Mineral Resources Q Aesthetics I I Hazards Q Cultural Resources I I Noise Q Recreation I I Mandatory Findings of Significance 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" amswers 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 Sigmficant 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 Impacf 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, 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 potentiaUy 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): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (Village Mastjer Plan b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( Village Master Plan c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (See attachmept d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (None on site) or in area e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? ( See attachmdnt Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • Less Than Significan t Impact • • • • • No Impact X X X X X POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Redevelopitier5t Plan b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Redevelopmen): Plan c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Removes one jingle-family • • • • • • • • • X III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( General Plai) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( UBC ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( General Plai) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( General Plai) e) Landslides or mudflows? (General Plar^ f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( Minimal gra(^ing proposed g) Subsidence of the land? (General Plar^ h) Expansive soils? (Bldg permit ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( Soils report^ IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( See attachm^t b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Not in flocx^ area • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • HI • • • H • • • • • • a • • • • • , • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attaclied) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( General Plar^ EIR d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?( General Plai) EIR e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Not in area pf impact 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? ( N/A ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (See attachme)it h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( See attachn^nt i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( See attachn^nt V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( See attachment b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( See attachmept c) Alter air mevement, moistufe, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( See attachrr^nt d) Create objectionable odors? ( See attachment VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( "ITE" ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (N/A ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( See attachmeyit d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Redevelopment Plan e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Municipal cqple f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? (District Pls^ g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (Redevelopnent/District Plan Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Less Than No Significant Significan Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated • • B • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • X X X X X X X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attaclied) Potentially Significant Impact 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? ( RedevelopiTiei)t Plan b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Redevelopnenib Plan c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( Redevelopment Plan d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? (Redevelopment Plan e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Redevelopment: Plan VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Title 22 ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and. inefficient manner? ( Title 22 ) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: -J a) A risk qf accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ( Residential )use b) Possible interference with an emergency response pian or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? ( Residential) use d) Exposure of people to existing soufces of potential health hazards? ( ResidentdLal )use e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (Nbt in hazard zone X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( See attachK^nt b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (See attachm^t 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? (General Plan). b) Police protection? (General Plan) c) Schools? ( School District fees Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X site • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • • • X • • • • X • • X • • • X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (General Plan) e) Other govemmental services? ( General Plai) 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? ( General Plaji b) Communications systems? (General Plan) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (General Plan) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( General Pl^ e) Storm water drainage? ( General Plari f) Solid waste disposal? (General Plan) g) Local or regional water supplies? (General Plarjl XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (Redevelopment Plan b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (Redevelopnen): Plan c) Create light or glare? ( Redeveloprnerit Plan XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposai: a) Disturb paieontological resources? ( None known ) . b) Disturb archaeological resources? (None kncwn ) c) Affect historical resources? (None known ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Redevelopnent Plan/General Plan e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (Non inpact airea XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (General Plan) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( General PlaJi Potentially Sienificant Potentially Sienificant Less Than Significan No Impact mpact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • 0 • • • X • • • X 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 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 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 the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • Less Than No Significan Impact I Impact • X • X • X 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). fn 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 adeqiiately 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 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 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 ofproject 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 Impacf. 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 Overtiding 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. lEven with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections 9 .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 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 ofproject 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 "Slatemenl 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - ATTACHMENT ADDITIONAL RESPONSES Land Use and Planning: c) - The land uses to the north, west and south are residential. The AT & SF Railroad right-of-way is located to the east across Washington Street. The proposed residential use would be compatible with the uses to the north, west and south, and sufficiently distant from the Railroad across the street. Design and setback standards should provide an adequate buffer to the railroad use. e) - The proposed residential development conforms with the existing physical arrangement of the community. Water: a) - Absorption rates will decrease due to the addition of improvements including less impervious materials with the project. Drainage and surface runoff related to short-term construction activities will be controlled pursuant to the provisions of the grading permit. Drainage and surface runoff after project construction, however, will not be significant and will be directed into the City's drainage patterns pursuant to building and grading permits. This increase would not be considered environmentally significant. d) through i) - The project is not located near any surface waters and is not located in an area subject to flooding. The property is serviced by existing City sewer and storm drain systems which have adequate capacity to accommodate * the added increment of flow generated by this project. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, all waster waters and surface waters will be directed to the appropriate system. The amount of groundwater reduction is governed by controls in the City's agreement with the water supplier. Air Quality: a) and b) - In accordance with the guidelines set forth in the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the proposed 6 unit condominium project does not meet or exceed the "Daily Thresholds of Potential Significance for Air Quality". Although grading and construction activities would result in dust generation, these short-term impacts would be mitigated by periodic sprinkling of graded areas with water in compliance with building code requirements. These, in addition with exhaust emissions from construction equipment, would have only short-term effects and, therefore, would not have a significant impact on the environment. c) and d) - No impact based on the low scale and residential nature of the development. Transportation/Circulation: a) - When comparing the proposed residential project to a commercial project, the typical standard applied by the Institute of Transpor- tation Engineers (ITE) finds that a residential project results in less daily traffic than a commercial project based on the maximum density/intensity of use permitted by the City's Codes. b) , c), d) and e) - Any project issues related to safety, emergency access, parking requirements which are affected by the project's design can be controlled through the building permit process per Municipal Code. Noise: a) - During construction, short-term noise would be generated. All construction activities will be controlled by the City's ordinance regulating construction hours which will mitigate the noise impacts on adjacent properties. b) - Long term noise levels will be typical of the surrounding residential area. Any potential impacts can be mitigated by increased standards for noise attenuation through the condominium and redevelopment permit process for the condominium development.