Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDU 99-22; Khanijow Second Dwelling Unit; Second Dwelling Unit (SDU) (6)MAR-30~99 TUE 11 :59 CITY OF MRLSBAD COMM DE FAX NO, 4380894- P, 02 BACKGROUND SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTJALLY AFFECTED: Plcltse check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would bc any enviromncnld factor that has at least one impact chccked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless ,Mitigation incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. -@w - 0 Land Use and Planning a 'I'ransportation/Circulation [c1 Public Services Population and Housing 0 Biological ksources t] Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mined Resources a Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Culturdl Resources Air Quality a Noise cf Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 EAR-30-99 TUE 11 :59 CITY OF XARLSBAD COMM DE FAX NO. 43aosg4 STATE CEQA GU1UELWS, Chapter 3, Article 5, SZC~~UKI 15063 conduct an Environmental lrnpact Assessment to determine if a project P. 03 requires that the City may have a significant . effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in *e foljhwing pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with infomation to use as the basis fur deciding whether to prepare an Envimmental Impact Report (Em), Negative Declaration, or to reIy on a previoudy approved EUR or Negative Declaration. . A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an infomation source cited in the parentheses foliowiry each . qucstion. A “No answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sot~rces 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 soFce document to refer to, or it is based on projcct-spccific factors as we11 as general standards. ” e ‘‘Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potentiaI impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted , general standards and policies. e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies whcrc the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potcntially Significant Impact” to a ’ “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agrcc to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation meamtes, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropiate if thcrc is substrrntid evidence thar an ef€ect is significant. e Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but potentially significant tfftcts (,a) have been analyzzd adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Dcclamtion pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pvsuant to that earlier I.=IR or Mitigatfd Negativc Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposcd upon the proposed project, and AOXX of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supptemcnral ElR are pxscnt and d the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmtntal dommt is required (Prior Compliance). e When “Potentially Significant Impact“ is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has heen analyzed adequately in an earlier ElR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Ovemding Considerations” has been madc pursuarlt IO that earlier EIFC, e A Ncgarivc Declaration may be preparcd if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspccts may cause a significant effect on thc environment. 2 Rev. 030Sf96 JlAR-3Qr-99 TUE 12 :OO CITY OF -4RLSBAD COMM DE FAX NO, 4380894". P, 04 0 If there are one or more potcntially significant effects. the City may avoid preparing an ElR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the devdopez prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant .Impct Unless Mitigation hcorpurated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. An EN be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited Lo the following circumstances: (I) the potentially significant effcct has not been'discussed or mitigated in an EarIier EIR pursuant to applicable standardt, and the developer does not agree ta mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not hcn mdc pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EM-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to detennine the level of sigdicance for 8 potentially adverse effect, or determine the tf%cctivencss of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below D lwei of sigdicance. I A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form undw DISCUSSION OF EXVIRON"AL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given.to discussing mitigation for impacts which would othcrwise be determined significant. \ 3 Rev. 03/33/86 P. 05 .MAR-30-99 TUE 12: 00 CITY OF JMRLSBAD COMM DE FAX NO, 4380894, Potentlafly Significant UnIw Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significan lmpcc t Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNMG. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(SI: {. ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (' 1 c} Be incompatible with existing Isnd use in the vicinity? ( 1 d) Affect agricultural resources or operations {e.&. imppacts to soils or fmlands. or im am fkm incompatible rand uses? (All /h5&4 e> Disrupt or divide rhc physical lurangement of an established community (including a !ow-income or cl 0 aN nw Q 0 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would &e proposal: a) Cumulnivaiy exceed official regional or local. b) lnducc substantial gmwh h M area either dirrct1y or population projections? ( 1 0 indirectly (c.g. t€~roug projects in an undeveloped arca CI or cxtension of major infrastructure!)? ( 1 housins? ( 1 U \ c) Displace existing housing especially aftadable U fJ Ill. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Wauld the proposal result in or expose people to potentiid impacts involvjng: a) Fault rupture? ( 1 b) Scismic ground shaking? [ 1 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e> Landslider or mudflows? ( 1 f) Erosion. changes in topography or unstable soil ( 1 ( 1 conditions from ekemation. grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ( 1 tt) Expansive soils? < b % pprC,. i) Unique geologic or physical features'? .( 1 ( 1 CI R 0: tJ IV. WATER. Would tho propal result in: a) Changes in absorption mes, dninagc pttcms, or the ratc and amount of surfacc rtrnvft? ( ) b) Exposum of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( 17 a t3 4 Rev. 03/28/96 Discharge into sw&t W~XY or other altcratmn of surfacu water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( body? C 1 Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( 1 Changes in the quantity of ground warn, either intcxccpdon of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substwtiai loss of grolmdwarcr r"ge capability? ( 1 hltescd disection or rate of flow of groundwater? ( 1 Impacts to groundwater qualiry? ( Substantial rtducihn in the atnount of groundwater othenvise available for public wafer SuppIies? ChmgCS in the BmOUnt Of SWf-We W8ttt h my We through direct additians or Wfdrdrawals, or rhrougb ( 1 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the pmpossl: a) Violate! any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or pmjectcd air quality violation? ( 1 b) Expose sensitive receprors to poIIutants'? ( 1 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or tcmpemtuw, or cause any chan4e in climate? ( 1 d) Crcate objectionsble odots? ( ) proposal result in: increased vehicle hips or traffic congestion? t 1 Hazards to safety from design famrct (kg. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (eg. farm equipment)? ( 1 Inadequate emergency access or acct$s to nearby uses? 1 Insufficient parking capacity on-sire or off-site? 1 Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( 1 Cmflicts with adopted policies supporting a!temativc transportation (e+ bus turnouts, bicycle mcb)? 1 Rail, waterborne or air traflic impacts? x 1 U 0 13 U a D 13 0 0 0 CI a &I 0 5 ~"-3g-99 TUE 12 : a1 CITY OFJNRLSBAD COMM DE FAX NO, 4380894- P, 07 in impacts to: Endangered; tlueakned or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, mxcq animals, and birds? ( 1 Locally designated spccics (cg. hailage a=)? ( 1 Locally designared narural communities (c.8. oak forest, coastal habitat, utc.)? ( 1 Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( 1 Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( 1 BNERGY AND MINERAL. RESOURCES. WouId thc proposal? Conflicl with adopted energy conoervmion plans? I 1 Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manne ( 1 Result in the loss of avaihbility of a known mined resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the Stab? ( 1 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk aP accidcntal explosion or release of hazardous Substance (including, but not Iimikd to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interFmncc with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of MY health 1-d or porentiai bath hazards? ( 1 d) Exposum of pcopie to misting soutces of potatid hcnkh hazards? ( 1 e> Increase fire hazard in am with flammable brush, grass, or tms? ( 1 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) b) Exposure of peoplo to severe noise levels? c 1 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the ~poscrl have M cfkt upon, or result in a necd for IIGW M altwM gPmnrnmt services in any of the followin, =arcas: a) Fire prutection? ( 1 b) Police pratection? ( 1 c) Schools? ( 1 h n 0 U a R n 0 U U 13 0 fl CI a Q a U 11 Q c3 0 n 0 0 Kev. 03/28/96 CITY OF mRLSBAD COMM DE FAX NO, 4380894. P, 08 Unless t lmpwt Mitigation lncnrporatcd Mainrenance of public facilities. including mads? 1 0 c3 U tl CI CI a 0 U n 0 D c1 c1 0 0 a a 0 0 D U XT1I. AESTHETICS. Would thc proposal; a> Affect a scenic or vim or scenic highway? 5) Have a demonstrate negative acsthctic effect? c) Creare lighr or glare? ( 1 ( 1 U ‘0 D 0 U c3 D CI c1 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb pa~eonrological resources? ) b) Disturb archaeologiical tcsourcu? ( 1 c) Affect historical rcroutces? ( ) d) Have the potcntial to cause a physical change which would atYect unique ethnic cultural values? ( 1 potential impact area7 ( ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ti CI U a 0 D 0 n U 0 U n c1 XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: parks or other mreational hciiitid b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? a) IncrcSIsc the demand for neighborhood or regional { 1 1 n c3 0 7 MAR-30-99 TUE 12:Ol CITY OFAARLSBAD COMM DE MANDATORY FMDlNGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Ducs the project have the potential to degmde quality of the environmant. substilntially reduce FAX NO, 4380894 P. 09 habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or \ wildlife population to drop below seIf-sustnining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal communjty, reduce the number or rcRtirct the wge of a rare or endangered plant or animal ar eliminate important examples of thc major periods of Califumia history or prchistory? Does the projca have impacts that we individually limited, but cunuAuiveIy cmiderahle? CI 0 ("Curnulativoly ccmsidcrablc" me3115 that the incrcmental effects of a project am considerable when viewed in connection with the: cff~~ of past projects, the eflects of other cumt projcca. and tho effects of probable future projects)? Docs tho project have environmental effects which will cause tbt subsmtltial adverse effcds on human kings, either directly or indirectly? a EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to thc tiering, prugam EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more cffens have been adequately arialyzed in an eqlier EIR or negative dedaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussinn should identify the following on attached sheets: \ a) Earlier analyses used. Identifjr earlier analyses and atc where rhey are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fiom the above checklist were Whin the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicablc leg4 standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier anaIysis. c) Mitigation measures. For eff- that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation rnemrcs which were incorporated or refined fiom the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions fQt the project. 8 Rev. 03/7,8/96 ___ MAR-30-99 .- TUE 12: 02 CITY OF mR1SBAD COMM DE FAX NO, 4380894- P. lo DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please use this area to discuss any of the cnvirommtal factors that were checked “No impact’‘ yet lack my information citations and any factors that were checked “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Potentidy Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated.” The City has adopted a “Statement of Overriding Consideration” with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from thc normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental. factors. The implementation of subsequent projects that ate consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will rcsult in incmd gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in incnasn in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and susprnded particulates. These aerosols arc the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Dicgo Air Basin is a ‘‘non-athimncnt basin“, any additional air emissions arc considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updatcd General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality ofthe region. To Icssen or minimizc the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Fiual Master ETR These include: 1) provisions ~OT roadway and intersection improvements p-or to or concpnent with development: 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implemmtatIon of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage dtemative modes of transportation incIuding mass transit scrvi~cs; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site desi- and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies whcn adopted. The applicabJe and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or art included 3s conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attaimmt bask?’, 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” far air quality impacts. This %tstement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the Genaal Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, thcrcfore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is availabie at the Planning DepYtment. CIRCULATION: The implcrntntation of subsequent projects that are consistcnt with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan wiIl result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 parrial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-rrmc over which rhe.City has no jurisdictional control. These gendly include all fieway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with Lhe implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections 9 Rev. 03&!8/96 "'2-30-99 TUE 12: 03 CITY OE- CARLSBAD COMM DE FAX NO, 43808u P,, 1 t are projected to fail the City's adopled Growth Management performance standards at buildour. To lessen or minimize lhe impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. Thcsc include measures to ensure the provision of circulation faciiitits concunmt with need; 2) provisions to dcveIop alternative rnodcs 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 fi~m I hiling Interstate or State Highway onto City strects creates impacts that arc not within the jurisdiction of thc City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measUtes have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are inciudcd 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 thraugh-traffic, thercfore, the "Xnitial Study" cfiecidist is marked "Potcntialfy Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General PI=, thcreforc, 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 Cousiderarions" for circulation impacts.. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Mastcr EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.