HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP 95-01; Aviara PA 5; Condo Permit (CP) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART U
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 90-09(A)/CP 9S-01/MP 177fPVLCPA 95-11
DATE: September 20. 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Aviara Planning Area 5
2. APPLICANT: Western Paciflc/Culbertson. Adams & Associates
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 85 Argonaut. Suite 220. Aliso Vieio. California
92656: (714) 581-2888
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 14. 1995: Complete application: September 19. 1995
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment to an existing tentative map for PA 5 in the Aviara Master Plan
to replace 147 multi-family units with 131 detached, clustered single family units. To allow single family
residential with the product type proposed requires a master plan amendment. Since a coastal zone master
plan is involved, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is also required. A new Condominium Permit is
also required for this project. The proposed project is essentially a product type change with a slightly
reduced density than what is already approved for the subject site. The master plan currently allows up
to 189 dwelling units. The PA 5 site currently sits as a series of three pre-graded pads ready for
development: to be served by existing and future infrastructure associated with the Aviara Master Plan.
Grading required for this project involves approximately 25.900 cubic yards of cut and fill. The existing
project (CT 90-09) was approved with a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The only mitigating measure
was the provision of a sound wall. This project incorporates a noise wall into the design of the project
as reflected on the project's approved exhibits. The noise wall design is based on a detailed noise study
done for the amended PA 5 development. Otherwise, this project has been adequately designed and/or
conditioned so that no significant impacts to the environment will occur: and no impacts beyond those
already assessed with the original approval of CT 90-09 will occur.
Rev. 3/28/95
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
X Air Quality
X Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Hazards Cultural Resources
Noise
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Recreation
Rev. 3/28/95
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared. D
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. D
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D
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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D
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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance
has been prepared. 0
f/Z,
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director Signature / Date
Rev. 3I2B/9S
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 EER 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 ail 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 EER 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. 3/28/95
• 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
n 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. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #1 )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (Source #1)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source #1)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (Source #1)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (Source #1)
n. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #1)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source #1)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #1)
HI. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source #1)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #1)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source #1)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
_ JL
_ JL
_ JL
JL
_ JL
JL
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #1)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(Source #1)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #1)
h) Expansive soils? (Source #1)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #1)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source #1)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Source
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #1)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (Source #1)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (Source #1)
f) Change 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? (Source #1)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(Source #1)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #1)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
JC_
X
JL
X
_ JL
_ JL
— JL
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(Source #1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
#2)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source
_ JL
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (Source #1) _ _
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source #1) _ _
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source #2) X _
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source #1) _ _
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (Source #1) _ _
d) Insufficient parking capacity bn-site or off-site?
(Source #1) _ _
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Source #1) _ _
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Source #1) _ _
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #1) _ _
_ JL
_ JL
8 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
YD. 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? (Source #1) X
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Source #1) JL
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #1) X
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (Source #1) JL
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source
#1) __ _ _ JL
Vffl. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(Source #1) X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source #1) X
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? (Source
#1) _ JL«
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? (Source
#1) JL
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source #1) JL
9 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? (Source
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (Source
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (Source #1)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source
#1)
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? (Source #1)
b) Police protection? (Source #1)
c) Schools? (Source #1)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(Source #1)
e) Other governmental services? (Source #1)
XH. 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? (Source #1)
b) Communications systems? (Source
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (Source #1)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
JL
JL
JL
JL
JL
10 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #1)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #1)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #1)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #1)
XHL AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Source
#1)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
(Source #1)
c) Create light or glare? (Source #1)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #1)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #1)
c) Affect historical resources? (Source #1)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (Source #1)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (Source # 1)«
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(Source #1)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(Source #1)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
JL
JL
JL
JL
_ JL
JL
JL
JL
JL
_ JL
_ JL
_ JL
11 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wild life 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 substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVH. 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. All
pertinent earlier analyses have been identified at the beginning of the Discussion of
Environmental Evaluation which follows on page 14. The Source Documents identified have
been cited as appropriate in the checklist and environmental discussion.
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.
12 Rev. 3/28/95
Air Quality and Circulation Impacts: Statements of Overriding Considerations made
with the City's General Plan Master EK (Source Document #2).
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. No mitigation measures
are involved with this project.
13 Rev. 3/28/95
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
SOURCE DOCUMENTS CITED (All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075
Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009; (619) 438-1161).
1. Aviara PA 5, CT 90-09, Mitigated Negative Declaration published August 30, 1990 and corresponding
Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part n dated August 15, 1990.
2. City of Carlsbad General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 as approved and certified by City Council Resolution
No. 94-246.
PROJECT BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project site for PA 5 currently has an approval for 147 multi-family units. This project will amend the existing
tentative map, as well as the master plan and local coastal program to allow a detached, clustered single family
product type to be developed with 131 units. A balanced grading concept is proposed involving approximately
25,900 cubic yards of cut and fill. No sensitive environmental resources or conditions exist on the site which is
a series of three pre-graded pads. No environmental impacts will occur beyond those already assessed in
conjunction with the existing approval of CT 90-09 which included the approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The proposed project for PA 5, as designed and/or conditioned, will not have a significant effect on
the environment.
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
14 Rev. 3/28/95
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 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.
15 Rev. 3/28/95
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM OF APPLICABLI
N/A
16 Rev. 3/28/95