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-