HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 4460l a . 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4460
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE
SUBDIVISION OF 11.2 ACRES INTO 40 LOTS AND 56
CONDOMINIUMS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF AVENIDA ENCINAS BETWEEN WINDROSE
ZONE 9.
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING
CASE NO.: CT 98-06/CP 98-05/CDP 98-27/HDP 98-40
WHEREAS, Greystone Homes, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Greystone Hon
“Owner”, described as:
CIRCLE AND 1-5 IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
AREA C
Those portions of Lots 1 and 2 and the street between said lots :
shown on Parcel Map No. 13653 in the City of Carlsbad, County (
San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the Coun;
Recorder of San Diego County, January 31,1985 as file no. 85-03331
of official records, lying easterly of the northeasterly line of Carlsba
Tract 85-14, Phase 1 (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park), in tl
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, accordir
to Map thereof No. 11616, filed in the County Recorder of San Die$
County, September 12,1986.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of Janua
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered 2
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
I
I/ 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative DI
according to Exhibit "ND" dated November 24, 1998 , and "P:
November 12, 1998, attached hereto and made a part hereof, base
following findings:
Findinp:
1. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures c
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 and Mitigated Negative Declaratio
94-01 (Poinsettia Shores Master PladMaster Tentative Map) which are appr
this project have been incorporated into this Project.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, anal
considered the Negative Declaration dated November 24, 1998, the envi~
impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon
recommending approval of the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and (
thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence t;
will have a significant effect on the environment and thereby RECON
APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the in(
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
4. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Negative Declaration,
prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Qu
the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the
Carlsbad.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted subject to the approval of CT 98-06, CP 98-05, CDP 9:
HDP 98-40, subject to all conditions contained in Resolutions No. 4461, 44
and 4464 for CT 98-06, CP 98-05, CDP 98-27, and HDP 98-40.
...
...
~
...
1 ...
...
PC RES0 NO. 4460 -2-
e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of January 19!
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, Nielsen
Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOWMILL%
Planning Director
11 PC RES0 NO. 4460 -3 -
0 e
- City of Carlsba(
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Addre4Location: South side of Avenida Encinas between Windrose Circle and 1-5
the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan boundaries.
Project Description: The subdivision of Poinsettia Shores Master Plan-Planning Area C int
total of 40 lots (28 residential duplex lots, 1 private street and 11 01
space lots) with 56 airspace condominiums. The project incluc regrading of the hillside parcel from terraced pads to accommodate
attached mutli-family project accomplished as part of the master pl
mass grading to terraced pads to accommodate duplex lots with airsps condominiums. The proposed two-story duplex condominium units ran
in size from 1,874 square feet to 2,250 square feet.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmenta1 review of the above described projc
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act a:
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review,
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on tl
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in tl
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannir
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public a
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of da
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4477.
DATED: NOVEMBER 24,1998
CASE NO: CT 98-06/CP 98-05/CDP 98-27/HDP 98-40
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA C
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 24,1998
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-08s
0 e
ENVIROMMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 98-06/CP 98-05/HDP 98-04ICDP 98.
DATE: NOVEMBER 12.15
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES - AREA C
2. APPLICANT: AREA C HOMEBUILDING PARTNERS. L.P.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4141 JUTLAND DR. SUITE 200. Si
DIEGO. CA 921 17 PHONE: (61 9) 490-6903
4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 02-27-98
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subdivision of Poinsettia Shores Master Plan-Planning. Area
located south of Avenida Encinas between 1-5 and Windrose Circle into a total of 40 lots c
residential dudex lots. 1 private street and 11 open space lots with 56 airspace condominiun
The project includes regrading. of the hillside parcel from terraced pads to accommodate
attached mutli-family project accomplished as part of the master plan mass mading. to terrac
pads to accommodate duplex lots with airspace condominiums. The aroposed dupl
condominium units range in size from 1.874 square feet to 2.250 square feet.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this proje
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Imp:
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
JJ Land Use and Planning (XI TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing [7 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
(XI Air Quality (XI Noise 0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on 1
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a sipficant effect on t
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatit
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIS
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[XI I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earli
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negati
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicak
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, includir
revisions or mitigation measwes that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefor
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
/P/g-W
Date
Cl /Uki B Planning Direhdr’s Si&ature Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Ci
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followi~
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum;
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negatil
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that a:
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea(
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved.
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, I
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that tl-
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopte
general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatie
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and tf
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce th
effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a
effect is significant. .
0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significar
effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicabl
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatec
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up01
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to o
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prio
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additiona
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirec
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier ED
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement 0:
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tha
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing i
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, ar
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate(
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includi1
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect hi
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, an
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less thz
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h;
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduc
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is nl
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, (
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tl
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentio
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determine
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-l8;#2:Pgs 1-19)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-l8;#2:Pgs 1-19)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0
0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) o
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pgs 1-19)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pgs
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pgs
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pgs
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pgs 1-19;
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
1-19)
5.1-1 - 5.1.15;#2:Pgs 1-19)
5.1-15)
1-19)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2:Pg~ 1-19; #5)
1-19/ #5)
#5)
5.1-15;#2:Pgs 1-191 #5)
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- 0
11;#2:Pgs 1-19; #I)
5
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impal Impact
El
0 El
ON
0 [XI
0 IXI
o w
El
0 w
0 El 0 IXI
0 El
0 €3
0 IXI o w
o w
0 1xI
0 1xI
0 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
8
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11;#2:Pgs 1-19; 0
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved 0
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11;#2:Pgs 1-
#4)
19) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pg~ 5.2-1 - 3.2-1 l;#2:PgS 1-19)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11;#2:Pgs 1-19)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11;#2:Pgs 1-19)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11;#2:Pgs 1-19)
11;#2:Pgs 1-19)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11;#2:Pgs 1-19)
0
0
0
0
0
0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- [XI
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12) 0 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 0
0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or bamers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
w
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CI
0
0
0
0
0
CI
Less Than No
Significant Impa Impact
0 (XI
0 €K
0 €K
0 Ix
0 Ix
0 [x
0 [x
0 (XI
0 0
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 0
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [xi
0 [XI
cl IXI
0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 0
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? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24;#2:Pgs 1-19)
b) Locally designated species (e,g heritage trees)?
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24;#2:Pg~ 1-19)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
24;#2:Pgs 1-19)
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24;#2:Pgs 1-19)
- 5.4-24;#2:Pg~ 1-19)
Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
proposal?
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 0 0
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and 0 0
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
1 - 5.13-9)
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9;#2:Pg~ 1-19)
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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fne hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
15; #2 - Pg 13; #4) 0 o
1 - 5.9-15;#2:Pg~ 1-19) 0 (XI
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:
7
Less Than No
Significant lmpa Impact
0 [XI
om
0 (XI
0 w o w
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 (XI
0 [XI
0 w
0 IXI o w
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 0
Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) o 0 0 0
C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
e) Other govemmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12,l-1 -
5.12.8-7) 0
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:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
b) Communications systems? ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.12.3-7)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10;#2:Pgs 1-
10;#2:Pgs 1 - 19)
10;#2:Pgs 1 - 19)
10;#2:Pgs 1 - 19)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10;#2:Pgs 1-19)
19)
0
0 El
0 0 0 0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 0
5.12.8-7)
8
Less Than No
Significant Impa Impact
0 [xi
[XI 0 [XI 0 IXI DE
0 [XI
0 IXI 0 [XI
0 IXI o w 0 IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
El
0 [XI
w
0 [XI o w
El El
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 El
0 El
Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 0
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0
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? 0 0
(“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?
0 0
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
0 [XI
OBI
El IXI
0 El
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CE(
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negati
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)@). In ths case a discussion should identify t
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availak
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify whch effects from the above checkl:
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursua
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed 1
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigatic
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated (
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sit
specific conditions for the project.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This project involves the subdivision and regrading of Planning Area Cy a 9.64 acre previousl
graded hillside parcel located south of Avenida Encinas between 1-5 and Windrose Circle in tk
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, into a total of 40 lots (28 residential duplex lots, 1 private strec
and 11 open space lots), and the airspace subdivision of 56 condominium units. The propose
multi-family project complies with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan regulations governing tl
site in that lots are not individually owned and units are airspace condominiums. The propose
project involves 69,000 cubic yards of grading with 9,000 cubic yards of import required 1
convert the site from terraced pads suitable for an attached condominium project to terrace
building pads suitable for duplex lots containing condominium units. Increases in grad
elevations from those approved by the Master Plan mass grading are 2’ or less across the site.
1. Land Use and Planning
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations on the propert
(RM) and is consistent with the Master Plan governing development of the site, which allows th
proposed 56 units. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding existing and futur
uses since both are governed by the approved Master Plan which allows a variety of types E
residential development and some supporting recreational and other supporting uses. The site i
currently undeveloped but has been mass graded consistent with the approved Master Plan il
anticipation of this development. Therefore, the proposed project will not disrupt any existin;
agricultural uses or any established community. Pursuant to the conditions of the previousl
approved Master Plan tentative map (CT 94-01), all agricultural conversion fees required for th,
development of this Master Plan have been paid or secured to the City’s satisfaction.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
2. Population and Housing
The project will not result in substantial growth or growth in excess of population projectio:
This project was anticipated by the City’s General Plan and the Master EIR adopted with 1
General Plan Update through the approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. The site
undeveloped. Therefore, no existing housing will be displaced.
3. Geologic Problems
A geotechnical study was prepared for the project site in January 1998 by Leighton a
Associates, Inc. This report concluded that the project site is suitable for the propos
development subject to the design recommendations included in the report. When developed
recommended, the project will not result in any geologic problems, including faults, grou
shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides, or soils problems (expansion). Grading a
construction activities on the site will be governed by the City’s standard regulations for erosi
control. The site contains no unique geologic or physical features. Regrading of the site for t
project will necessitate 9,000 cubic yards of import.
4. Water
The development of the subject site will result in changes to absorption rates over the natur
undisturbed condition. However, all drainage for the project is consistent with the Master P1,
as determined by the LFMP 9 drainage facilities plan and drainage facilities will meet the Citj
Engineering standards. The project will not result in creation of any water-related hazards or a]
changes to surface or ground waters. There will also be no impacts to the course or direction
any water bodies.
5. Air Quality
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 Gener
Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles travele
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organ
gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the majl
contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the S:
Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considerc
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in tl
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 varie
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisiol
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measurc
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Deman
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including ma!
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and :
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into tl
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is mark
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, t
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by C.
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequc
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore,
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at 1
Planning Department.
6. Traffic Circulation
The project, which will generate 448 ADT, is consistent with the parcel’s FW General Plan la
use designation and the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan; therefore, it is within the scope of 1
City’s MEIR for the 1994 General Plan update. Roadway improvements have been construcl
in accordance with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and Zone 9 LFMP to adequately handle
traffic generated by development within the master plan boundaries; therefore, no additiol
mitigation, in the way of roadway improvements, is necessary. The implementation of projel
that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increas
traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; howev
12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic 07
which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchan
areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation
roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Groa
Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numero
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
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewall
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulati
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eitl
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approvl
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of t
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefo
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because t
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, includ
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement 1
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plar
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulati
impacts is required.
6. TransportatiodCirculation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updat
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequ;
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severt
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. The
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsb
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectic
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, numerc
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measur
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to devell
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestri
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies wh
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highw
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. T
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either be
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 t
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefo:
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because tl
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, includc
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement (
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no hrther environmental review of circulatic
impacts is required.
7. Biological Resources
The project site does not contain any biological resources or sensitive habitat. It has bet
previously mass graded in preparation for development. Therefore, there will be no negatiL
impacts to biological resources as a result of this project.
8. Energy and Mineral Resources
The proposed project will not result in negative impacts to energy and mineral resources. TI
site contains no mineral resources, and the project is not in conflict with any adopted energ
conservation plans.
9. Hazards
There will be no hazards or health hazards associated with the development of this site with th
planned residential units. The project’s circulation system is designed to comply with an
applicable requirements for emergency response/evacuation plans. The project site is surrounde
by similar residential development and will not result in, nor be subject to, increased fire hazar
from brush, grass, or trees.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
10. Noise
In accordance with mitigation required as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration approvl
for the Master Plan, a noise analysis has been prepared for Planning Area C by Mestre Gre
Associates which specifies the location, height, and alternative materials of noise walls necessa
to attenuate roadway noise fiom 1-5 and Avenida Encinas to meet City standards. The
recommendations for noise walls have been incorporated into the proposed project; therefol
exterior noise levels will not exceed the City’s 60 dBA CNEL standard. Interior noise levc
will exceed the City’s 45 dBA CNEL standard with windows open; therefore, the project will
conditioned to require mechanical ventilation for all buildings in the project. Additionally, pri
to building permit issuance, the recommendations of an indoor noise analysis performed
determine the need for building upgrades for residential units adjacent to 1-5 must 1
incorporated into the final architectural plans.
1 1. Public Services
The proposed project will not result in significant negative impacts to public services. TI
project was anticipated by the City’s General Plan buildout analysis and will be conditioned
comply with all applicable requirements of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone
This condition will ensure that all necessary public services standards are met prior to
concurrent with the development.
12. Utilities and Services Systems
The proposed project will not result in significant negative impacts to utilities and servicc
systems. The project was anticipated by the City’s General Plan buildout analysis and will k
conditioned to comply with all applicable requirements of the Local Facilities Management Pla
for Zone 9. This condition will ensure that all necessary improvements are provided prior to (
concurrent with the development.
13. Aesthetics
The proposed project will not result in negative aesthetic impacts in that buildings will I
minimally visible fiom arterial roadways and a combination of landscaped slopes, enhance
retaining walls, and enhanced architectural building and roof elements will complement t€
physical setting. The project is located adjacent to 1-5, however, the project will not result I
significant light or glare since units are separated by a 6’ - 7’ high soundscreen wall ar
landscaping.
14. Cultural Resources
No cultural resources are associated with the subject project site. All require
cultural/archaeologicaVpaleontological monitoring required for the development of the Mast6
Plan was completed satisfactorily during the mass grading of the site. The project site does nc
serve any religious or sacred uses.
15. Recreational
The project site does not currently provide any recreational opportunities. When developed s
14 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
proposed, the site will provide recreational opportunities for the residents of the planning area
the form of private yards and a trail system. The Master Plan also includes a centralized acti
recreational area for the residents of the Master Plan area. Because the proposed project is
different product type from that considered by the original Master Plan, the project will
conditioned to obtain more park credits or pay additional park in-lieu fees above those alrea
paid under the original Master Plan project approval.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS: - Note: All source documents are on file in the Plannil
Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (760) 438-116
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Upds
certified September 6, 1994.
2. Mitigated Negative Declaration for Poinsettia Shores Master Tentative Map (CT 94-01/HI
94-03), approved July 6, 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
3. “Preliminary Drainage Study for Poinsettia Shores Area C” dated January 28, 1998 prepart
by O’Day Consultants, Inc.
4. “Indoor and Outdoor Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores (Planning Area C)” revisc
February 15, 1998, prepared Mestre Grew Associates.
5. “Geotechnical Report for Tentative Map Purposes, Poinsettia Shores, Planning Area (
Carlsbad California”, dated January 27, 1998 prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc.
15 Rev. 03/28/96