HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 03-09A; Ocean Bluff; Tentative Map (CT) (35)o
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 93-09(AV /HDP 93-09(AVCDP 97-54
DATE: MARCH 9. 1998
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: OCEAN BLUFF
APPLICANT: CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP. INC.
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5 PARK PLAZA. SUITE 400. IRVINE.
CA 92614
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: NOVEMBER 26. 1997
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is a Tentative Map revision, hillside
development permit amendment, and coastal development permit to permit: 1) building
placement and architectural design of single family units on each single family lot; 2) grading of
off-site Poinsettia Lane to the full width right-of-way between Aviara Parkway and Blackrail
Road; 3) changes to pad grades to accommodate a sewer realignment to the north resulting from
the final design of Blackrail Road; and 4) the conversion of the former affordable housing site to
4 single family lots. Approval of the proposed changes would result in the extension of
Poinsettia Lane from its existing terminus at Aviara Parkway to Blackrail Road, increase the
number of single family residential lots from 93 to 96, and reduce the total number of units from
108 to 96.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
|^[ Land Use and Planning
| | Population and Housing
| | Geological Problems
Q Water
[X] Air Quality
[><3 Transportation/Circulation [ [ Public Services
[X] Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems
| | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics
| | Hazards | | Cultural Resources
I I Noise I I Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
| | I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
| | I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
| | I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
| | I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
|^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR/Prior
Environmental Compliance to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been
prepared.
Planner Signature ^ I / Date
IL
Planning DirectorVSignafere Date
Rev. 03/28/96
w
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" 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 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 potentially 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.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (#1,2)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (#1,2)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (#1,2)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (1,2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (1,2)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (1,2)
D
D D D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (1,2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (1,2)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (1, 2)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,
2)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1, 2)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (1,2)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1,2)
g) Subsidence of the land? (1,2)
h) Expansive soils? (1, 2)
i) Unique geologic or physical features?(l, 2)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or I i
the rate and amount of surface runoff?(l, 2)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related | i
hazards such as flooding? (1,2)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of I i
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (1,2)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any I—I
water body? (1, 2)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of I—I
water movements? (1,2)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either I—I
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (1,2)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? |—I
(1,2) "-1
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1, 2) I I
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of I—I
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (1,2)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (1,2)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (1,2)
d) Create objectionable odors? (1, 2)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
PIssues (and Supporting Information Sources).
o
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1, 2) r\7|
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp I—I
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment) (1,2)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby I—I
uses? (1,2) '—'
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (1, I I
2) "-1
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (—I
(1,2) "—'
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting I—I
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (1,2)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1,2) I I
D
D
n
D
n
n 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? (1, 2)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,
2)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1,2)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (1,2)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1, 2)
D
D
n
n n
n
n n
n n
n IEI
n KI
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
0,2)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (1,2)
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? (1,2)
D
D
n
n
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)? (1, 2)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (1,2)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (1,2)
D
D
D
n n £
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (1, 2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
No
Impact
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1,2)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2)
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? (1,2)
b) Police protection? (1,2)
c) Schools? (1,2)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(1,2)
e) Other governmental services? (1,2)
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? (1,2)
b) Communications systems? (1, 2)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (1,2)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1, 2)
e) Storm water drainage? (1,2)
f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (1,2)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (1,2)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (1,
2)
c) Create light or glare? (1, 2)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1,2)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1,2)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (1,2)
D D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
n
Dn
n
nn
nn
n
n
nnn
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1,2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
D
D
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?
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?
D D
D
D
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 from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96
c o
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed tentative map revision, hillside development permit amendment, and coastal
development permit are required due to changes in the Ocean Bluff subdivision which involve
grading Poinsettia Lane to its full width right-of-way instead of half width between Aviara
Parkway and Street A (Reach I), additional grading (with partial improvements) of Poinsettia
Lane to its full width right-of-way between Street A and Blackrail Road (Reach II), minor pad
grade changes and sewer realignment due to the final design of Blackrail Road, the deletion of a
16 unit affordable housing apartment project on Lot 93, and the subdivision of the affordable
housing lot into four additional single family lots. These changes increase the total number of
single family lots from 92 to 96 and reduce the total number of approved units from 108 to 96.
(the Ocean Bluff project received City Council approval to satisfy its 16 unit inclusionary
housing requirement at an off-site location. Therefore, the previous environmental impact
assessment performed for the Ocean Bluff project dated September 18, 1995 applies to the all
items except for the following additional discussion provided for Items la, Ib, and Id. (Land
Use), lib (Population/Housing), Vila and VIIc (Biological Resources), and Xa (Noise).
la. The proposed revision to the approved tentative map would result in fewer overall units
in that the applicant has received approval to purchase credits to satisfy the project's affordable
housing at an off-site location and is proposing to subdivide the on-site affordable housing lot
into four additional single family lots. This revision reduces the project density from 3.6
du's/acre to 3.2 du's/acre which is consistent with the growth control point of 3.2 du/acre for the
site's RLM General Plan designation.
Ib. The approved Tentative Map for the Ocean Bluff project received approval of a Coastal
Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission. The Commission has indicated
that the proposed design changes and the subdivision of the affordable housing site into four
additional single family lots is consistent with the approved Coastal Permit. The proposed
tentative map revision includes a Hillside Development Permit Amendment and Coastal
Development Permit for the addition of residential units on each lot and the addition of an off-
site segment of Poinsettia Lane (Reach II), a circulation element roadway, between Street "A"
and Black Rail Road. The applicant has included the additional Poinsettia Lane road segment at
the City's request. This segment of the Poinsettia Lane extension will connect Poinsettia Lane to
Black Rail Road thereby enabling access through the majority of the Zone 20 Specific Plan area
via Poinsettia Lane. The Reach II extension is consistent with relevant coastal policies regarding
dual criterion slopes and agricultural lands in that no dual criterion slopes will be impacted and
impacts to non-prime agricultural lands will be mitigated as discussed below.
Id. The project will impact non-prime coastal agricultural resources and in accordance with the
Zone 20 PEIR mitigation measures, the project will be conditioned to pay agricultural mitigation
fees for the additional 2.94 acres of non-prime agricultural land disturbed by Reach II of the
Poinsettia Lane extension. Additionally, to mitigate potential impacts to existing infrastructure
including access roads resulting from the grading and construction of Poinsettia Lane, an
infrastructure improvement plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Engineering Departments
for approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The improvement plan shall show the
temporary road connections required in order to maintain continued agricultural use of adjacent
properties impacted by this development.
lib. As specified by the Zone 20 PEIR, the development of projects including transportation
9 Rev. 03/28/96
routes, public services, and land uses within the Zone 20 planning area is not growth inducing
since the area has been previously planned and designated for residential development by the
City's General Plan, Growth Management Program, and Zone 20 LFMP. Although the
Poinsettia Lane Reach II extension will provide access to undeveloped parcels within Zone 20, it
is a planned east-west circulation arterial and development already exists to the east, west, north,
and south of Zone 20 properties; therefore, urbanization is inevitable.
VIIa,c. The implementation of the Zone 20 Specific Plan PEIR is based on future site specific
biological survey studies that focus on the impacts created by individual subsequent development
projects. These additional studies are required to consider the baseline data and biological open
space recommendations of the PEIR and provide more detailed and current resource surveys
plotted at the tentative map scale for each property. The range of future mitigation options
include the purchase of similar sensitive habitat off-site. Biological impacts were previously
identified and mitigation approved from the full width right-of-way of Poinsettia Lane Reach I,
however, the project now consists of additional off-site grading to construct Poinsettia Lane
Reach II.
To satisfy the EIR requirements, field surveys conducted by Natural Resource Consultants over
the 2.94 acres proposed for disturbance by grading of Poinsettia Lane Reach II between Street A
and Black Rail Road revealed that .35 acres of disturbed and California sagebrush-dominated
coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat and .45 acres of southern maritime chaparral (SMC) would be
disturbed. Although the California gnatcatcher was not observed at the site, disturbance to CSS
and SMC habitat are considered significant and therefore mitigation is required. The applicant
has proposed to mitigate the identified .35 acres of CSS through the purchase of credits at a 2:1
ratio in an off-site mitigation bank which would require approval of a 4d Habitat Loss Permit by
the City of Carlsbad with concurrence from the USFWS. Proposed mitigation for the
disturbance to .45 acres of SMC habitat consists of the purchase of credits at a 1:1 ratio in an
off-site habitat mitigation bank or revegetation onsite at an off-site location. Any revegetation
plan must be in accordance with the Zone 20 Specific Plan and approved by the responsible
agencies (USFWS and/or CDFG).
NCCP/HMP. 4D RULE
The proposed Poinsettia Lane Reach II extension is located at the eastern edge of Linkage
Planning Area F (LPA) as defined by the City's draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) dated
December 1, 1997. Although disturbance to .35 acres of CSS habitat in this LPA will result from
implementation of the project, it will not preclude connectivity between core planning areas or
preclude the preservation of CSS habitat in that the area proposed for disturbance is isolated and
surrounded by existing development and/or agricultural activity. Moreover, this project will
result in the preservation of .35 acres of high quality CSS habitat in an off-site habitat mitigation
bank. Since completion of a subregional NCCP/HMP has not occurred, the City may have to
authorize this project to draw from the City's 5% CSS take allowance (4d rule). The take of .35
acres of CSS habitat will not exceed the 5% allowance, nor jeopardize the HMP since it is
located outside the HMP core and linkage planning areas, makes no contribution to the overall
preserve system, and will not significantly impact the use of habitat patches as archipelago or
stepping stones to surrounding core planning areas. Since mitigation for the habitat loss will
result in the preservation of equal or better habitat in an off-site location, the project will not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher. The habitat
loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The development of Reach II of the Poinsettia
10 Rev. 03/28/96
Lane extension is a legal development which is consistent with the City's General Plan
Circulation Element and all required permits will be obtained.
Xa. The Zone 20 PEIR noise mitigation included a requirement that all projects within 500
feet of the Poinsettia Lane alignment prepare a noise study in accordance with the General Plan
Noise Element. A noise study was previously prepared for the Ocean Bluff project, and
mitigation imposed for lots abutting the roadway thereby ensuring that noise levels would not
exceed the 60 dBA CNEL standard. The proposed tentative map revision which proposes off-
site grading of the entire Poinsettia Lane Reach II right-of-way and partial improvement would
result in noise impacts to the adjacent parcels along the southern right-of-way boundary. Noise
impacts to these parcels resulting from the roadway will be analyzed and mitigated as part of the
future entitlement process required to develop these parcels.
SOURCES DOCUMENTS: - (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning
Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA, Phone (760) 438-1161.
1. "Final Program Environmental Impact Report for Zone 20 Specific Plan" and Planning
Commission Resolution 3525 for EIR 203 dated June 16, 1993.
2. "Public Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance" dated September 27, 1995 for LCPA 95-
09/ZC 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 and supporting documentation (EIA Part II
dated September 18, 1995).
3. "Biological Resources Evaluation for the Poinsettia Lane Extension- Reach II" dated April
20, 1998, prepared by Natural Resource Consultants.
11 Rev. 03/28/96