Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 94-02; Pacific Pointe; Tentative Map (CT) (49)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 94-02/PUD 94-01 DATE: June 8. 1994 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Pacific Pointe 2. APPLICANT: Lucas & Mercier Development. Inc. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 29712 Avenida de la Banderas Rancho Santa Margarita. CA 92688 C7141 589-4480 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 2. 1994 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a tentative tract map and planned unit development permit to include six (6} single family residential lots (minimum 4,900 square feet, and one CD open space lot on a .72 acre site. 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 or Negative Declaration. * 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. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively. 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. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? 8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? X 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? X 4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X 5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? X 6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? X 7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? X 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? X -2- cW BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? X 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? X 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? X 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? -3- HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 20. Increase existing noise levels? 21. Produce new light or glare? 22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? 24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 25. Generate substantial additional traffic? 26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? 27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? 29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 30. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? 31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? YES (sig) YES NO (insig) JL X X x -4- MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 33. Does the project have the potential to substantially 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 en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 34. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) 35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively con- siderable" means that the incremental effects of an individual 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.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES (sig) YES (insig) NO -5- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of the subdivision and development of six (6) single family lots and one (1) open space lot on a .72 acre site located between Date Avenue and Olive Avenue, west of the NCTD Rail right-of-way and east of Garfield Street in the Northwest Quadrant of the City. The site is currently undeveloped and contains a few old Citrus and Eucalyptus trees. The site is relatively flat. Properties to the north, east and west are developed with single family residences and the property to the south is developed with a multiple family project. The property is located in the Beach Area Overlay Zone and lies in the Coastal Zone. The NCTD Railroad right-of-way is located approximately 60 feet to the east, and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon lies just beyond the multiple family project to the south. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT The proposed project would not have potentially significant impacts on the environment. A total of approximately 1500 cubic yards of grading (including approximately 1480 cubic yards of import) is proposed. There are no beach sands, rivers, or streambeds on the site. The Lagoon to the south would not be impacted by the proposed development as the project will direct all runoff to the Storm Drain System in Olive Avenue. Adverse effects on ambient air quality would be of small incremental nature for the proposed six (6) residential units. Structures would require setbacks such that air movement, temperature, etc. would not be affected. The proposed six (6) units would not use substantial energy or natural resources. Due to previous disturbance, the site is unlikely to contain significant archeological/paleontological resources. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL The site has been previously disturbed and contains no natural vegetation. The site does contain some non- native grasses, Citrus and Eucalyptus trees. The properties to the north, south, east and west have been developed with residential uses. The proposed development presents no threat of introducing new species into a natural area. It also presents no threat to the migration/movement of native animals. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT The proposed project would not result in a significant increase in noise or glare. Some temporary noise impacts would occur during construction. No risk of explosion is anticipated with this residential project. The project would not substantially alter the density of the population, as it is consistent with the General Plan Designation for the area. It would provide additional housing to meet current demand. The traffic to be generated by the proposed project (60 ADT) is insignificant. All parking requirements would be satisfied on-site. -6- ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, 0 alternate sites for the proposed project, and g) no project alternative. a) Phased development would not be feasible for a project of this small size, and would not offer any environmental benefits. b) The proposed site design meets all City Standards and Policies and therefore, an alternate design is not desirable. c) The proposed scale of development is compatible with the surrounding area, which contains single family and multiple family residential uses. An alternate scale of development would not offer environmental benefits. d) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan designation of the site and with surrounding development. An alternate use would not offer environmental benefits. e) Delayed development of the site would not offer environmental benefits. The site is surrounded by parcels that are already developed with similar uses. f) The proposed development would not preclude development of similar uses on other sites. g) The no project alternative is not consistent with the General Plan designation or medium-high density residential use and would not offer substantial environmental benefits. -7- DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been 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 Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date - ?- Date Jgtf&arinin#/birector / LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE! ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -8- APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING 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 TW:vd -9-