Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-03; Rancho Carillos Village A; Tentative Map (CT) (4)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: CT DATE RECEIVED: (To be completed by staff) BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Carrillo Ranch Village "A" ' 2. APPLICANT: Shea Homes 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 10721 Treena Street, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92131 (619) 549-3156 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Tentative Map, Condominium Permit and minor Master Plan Amendment for Village "A" within the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. The project proposes the development of 169 multi-family attached condominium units on approximately 11.5 acres. 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. | | Land Use and Planning | | Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services | | Population and Housing [x~] Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems [x] Geological Problems | | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics |~x] Water | | Hazards [ | Cultural Resources [x] Air Quality fx"| Noise | | Recreation fxl Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 IMPACENVIRONMENTAL 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 simpjy 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. Rev. 03/28/96 1. Kancho Uarrilio 2. City of Ca 3. Final Mas Landscape Manual for City of Carlsbad Plan Update - March 1994 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 or zoning? (Source #(s): ( ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( 1, p. 122-144) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1, p.122-144) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (1, p. 122-144) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (1, p. 122-144) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official '-regional or local population projections? ( 1, p. 247 ) 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, p. 247 ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( 1, p. 247 ) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( 1, p. 107 ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( i? p. 102-109) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1, p.108-111) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,Appendix E) Landslides or mudflows? (1, p. 107-111) Erosion, changes. in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( 1, p. 99-101) Subsidence of the land? ( 1, Appendix E) Expansive soils? (1, p. 102-111) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,Appendix E) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( 1, p. 96-100 ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1, p. 99-100) d) e) 0 g) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D n- D D D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significani Unless Miligation Incorporated D D D n D D D D D D fx] D fx"l D fx] D D D Less Than Significan i Impaci D D D D D D ' ' D D aaa D aa Daa a a No Impaci fx~| fx~[ fx] fx] fx] fx] fx] fx] fx] fx] D fx] D D fx] D fx] fx] fx] Rev. 03/28/96 1. Rancho Carrillo EIR (No. 91-04) 2. City of Car^kad Landscape Manual 3. Final Maste^PlR for City of Carlsbad Genera! Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Significant Impact ^ Update - March 1994 Potentially Less Than No c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( 1, p. 99-101) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?(1, p. 96-100) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1, p. 96-100) 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? (1, p. 95-100) " g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1, p. 95-100) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( 1, p. 95-100) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( 1, p.95-100 ) D D D D D Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D Significan t Impact Impact D D D S D B D 0 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, p. 112-120 and 3,p. 2.0-4) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1, p.112-120) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( 1, p. 112-120) d) Create objectionable odors? (1, p.112-120) D D D D D D D D D D VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( 1, p.164-188) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( l,p. 164-188 ) c) -Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( 1,p.164-188 ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (1,p.164-188 ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( 1,p.164-188 ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( 1,p.164-188 ) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (1,p.164-188 ) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D •D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Informanon Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) 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, p. 54-81 ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (l,Appendix B) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1, p. 54-81 ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1, p. 54-81 ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1, p. 54-81 ) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D Totemially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than Significan t Impact D D D No Impact D D D D D VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1, P. 247 ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( 1, p. 247 ) 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, p. 247 ) D D D D D D D 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, p. 274 ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( 1, p. 248 ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential- health hazards? ( 1, p. 248 ) d) Exposure of people to existing soufces of potential health hazards? ( 1, p. 247 ) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, arass, or trees? ( 2 , .p. IV Fl- ) IV. F3 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1, p. 1.89-207 ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?- (1, p.189-207) D a D D aa D a a a a a D a D a aa a a 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, .p. 218-220) b) Police protection? ( 1, p. 218 ) c) Schools? ( 1, p. 219-221) D D D D D D D D 12LJ fxl Rev. 03/28/96 naronIssues (and Supporting In form anon Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( 1, p.220-22]) e) Other governmental services? (1, p. 218-221) Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than Significan t Impact D D No Impact 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, p. 108-221) i i b) Communications systems? (1, p. 108-221) I I c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution I I facilities? (1, p. 219-220) U d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( 1, p. 219-220) . I—I e) Storm water drainage? (13 p. 96-100) I I f) Solid waste disposal? (1, p. 224 ) |—i g) Local or regional water supplies? (1, p.219-221) I—I D D D D Dnn n Dnnn | x| fxl XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ( 1, p. 156 ) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (1, p.161-163) c) Create light or glare? ( 1, p. 247 ) n n n n n n n n n XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( 1, p. 247 ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( 1, p. 247 ) c) Affect historical resources? ( 1, p. 247 ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( 1, p. 247 ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( 15 p. 247 ) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( 1, p.218-220) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1, p.208-221) nnnD n n nnnn a a a aaa n 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 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact D D D D 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 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: 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 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 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) Rev. 03/28/96 Mitigation Measures III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction The mitigation measures from EIR 91-04 will reduce this potential problem to a level of insignificance. Page 111 of EIR states: "b) To mitigate the potential for liquefaction and settlement, remedial grading in the form of removal and recompaction of loose colluvium, topsoils, and alluvium will be required in all areas where such soils would underlie structural fills or other settlement-sensitive improvement. c) Even though the potential for liquefaction along the roadway embankment for Melrose Avenue and the school site is considered relatively low due to soil compaction, ongoing studies should be oriented to include an in-depth evaluation of these area [sic]. Mitigation measures should be recommended, if warranted" e. Landslides or mudflows The mitigation measures from EIR 91-04 will reduce this potential problem to a level of insignificance. Page 111 of EIR states: "a) In landslide areas proposed for development, total removal and recompaction of slide debris will be required. Alternatively, the construction of shear keys/buttress fills and partial removal and recompaction of the upper slide debris should occur prior to development." f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill Page 100 of EIR 91-04 states "Erosion impacts can be mitigated by preparing an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan according to City standards." This Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan will ensure that any erosion or sedimentation problems associated with this project are reduced to a level of insignificance. h. Expansive soils Page 111 of EIR 91-04 states: "g) Selective grading should be performed to place the expansive soils...in deeper canyon fills." MB:kd k:\006m898\b59.doc w.o. 0061-338 This selective grading will reduce any problems associated with expansive soils to a level of insignificance. IV WATER c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality The following measures from EIR 91-04 will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. Page 101 of the EIR states "The impacts of urban pollutants can be reduced by implementing a regular program of vacuum sweeping the streets and parking lots and discharging runoff from developed areas into grass-lined channels before they enter the natural and enhanced drainage channels." V. AIR QUALITY a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation Although the project will contribute to cumulative air quality impacts, a statement of overriding considerations was adopted with the approval of the City of Carlsbad's Final Master EIR for this cumulative impact (see p 2.0-4). Furthermore, the project provides for alternate forms of transportation, as stated on page 120 of the Rancho Carrillo EIR, to reduce potential air quality impacts. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats Any impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats will be mitigated to a level of insignificance via the measures outlined in EIR 91-04 and as specified by the wildlife agencies. c. Locally designated natural communities Any impacts to locally designated natural communities will be mitigated to a level of insignificance via the measures outlined in EIR 91-04 and as specified by the wildlife agencies. d. Wetland habitat Any impacts to wetland habitat will be mitigated to a level of insignificance via the measures outlined in EIR 91-04 and as specified by the wildlife agencies. X. NOISE MB:M k:\0061M998Uj59.doc w.o. 0061-336 b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels Page 207 of the Rancho Carrillo EIR states ".. .future noise-sensitive developments adjacent to Carrillo Way and, to a lesser extent, El Fuerte Street could potentially be impacted by future traffic noise in excess of the City's established standards. Developments in these areas would require environmental review for specific noise impacts and mitigation. Noise impacts would need to be evaluated in detail based on an individual project's grading plans." XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Although the project does have the potential to significantly impact biological habitat, mitigation measures will be employed as outlined in the Rancho Carrillo EIR and to the satisfaction of the Department of US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and the US Army Corp of Engineers. These mitigation measures will reduce any biological impacts to a level of insignificance. b. The project will contribute to cumulative air quality impacts, however, a statement of overriding consideration was adopted for this cumulative impact. Furthermore, the project provides for alternate forms of transportation to reduce potential air quality impacts. MB:kd k:\0061M996\b59.doc w.o. 0061-336