HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 51341
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. 5134
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM AND ADDENDUM TO REZONE, GRADE AND
SUBDIVIDE 30.9 ACRES INTO 37 LOTS ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF POINSETTIA
LANE AND AVIARA PARKWAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 20
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD PROMENADE
CASE NO.: ZC 00-06/LCPA 00-08/CT 00-1 9/CDP 00-
53/ HDP 00-10
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Promenade Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, “Developer”/“Owner” has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding property described as
The northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the
southwest quarter together with the south half of the southwest
quarter of the southwest quarter both of Section 22, Township
12 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino Meridian, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the
official plat thereof, together with Lot 1 of Carlsbad Tract No.
91-12, Mariners Point Unit 1, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no.
13394, filed in the office of the County recorder of San Diego
County, California on January 24,1997
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and Addendum was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of January 2002,
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 testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
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
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
Addendum according to Exhibit "ND" dated November 2,2001, and "PII" dated
October 16,2001, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
FindinFs:
1.
...
...
...
...
...
...
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and Addendum have been prepared in accordance with requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
D. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5134 -2-
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 Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of January 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, Nielsen, and Segall
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairpan
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HMZMIUER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5134 -3-
- City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: The northeast comer of Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia Lane,
Carlsbad, California
Project Description: The rezone, subdivision and grading of 30.9 acres into 33
residential single family lots (12.13 ac.) and five open space lots
(18.77 ac.) on property located on the northeast comer of Poinsettia
Lane and Aviara Parkway.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4613.
DATED: NOVEMBER 2,2001
CASE NO: ZC 00-06LCPA 00-08KT 00-1 9KDP 00-53/HDP 00-10
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD PROMENADE
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2001
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 49
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
CASE NO: ZC 00-06/LCPA 00-08/CT 00-19/CDP 00-53/HDP 00-10
DATE: October 16.2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD PROMENADE
2. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD PROMENADE PARTNERS, LLC
3. ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4275 EXECUTIVE SOUARE,
SUITE 240. LA JOLLA, CA 92037 (858) 625-3 119
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMlTTED: October 13,2000
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subdivision and grading of 30.9 acres into 33 residential lots
(12.13 ac.) and five own suace lots (18.77 ac.) on uroperty located on the northeast comer of
Poinsettia Lane and Aviara Parkway.
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.
c] Land Use and Planning
c] Population and Housing
Geological Problems
0 water
Air Quality
TransportatiodCirculation
Biological Resources
0 Energy & Mineral Resources
0 Hazards
Noise
0 Public Services
0 Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
u Recreation
. u Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
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 EIR 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 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
Impact Review (MER 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MER 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
2 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 &l 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.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
a 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.
0 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.
4 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#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
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)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
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)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless Impact
0
0
om
OH
0 om
0 om
0 om
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
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 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 0 OM
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 OH
0 0 ON
5.5-6)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
"
0 Ixln 0 0 Ixlo
5.1-1 - 5.1.15, #2) 0 I80
5.1-15, # 2) 0 OH
0 0 OIX] 0 IXI On
0 0 om 0 0 am
5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
5.1-15, # 2) 0 0 OH
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#1 :Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
0 0 om
0 0 om
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
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)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2- 11)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-11, # 2)
5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
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-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
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)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
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)
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, # 3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
IXI
0
0
0
IXI
0
0
0
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
Less Than
Significant
Impact
IXI
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
0
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI IXI
0
IXI
IXI
IXI
0
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incomrated
LessThan No
Significant Impact Impact
ON b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs 5.4-1
5.4-1 - 5.4-24, # 3)
coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, # 3)
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, # 3)
- 5.4-24, # 3)
0
0
0
0
0
0
ON
0 ON
0 ON
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
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:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
proposal:
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
1 - 5.13-9)
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
0 0 ON o 0 ON
0 0 OIXI
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, # 6)
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 fire 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, # 6)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0 0
0
OIXI
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)
1 - 5.9-15)
0
0
0
IXI
ON no
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6, # 5)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4, # 5)
C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7, # 5)
5.12.8-7, # 5)
0 0 0 0
0
7 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7, # 5)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7, # 5)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8, # 5)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3, # 5)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
5.12.3-7, # 5)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect?
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5, # 5)
(#l:PgS5.11-1 -5.11-5,#5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10, # 5)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10, # 5)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, # 5)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, # 5)
1 - 5.8-10, # 5)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated
0
0 0
0 0
0
o
0
0
w
0
0 0
0
OIXI
om om OIXI OIXI
OIXI
IXIO
OIXI
no om
OB om
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
0 0 OB
5.12.8-7, # 5)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) o 0 om
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
8 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
0 om Incorporated
0 0
f
9 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 ElR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)@). 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 condtions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project is the subdivision and grading of a 30.9-acre parcel located on the northeast
corner of Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia Lane, Carlsbad, California. Access to the site will be
via a public street off Aviara Parkway, 11 87 feet north of Poinsettia Lane. Residential lots will
front onto a L-shaped cul-de-sac that parallels Aviara Pkwy and Poinsettia Lane. The
developable portion of the site is located on the southern portion and north of Poinsettia Lane.
This area is relatively flat and has been previously disturbed by agricultural uses. No duel
criteria slopes are being disturbed by the project. The northern portion of the site slopes
northerly to a natural drainage finger of Encinas Creek. Native habitat covers the northern
portion (8.95 ac.) to be preserved as open space. A San Diego Gas and Electric easement for
overhead electric lines transitions the site from north to south along the eastern side of the
property. South of Poinsettia Lane is a triangular area (5.1 acres) of open space. This area
contains manufactured slopes of Poinsettia Lane, a SDG&E transmission tower, and native
habitats to be preserved. A public pedestrian trail is proposed on the existing service road within
the SDG&E easement north of Poinsettia Lane. Grading for the site involves 46,000 cu yds of
cut and 46,000 cu yds of fill resulting in a balanced grading plan with no import or export of soil
material.
The project does not impact any of the sensitive habitats or species found on the site. The project
preserves the existing 7.58 ac. of Coastal Sage Scrub 1.49 ac. Southern Maritime Chaparral, .67
ac. Southern Willow Scrub, and .60 ac of wetland ruderal vegetation. Wart-stemmed Ceanothus
and Ashy spike-moss was also found on site and are not being disturbed. A protocol Coastal
California Gnatcatcher survey identified three pair of birds in areas not proposed for
development.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Geologic Problems
The geotechnical investigation for the site identifies various soil conditions that will require
remedial action to mitigate potential adverse condtions. These conditions include expansive
soils, undocumented fills, and removal and recompaction requirements. The implementation of
the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report will mitigate any impacts to a level of
non-significance.
Water
The project will have an increase in impermeable surface with a resultant increase in water
runoff. The projects design incorporates drainage structures, vegetated swales, and energy
dissipaters to direct water to the natural drainage channels, improve water quality and reduce the
velocity of the water to reduce erosion. The project will be restricted from winter grading as a
condition of the project.
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
12 Rev. 03/28/96
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
TransportatiodCirculation
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 sigmficant 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.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Rd. and El Camino Real, which has been mitigated to below a level of significance with new
roadway improvements. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not
known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MER
remains adequate to review later projects.
Noise
The project site is located adjacent to two major arterials, Poinsettia Lane and Aviara Parkway.
No homes are proposed with the project at this time. A noise study prepared for the project
identifies that the exterior noise levels will not exceed the City’s standard of 60 CNEL for the
13 Rev. 03/28/96
first floor exterior of the units, however the second floor noise level may exceed the 60 CNEL
maximum. Therefore, the project will need to show compliance with the 45 CNEL interior noise
level prior to building permit issuance. Mitigation in the form of specialized window treatments
may be required.
Paleontology
The site has the potential to produce fossil resources that would be a significant impact.
Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance.
Aesthetics
The project proposes manufactured slopes adjacent to circulation element roadways. The slopes
are currently minimally landscaped. The project is designed to incorporate varied slope angles
and landscaping to reduce the visual impact of the manufactured slopes.
111. 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 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential development, Poinsettia Lane at Arizona
Parkway. Carlsbad, California Leighton and Associates, dated February 13, 1998.
Bio1og;ical Resources Assessment for Carlsbad Promenade, Planning Systems, dated
March 28,2001.
Carlsbad Promenade Residential Development Acoustical Study, San Diego, CA,
Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. dated October 8,2000.
Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan Proiect,
Carlsbad, California, Brian F. Mooney Associates, dated June 1992.
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Updated Report for the Proposed Carlsbad
Promenade Residential Development at the intersection of Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia
Lane, Carlsbad. California, Gradient Engineers, Inc. dated February 12,2001
14 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
The project shall incorporate the recommended remedial grading measures in the geotechnical
report to reduce the potential for impacts due to existing soil conditions.
The project shall provide an interior noise assessment designed to reduce noise levels to 45
CNEL prior to building permit issuance.
The following paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented;
1. Prior to any gradmg of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a
walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans. to determine if the proposed
grading will impact fossil resources.
2. A copy of the paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
3. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to
salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic
strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine
screens.
4. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading
process.
5. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil
in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts.
6. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest
in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
7. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project
shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
8. Upon completion of the grading, a detailed report of the findings shall be submitted to the
Planning Director for review.
9. Prior to approval of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the
Developer shall execute a document or documents to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
and the City Attorney which accomplish at a minimum the following:
A. Continued ownership of open space lots 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 by the Developer or its
successor in interest;
B. While in continued private ownership, active maintenance to protect and preserve the
quality of the habitat (including but not limited to reasonable prevention of trespass);
C. Maintenance shall include the removal of any existing trash, debris, and illegal migrant
worker housing; and
15 Rev. 03/28/96
D. Transfer of ownership and maintenance responsibility at some future date to the City or
its designee simultaneously with transfer of funding or other acceptable financial
mechanism to provide for management and conservation in perpetuity. (The cost of
management is currently estimated to be approximately $85.00 per acre per year).
A?TACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
See Attachment
16 Rev. 03/28/96
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MlTIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIEY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
17 Rev. 03/28/96
ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZC00-06 -
CARLSBAD PROMENADE
Subsequent to the issuance of the mitigated negative declaration, it was determined
that a new mitigation measure addressing continued ownership and maintenance of the
open space should be added to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. There
are no substantial changes in the project, or changes to the circumstances under which
the project is undertaken, which would result in an increase to the severity of previously
identified significant environmental effects.
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 3
w
a l-
0
J
> a
0 U n a a
z 0
0 c c .-
5 h
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 2 of 3
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 3 of 3