Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-18; Carnation Property; Tentative Map (CT) (27)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 98-18/CDP 98-85/HDP 98-2Q/LCPA 98-08/ZC 98-11 DATE: February 23. 1999 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. CASE NAME: Carnation Property APPLICANT: Spectrum Communities L.L.C. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 15375 Barnacle Parkway. Suite B-211 Irvine. California 92618 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 11. 1998 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision of 32 single family residential lots on 10 acres 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 Water Air Quality [x] Transportation/Circulation [ | Public Services [ | Biological Resources | [ Utilities & Service Systems | | Energy & Mineral Resources [ | Aesthetics [XI Hazards [ | Cultural Resources | | Noise | | Recreation | | Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Q] 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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. f~| I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Q 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 EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Q 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 pursuant 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. ^ H-Y\ Planner Signature ~ Date Planning^Directof's Signature/ Date 13 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" 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: (I) 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 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (EIR 90-03) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (EIR 90-03) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (EIR 90-03) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (EIR 90-03) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (EIR 90-03) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated D D O D a a D D a a a a a II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (EIR 90-03) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (EIR 90-03) c) Displace existing housing, especially. affordable housing? (EIR 90-03) D D D D D D D D III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998) b) Seismic ground shaking? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (EIR 90-03)d) e) g) h) Landslides or mudflows? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998) Subsidence of the land? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998) Expansive soils? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D IEI DDK Rev. 03/28/96 11* Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). i) Unique geologic or physical features? (EIR 90-03, Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc dated December 1998) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated D D D 13 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) 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? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (EIR 90-03, hydrology study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated December 1998) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D n 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? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-01) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (EIR 90- 03, MEIR 93-01)D D D D D D m Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-01) d) Create objectionable odors? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93- 01) Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D D VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-01) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93- 01) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-01) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-01) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-01) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (EIR 90-03, MEIR 93-01) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (EIR 90- 03, MEIR 93-01) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 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? (EIR 90-03, Dudek and Associates dated December 1999) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (EIR 90-03, Dudek and Associates dated December 1999) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (EIR 90-03, Dudek and Associates dated December 1999) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (EIR 90-03, Dudek and Associates dated December 1999) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (EER 90- 03, Dudek and Associates dated December 1999) D D D D D D D D D D D D VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (EIR 90-03) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (EIR 90-03) D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? (EIR 90- 03) 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)? (EIR 90-03) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (EIR 90-03) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (EIR 90-03) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (EIR 90-03) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (EIR 90-03) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (EIR 90-03) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (EIR 90-03) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D El D D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D D D D D D 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? (EIR 90-03) b) Police protection? (EIR 90-03) c) Schools? (EIR 90-03) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (EIR 90-03) e) Other governmental services? (EIR 90-03) 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? (EIR 90-03) b) Communications systems? (EIR 90-03) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (EIR 90-03) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (EIR 90-03) e) Storm water drainage? (EIR 90-03) f) Solid waste disposal? (EIR 90-03) g) Local or regional water supplies? (EIR 90-03) 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 D D D D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (EIR 90-03) b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (EIR 90-03) c) Create light or glare? (EIR 90-03) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (EIR 90-03) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (EIR 90-03) c) Affect historical resources? (EIR 90-03) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (EIR 90-03) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (EIR 90-03) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (EIR 90-03) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (EIR 90-03) D D D D 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? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. D D D D D D D D D The Certified EIR 90-03 for Zone 20 was used as a reference in the analysis of this project. A copy can be found on file with the Carlsbad Planning Department. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 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 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 1) 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 10 Rev. 03/28/96 -•'*%,. Sate 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. HAZARDS: There are potential environmental issues regarding the property. These issues include the potential for restricted agricultural chemical residues to be encountered within the near-surface soils onsite from the use of the property for floriculture. It is likely that significantly high residue concentrations would not be detected onsite unless agricultural chemicals were stored onsite or were accidentally spilled, improperly applied, or illegally disposed of onsite. Although a majority of currently banned pesticides have not been used for at least 20 years, there remains a potential for historical farming operations to have utilized currently restricted agricultural chemicals onsite. This application may have resulted in some chemical residue contamination of the subject property. Under normal conditions, most pesticides/herbicides currently used in California degrade, and are not overly persistent in nature. There are, however, certain restricted agricultural chemicals that were commonly used over 20 years ago throughout California that are known to be a persistent substance in nature. The overall potential for significant agricultural hazardous materials/waste and/or petroleum contamination onsite is low to moderate; however, the uncertainty of potential environmental concerns cannot be eliminated and mitigation measures are listed as follows: 1. A detailed agricultural chemical residue survey with recommended remediation shall be completed and comments received from the County of San Diego Environmental Health Services prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 2. All trash and debris within the property shall be disposed of offsite, in accordance with current local, state and federal disposal regulations. Any buried trash/debris encountered during grading of the site shall be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant and shall be treated per the consultant's recommendation prior to removal of the material. 3. An asbestos survey of the onsite buildings shall be performed and any applicable remediation completed prior to their demolition. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 12 Rev. 03/28/96 PROJECT NAME: Carnation Property FILE NUMBERS: CT 98-18/CDP 98-85/HDP 98-20/LCPA 98-08 APPROVAL DATE: April 21. 1999 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure A detailed agricultural chemical residue survey with recommended remediation shall be completed and comments received from the County of San Diego Environmental Health Services prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All trash and debris within the property shall be disposed of off site, in accordance with current local, state and federal disposal regulations. Any buried trash/debris encountered during grading of the site shall be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant prior to removal of the material. An asbestos survey of the onsite buildings shall be performed prior to their demolition. Monitoring Type Project Project Project Monitoring Department Engineering Plancheck Engineering Inspections Building Permits Shown on Plans i,:,. Verified implementation Remarks Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. SipsShown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD - Appendix P.