The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCP 98-01; Rancho Carrillo Village A; Condo Permit (CP) (7)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: MP 139(GVCT 98-03/CP 98-01 DATE: August 11. 1998 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Rancho Carrillo Master Plan Amendment 139 (GVRancho Carrillo Village "A" 2. APPLICANT: Shea Homes Limited Partnership 3. 4. 5. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 10721 Treena Street. Suite 200. San Diego. CA 92131 (619^)5493156 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 1-23-98 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Master Plan Amendment. Tentative Map, and a Condominium Permit. The Master Plan Amendment will provide underlying zoning for the entire Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and will modify specific design criteria for Village "A" as it relates to setbacks and driveway widths. The Tentative Map and Condominium Permit will allow for the development of 169 multi-family attached condominium units on 11.5 acres within Village "A". 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. [X] Land Use and Planning | | Population and Housing | | Geological Problems Q] Water | | Air Quality Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics [ | Cultural Resources | | Noise | | Recreation | | Mandatory Findings of Significance | | Hazards Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Q I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ | I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. | | 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 Negative Declaration 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 EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 64118 Planner 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). LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (Potentially significant unless mitigated) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (No impact; 1; p. 122-144) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (see I.b above) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (see I.b. above) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (see I.b above) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D n D D D D D D D D D D II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (No impact; 1; p. 247) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (see II a above) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (see II a above) D D D D D D III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (No impact; 1; p. 107) b) Seismic ground shaking? (No impact; 1; p. 102 - 109) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (No impact; 1; p. 99-101) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (No impact; 1; Appendix E) e) Landslides or mudflows? (No impact; 1; p. 107- 111) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (No impact; 1; page 99-101 and 106-111) g) Subsidence of the land? (No impact; 1; Appendix E) h) Expansive soils? (No impact; 1; p. 102-111) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (No impact; 1 p. Appendix E)) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D n n IV.WATER. Would the proposal result in: Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (No impact; 1; p. 96-100) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (see a.) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (No impact, 1; p. 99 and 101) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (see a.) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (see a.) 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? (No impact; 1; p. 95-100) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (see f.) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (see f.) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (see f.) Potentially Significant Impact D D D n D D Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D D a a a a aa V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (No impact; 1; p 120 and 228, see attached explanation) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (No impact; l;p 112-120) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (see b.) d) Create objectionable odors? (see b.) D D D D D D D VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (No impact; 1; p. 164-188, see explanation attached) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (see a.) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (see a.) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (see a.) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (see a.) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (see a.) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 6 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (see a.) Potentially Significant Impact n Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (No impact; 1; p. 54- 81) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (No impact, 1; Appendix B) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (No impact; 1; p. 54- 81) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (No impact; I; p. 54-81) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (see a.) D D D D D D D D D D VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (No impact; 1; p. 247) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (see a.) 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? (see a.) D D D D D Q D D 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)? (No impact; 1; p. 247) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No impact; 1; p. 248) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (see b.) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (see a.) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (No impact; 2; p. IV.F1-F3) D D D D D D D D D D D D X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (No impact; 1; I I p. 189-207) *—' b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (see a.) I—I D D D XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) Fire protection? (No impact; 1; p. 218 and 220) b) Police protection? (No impact; 1; p. 218) c) Schools? (No impact; 1; p. 219 and 221) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (No impact; 1; p. 220-221) e) Other governmental services? (No impact; 1; p. 218-221) Potentially Significant Impact D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D 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? (No impact; 1; p.247) b) Communications systems? (No impact; 1; p. 249- 250) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (No impact; 1;; p.219-221) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (see c.) e) Storm water drainage? (No impact; 1; p. 99-100) f) Solid waste disposal? (No impact; 1; p.224) g) Local or regional water supplies? (see c.) D D D D D D D D XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (No impact; 1; p. 156) b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (No impact; l;p. 156 and 161-163) c) Create light or glare? (No impact; 1; p. 247) D D D XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (No impact; 1; p. 82-92) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (see a.) Affect historical resources? (see a.)c) d) e) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (see a.) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (see a.) D D D D D D XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (No impact; 1; p. 218 and 220) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (No impact; 1; p. 208-221) D D D Rev. 03/28/96 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 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 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D D n D D D D D 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 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan is located on approximately 690 acres north of Alga Road, south of Palomar Airport Road, east of Bressi Ranch, and west of the City of San Marcos. The last revision to the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan was made in October of 1997. This project is the request for an amendment to the Master Plan to place underlying zoning on the property as required by the Zoning Ordinance, as well as allow specific design modifications to Village "A" as regards setbacks from private streets and driveway widths. There is a subdivision and condominium permit also proposed for a 169 dwelling unit project on Village ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan was evaluated in the "Rancho Carrillo Environmental Impact Report" (EIR 91-04) approved by the City Council on July 27, 1993. EIR 91-04 analyzed the following environmental issue areas: Agriculture, Biology, Cultural Resources, Paleontological Resources, Hydrology, Water Quality, Geology, Soils, Air Quality, Land Use, Visual Aesthetics. Grading, Circulation, Noise, Public Facilities, Solid Waste Disposal, and Cumulative Effects. A Mitigation and Monitoring Program has been approved for the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and all mitigation measures applicable have been incorporated into the project design or are required as conditions of approval for the project. The proposed Master Plan amendment will not alter any mitigation measures previously determined for the Master Plan. The proposed development is less intense than what is allowed by the Master Plan. Applicable references are provided next to each item on this environmental impact assessment form. A few of the items required further explanation: LAND USE A Master Plan Amendment is being processed as part of this application and will result in the project being consistent with the City's General Plan as the Zoning Code implements the General Plan and it requires underlying zoning for the Master Plan. AIR QUALITY: The Previously certified EIR for the existing Rancho Carrillo Master Plan made the finding that if the Master Plan incorporated the recommended mitigation measures that direct impacts to air quality would be mitigated to below a level of significance. Subsequent to the certification of that EIR, the City of Carlsbad prepared a Master EIR for the 1994 update of the General Plan. 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 10 Rev. 03/28/96 cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services: 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or 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 11 Rev. 03/28/96 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. Minor revisions to the internal circulation system of the Master Plan will delete the public street connections between Villages F and G. A public street connection has been established between Villages K and p to provide a second access into the northeast corner of the Master Plan. The Traffic Study Update prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. for the previous General Plan and Master Plan Amendment approved by the City Council in October of 1997 address the proposed closure of the access between Villages F and G and concludes that it will have no adverse impact on circulation within the Master Plan. Source Documents All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (760) 4381161. 1. "Rancho Carrillo Environmental Impact Report" (EIR 91-04) certified by the Carlsbad City Council on July 27, 1993. 2. "Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update" March 1994. 3. "Traffic Study Update for the proposed Rancho Carrillo Master Plan Amendment" prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. January 1997. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 12 Rev. 03/28/96 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 13 Rev. 03/28/96