HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUD 94-02A; Sea Country at Aviara; Planned Unit Development - Non-Residential (PUD) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: PUD 94-02(A)
DATE: May 24. 1996
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Sea Country Homes
APPLICANT: Sea Country Homes. Inc. fAl Moreno)
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 95 Argonaut Suite 210. Aliso Vieio.
CA 92656. (714)452-1180
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 12. 1996
PROJECT DESCRIPTON: An amendment to an approved PUD for 54 multifamily units with
gated entry and recreation area. The proposed amendment will reduce the number of units to 51
and will reorient some of the units.
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
Q Water
M Air Quality
[X] Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services
[ ] Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems
| | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics
| | Hazards [ [ Cultural Resources
| | Noise | | Recreation
[~~| Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[~] 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 NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
Q I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[~] 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 is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
[X] 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 Master
Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01) and Project Negative Declaration (CT 94-03)
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01), including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior
Compliance has been prepared.
ier Signature ' Date
Planning Directors-Signature Date
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: (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
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#2:Pg 8 )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#2:Pg 8)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#2:Pg 8)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#2:Pg 7 )
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? ()
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
D
D
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#2:Pg 8 )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? ,(#2:Pg 8 )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ()
D
D
D
D
D
D
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pg 5.1-5; #2:Pgs 6-7)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pg 5.1-12; #2:Pgs 6-7)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pg
5.1-12;#2:Pgs6-7)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (# 1 :Pg 5.1 -9)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pg 5.1-11; #2:Pgs 6-7)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#2:Pgs 6-
7)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pg 5.1-11; #2:Pgs 6-7)
h) Expansive soils? (#2:Pgs 6-7)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#2:Pgs 6-7 )
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#2:Pg 6)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ( #2:Pg 6)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#2:Pg 6 )
D
D
D
D IEI
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#2:Pg 6)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ( #2:Pg 6)
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? ( #2:Pg 6)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#2:Pg 6)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#2:Pg 6 )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#2:Pg 6)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
D
D
n
D
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pg 5.3-
4)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1 :Pg 5.3-4)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#2:Pg 6 )
d) Create objectionable odors? (#2:Pg 6 )
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pg
5.7-10)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#2:Pg 9 )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#2:Pg 9)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#2:Pg
8)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#2:Pg
9)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#2:Pg
9)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#2:Pg 9 )
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
n
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? (#2:Pgs 7, 8 )
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#2:Pgs 7, 8)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#2:Pgs 7, 8 )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(#2: Pgs 7, 8 )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#2:Pg 7, 8 )
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pg 5.12.1 and 5.13.1)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pg 5.12.1-4)
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? (#l:Pg 5.13-5)
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)? (#2:Pg 8 )
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#2:Pg 9 )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? ( #2:Pg 8)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#2:Pg 8 )
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#2:Pg 8 )
D
D
D
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#2:Pg 8 )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#2:Pg 8 )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? (#1 :Pg 5.12.5-3) I—I
b) Police protection? (#1 :Pg 5.12.6-2) I—I
c) Schools? (#l:Pg 5.12.7.4) |—I
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? i I
(#2:Pg 8 ) L-'
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg r—i
5.12.4-1) L—'
D Dn
n
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? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg 5.12.4-1)
b) Communications systems? (#2:Pg 8 )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pg 5.12.2-5)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1 :Pg 5.12.3-4)
e) Storm water drainage? (# 1 :Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pg 5.12.4-2)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pg 5.12.2-5)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#2:Pg 9)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#2:Pgs
6,9)
c) Create light or glare? (#2:Pg 8 )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#2:Pg 7 )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#2:Pg 7)
c) Affect historical resources? (#2:Pg 7 )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#2:Pg 7)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#2:Pg 7 )
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pg 5.13.8-5)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#2:Pg 9 )
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
D
D
D
D
D
| — I
i i
I — I
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
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
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project is an amendment to an approved PUD development for 54 multifamily
units with gated entry and recreation area. The amendment would reduce the number of units
from 54 to 51, and would reorient some of the units on the lots and one of the private drives.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
1. Land Use and Planning
The proposed amendment will not result in any conflict with the General Plan designation or
zoning or any environmental plans or policies. The project involves only site design changes.
The use will remain multifamily as originally approved. There will also be no incompatibility as
a result of the amendment. The site is not currently used for agricultural operations. There is no
existing established community.
2. Population and Housing
The proposed amendment will not result in unanticipated growth and will not displace existing
housing. The amendment will reduce the number of dwelling units by 3 from the previously
approved project.
3. Geologic Problems
The proposed amendment involves relatively minor changes to an approved site plan. There is
no significant change to the building pads. The mass grading for the site has been completed in
compliance with the previously approved Tentative Map. The finish grading will be required to
be substantially in conformance with the approved exhibits for the project.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
5. 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
10 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
6. Transportation/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.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(619) 438-1161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Environmental Impact Assessment Part II (amended) for CT 94-03/PUD 94-02, dated
December 13, 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO.
DATE:
BACKGROUND ?'
1. CASE NAME: Major Amendment - CT 94-03/PUD 94-02
2. APPLICANT: Sea Country Homes, Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 95 Argonaut, Ste. 210
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Phone: (714) 452-1187 :
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 10. 1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ma.ior Amendment to approved PUD 94-02. The pro.lect
proposes 51 townhome residential units, a reduction of 3 units from the previously
approved project. The project also proposes minor revisions to street layouts and
building pad configurations.
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 Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water Hazards Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise Recreation
_ Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 3/28/95
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. 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 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. 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 #(s): )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ()
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ()
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? ()
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? ()
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ()
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ()
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ()
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ()
b) Seismic ground shaking? ()
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
0
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant '
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact
No
Impact
_JL_
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ()
e) Landslides or mudflows? () :
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ()
g) Subsidence of the land? ()
h) Expansive soils? ().;
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ()
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ()
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ()
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ()
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ()
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ()
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? ()
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ()
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ()
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
JL_
JL_
. X
•JL
X
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? ()
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ()
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ()
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ()
d) Create objectionable odors? ()
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
0
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ()
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ()
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
0
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
0
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. 'bus turnouts,
,; bicycle racks)? ()
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ()
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
JL.
JL_
JL.
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially
- Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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? () X
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
0 — — — JL
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? () •-, X
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? () _X_
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? () JL.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would
the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? () X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? () 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? () X
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? () X
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? () x
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? () x
7 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
• potential health hazards? ()
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ()
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ()
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ()
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? ()
b) Police protection? ()
c) Schools? ()
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ()
e) Other governmental services? ()
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? ()
b) Communications systems? ()
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ()
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ()
e) Storm water drainage? ()
No
Impact
_ JL
JL
JL.
JL_
X
_ JL_
Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
f) Solid waste disposal? ()
g) Local or regional water supplies? ();
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ()
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? () :
c) Create light or glare? ()
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ()
b) Disturb archaeological resources? () .
c) Affect historical resources? ()
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ()
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ()
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
0
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ()
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
* Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
_JL
JL.
X
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
JL_
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.
10 Rev. 3/28/95
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 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
11. Rev. 3/28/95
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.
12 Rev. 3/28/95
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE^!
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE^)
N/A
13 Rev. 3/28/95
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
EXPLANATION SHEET
The project is a proposal to decrease the number of approved dwellings for the PUD
development (PUD 94-02) by three units from fifty-four(54) to fifty-one (51) and to
change the architectural design for the project, resulting in minor changes to street
alignments and pad grades.
The following comments are in explanation to the Environmental Impacts checklist:
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. This application does not change the general plan designation or zoning of the
property.
b. This development is not in conflict with any environmental plans or policies of
any agency with jurisdiction over the project.
c. This project is in conformance with the previously approved project. As part of
a master planned community, the approved land use is an integral part of the Aviara
community.
d. This application does not affect any agricultural resources or operations.
e. This application will not disrupt or divide any established community.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. This proposal results in three less residential units than previously approved
project..
b. This application is to reduce the number of units in the project by three, and will
not induce growth directly or indirectly in undeveloped areas. Nor will it induce
extension of major infrastructure.
c. This proposal will not displace any existing housing.
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
a. The proposal will not result in nor expose people to fault rupture.
b. This proposal to decrease the number of units by three, will result in nor expose
people to seismic ground shaking.
c. This proposal will not result in nor will it expose people to impacts involving
seismic ground failure, including liquefaction
d. This proposal will not expose people to impacts involving seiche, tsunami or
volcanic hazard.
e. This proposal will not expose people to landslides or mudflows.
f. This proposal will not expose people to impacts involving erosion, changes in
topography or unstable soil conditions.
g. This proposal will not expose people to subsidence of the land.
h. This proposal will not expose people to potential impacts from expansive soil.
i. This proposal will not expose people to potential impacts involving unique
geologic or physical features.
IV. WATER
a. This proposal maintains substantially the same absorption rates, drainage
patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff as the previously approved
project, PUD 94-02.
b. The proposal will not result in exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding.
c. This proposal will not result in any changes in discharge into surface waters or
other alteration of surface water quality.
d. This proposal will not result in any changes in the amount of surface water in
any water body.
e. This proposal will not result in any changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements.
f. This proposal will not result in changes in the quantity of ground waters.
g. This proposal will not alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater.
h. The proposal will not involve any impacts to groundwater quality.
i. This proposal will not result in substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies.
V. AIR QUALITY.
a. This proposal would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation.
b. This proposal would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants.
c. This proposal would not alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or cause
any change in climate.
d. This proposal would not create objectionable odors.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a. The proposal would not result in increased trips or traffic congestion.
b. The proposal would not result in hazards to safety from design features nor
incompatible uses.
c. The proposal would not result in inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses.
d. The proposal would not result in insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site.
e. The proposal would not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists.
f. The proposal would not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation.
g. The proposal would not result in any impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. This proposal would not result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare
species or their habitats.
b. This proposal would not result in impact to locally designated species.
c. This proposal would not result in impacts to locally designated natural
communities such as oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.
d. This proposal would not result in impacts to wetland habitats such as marsh,
riparian and vernal pools.
e. This proposal would not result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
a. The proposal would not in conflict with adopted energy conservation plans.
b. The proposal would not use non- renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner.
c. The proposal would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and to the residents of the
State.
IX. HAZARDS
a. The proposal would not involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation.
b. The proposal would not involve the possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
c. The proposal would not involve the creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard.
d. The proposal would not involve the exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards.
e. The proposal would not involve the increase of fire hazard in areas with
flammable brush, grass, or trees.
X. NOISE
a. The proposal would not result in increased noise levels.
b. The proposal would not involve the exposure of people to severe noise levels.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
a, b, c, d, e. This proposal will not have an effect upon nor result in the need for
new or altered governmental services in fire protection, police protection, schools,
maintenance of public facilities, including roads, or other governmental services.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
a,b,c,d,e,f,g. This proposal will not result in the need for new systems or supplies
or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas,
communications systems, local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities,
sewer or septic tanks, storm water drainage, solid waste disposal, local or regional
water supplies..
XIII. AESTHETICS
a. The proposal would not affect scenic vistas or scenic highways.
b. The proposal would not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect as it
involves a decrease in units and substantially the same site plan.
c. The proposal will not create light or glare as it involves the decrease in number
of units and a substantially similar site plan to the previously approved PUD 94-02.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. The proposal will not disturb paleontological resources as the site is previously
graded.
b. The proposal would not disturb archaeological resources as the site is previously
graded.
c. The proposal would not affect historical resources.
d. The proposal will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values.
e. The proposal would not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area.
XV. RECREATION
a. The proposal would not increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities as it entails a decrease in units.
b. The proposal would not affect existing recreational opportunities as it entails a
decrease in units and therefore an incremental decrease in the demand on existing
recreational facilities.
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. The proposal to decrease the number of units by three and to alter the site design
slightly from the approved site plan does not represent a project that has the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of 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. This proposal which proposes to decrease the number of units by three does not
represent a project that has impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable.
c. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES
The earlier EIR and approvals for Aviara Development, and the approval documents of
PUD 94-02 and CT 94-03 are on file in the City of Carlsbad. All impacts and mitigation
measures of the overall project are discussed in detail in the earlier documents. This
proposal involves the decrease in the approval from 54 units to 53 units and will not
materially affect the earlier analyses.