HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 00-17; KFC Taco Bell; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO: RPm-H /o^P^Q'^l
BACKGROUND
DATE RECEIVED: ^ / i SICNH
(To be completed by staff)
1. CASE NAME: TR-i<^ON a L-o BAL. RESTAURANTS
2. APPLICANT: ^ eN<^lN£EklNC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2.07 \N, ALA/neM /AV.^2g3
BvRBAt^K CA
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: {<BFLAC£ eyiST/AjC RESTAURANT
B\JlLI>iAi(^ AN0 bR\M£ T^RU
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
Cd Air Quality
I I Transportation/Circulation CH Public Services
I I Biological Resources CH Utilities & Service Systems
I I Energy & Mineral Resources CH Aesthetics
I I Hazards CH Cultural Resources
I I Noise CH Recreation
I I Mandatory Findings of Significance
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): ( )
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) 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? ( )
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a)
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?
( )
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
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
• • C
• • C B
• • • B'
• • c &
• • • ^
• • •
• • • B-
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • D
• • • 0
• D • \Er
• • •
• • • \2f
• • • B"
• • • B
• • •
• • •
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ( )
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ( )
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ( )
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? ( )
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater"'
( )
Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
( )
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? ( )
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?
( )
t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative
transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)?
( )
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts?
( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
B
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
B
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
B B-
B B B B
B B B
B B B a-
B B B B-
B B B B
B B B B
B B B
B B B
B B B
B B B
B B B
B B B B
B B B B"
B B B B
B B B
B B B B-
B B B
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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? ( )
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 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 govemment
services in any of the followmg areas:
a) Fire protection? ( )
b) Police protection? ( )
c) Schools? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
B B B
B B B
B B B [If
B B B B
B B B d
B B B B
B B B B
B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B
B B B •
B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B d
B B B B B B B B
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads'?
( )
e) Other govemmental 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? ( )
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? (
XIII. 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) Dismrb 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? ( )
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
( )
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
( )
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
B B B B-
B B B B-
B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B B
B B B 0
B B B 0
B B B B
B B B 0
B B B
B B B 0
B B B 0
B B B 0
B B B B
B B B O
B B B 0
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
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 enviromnental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
B
B
B
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
B
B
B
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
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. 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 fi-om the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96