HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 00-13; Poinsettia Properties Planning Areas 2, 3 & 4; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (2)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: CDPOO-13
DATE: April 10. 2000
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Poinsettia Properties Planning Area 2, 3, & 4 Stockpile Permit
2. APPLICANT: HSL/BP/Michan LP
3.
4.
5.
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5055 Avenida Encinas. Ste 210.
Carlsbad. CA 92008
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 15. 2000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a coastal development permit to allow for
grading and stockpile of 100.000 cu. yds, of import material over Planning Areas 2. 3. & 4 of the
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan located at the northwest corner of Poinsettia Lane and
Avendia Encinas.
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.
Q Land Use and Planning
|~~1 Population and Housing
|~| Geological Problems
D Water
[X] Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy & Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities & Service Systems
Aesthetics
l~~l Hazards | I Cultural Resources
I I Noise I I Recreation
I | Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
l~l 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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I I 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. A Neg. Dec is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
IXI 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 Program EIR (EIR 96-01) 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. No further CEQA
compliance was required for those activities having no effect beyond those previously analyzed
in the Program EIR. No new impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project and no
new mitigation measures are necessary, therefore, no further environmental review is required.
The Planning Director determined that the proposed project is pursuant to and in conformance
with Specific Plan 210 for which a Program EIR was prepared and certified, therefore, the
project is exempt under Section 65457 of the California Government Code and CEQA Section
15183 and a Notice of Exemption will be issued.
Planner Signature J Date
\jjL~HQi~ __
14-1 oca
Planning DirectorV^i'gnatuW 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).
II.
III.
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Source #(s): (#1, pg. 3-13, #2,
sections I.F.3& I.F.I 3)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project? (#1, pg 3-13)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (#l,pg. 5.1 - 10)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses? (#1, pg. 5.1 -
10)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (#1, pg. 5.1
-10)
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#1, pg. 5.2 - 3)
Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (#1, pg. 5.2 - 3)
Displace existing housing, especially
b)
c)
affordable housing? (#1, pg. 5.2-3)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal
result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14)
c) Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1-14)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#2, pgs.
5.1-1 -14)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1-14)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions from excavation, grading, or
fill? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1-14)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14)
h) Expansive soils? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#2,
pgs. 5.1-1-14)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
n
D
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
nnn
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff? (#l,pgs. 5.11-1 -8)
b) Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? (#1, pgs.
5.11-1 -8)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(#1, pgs. 5.11-1-8)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1 - 8)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1-8)
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? (#1, pgs.
5.11-1-8)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1-8)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1, pgs.
5.11-1-8)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1 - 8)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (#1, pgs. 5.4-1 - 8; #1 pgs. 7-1 - 7)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1,
pgs. 5.4-1-8; #1 pgs. 7-1 -7)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (#1, pgs. 5.4-
1 - 8; #1 pgs. 7-1 - 7)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#1, pgs. 5.4-1 -
8; #1 pgs. 7-1 - 7)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(#1, pgs. 5.3-1-25; #1, pgs. 7-1-7)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#1,
pgs. 5.3-1 - 25; #1, pgs. 7-1 -7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
D
D
D
D
D D
D
n
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VII.
VIII.
IX.
d)
e)
0
g)
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (#1, pgs. 5.3-1 - 25; #1, pgs. 7-1
-7)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-
site? (#1, pgs. 5.3-1 - 25; #1, pgs. 7-1 - 7)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? (#1, pgs. 5.3-1 - 25; #1, pgs. 7-1 -
7)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (#1, pgs. 5.3-1 - 25; #1, pgs.
7-1-7)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1,
pgs. 5.3-1-25; #1, pgs. 7-1-7)
Would theBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES,
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? (#1,
pgs. 5.6-1 - 10)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (#1, pgs. 5.6-1 - 10)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#1, pgs. 5.6-
1- 10)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (#1, pgs. 5.6-1 - 10)(#3)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1,
pgs. 5.6-1 - 10)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (#2, pg. 5.12.1; #2 pgs. 5.13-1 - 9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful
and inefficient manner? (#2, pg. 5.12.1; #2
pgs. 5.13- 1 -9)
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?
(#2, pg. 5.12.1; #2 pgs. 5.13-1-9)
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and 5.10.2)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and 5.10.2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
n
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
n
n
n
n
n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and 5.10.2)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and
5.10.2)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and
5.10.2)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1, pgs.
5.5-1 - 12)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(#1, pgs. 5.5-1-12)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#1, pgs. 5.10-1; #2, pgs.
5.12.5-1 and 5.12.6-1)
b) Police protection? (#1, pgs. 5.10-1; #2, pgs.
5.12.5-1 and 5.12.6-1)
c) Schools? (#1, pgs. 5.10-1; #2, pgs. 5.12.5-1
and 5.12.6-1)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (#1, pgs. 5.10-1; #2, pgs. 5.12.5-1 and
5.12.6-1)
e) Other governmental services? (#1, pgs. 5.10-
1; #2, pgs. 5.12.5-1 and 5.12.6-1)
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? (#2, pgs. 5.12.1-1)
b) Communications systems? (#2, pgs. 5.12.5-1)
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (#1, pg. 5.10-3 & 4)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1, pgs. 5.10-3 & 4)
e) Storm water drainage? (#1, pgs. 5.10-11- 5
through 8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#2, pgs. 5.12.4-1)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#2, pgs.
5.12.2-1 through 6)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
(#1, pgs. 5.9-1-3)
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic
effect? (#1, pgs. 5.9-1 -3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
D
No
Impact
D
D D
D
D D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
D
8 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Create light or glare? (#1, pgs. 5.9-1 - 3)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#1, pgs.
5.7-1-3)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#1, pgs.
5.7-1 - 3)
c) Affect historical resources? (#1, pgs. 5.7-1 -
3)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
. values? (#1, pgs. 5.7-1-3)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? (#1, pgs.
5.7-1-3)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(#2, pgs. 5.12.8-1 -7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(#2, pgs. 5.12.8-1 -7)
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 Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D D
D
D
D D
Rev. 03/28/96
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions
for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project consists of an application for a coastal development permit to stockpile
approximately 100,000 cubic yards of import on Planning Areas 2, 3, & 4 of the Poinsettia Properties
Specific Plan. The 43.6 acre site is located on the northwest corner of Poinsettia Lane and Avenida
Encinas. Although the Specific Plan anticipated the proposed quantities of import, a Coastal
Development Permit is required prior to issuance of the grading/stockpile permit. The site is composed
of terrain that gently slopes from the north to the south with a long north/south depression running down
the center of the property. In general, elevations range from 62 to 60 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) along
the east edge of the site, 50 to 48 MSL along the west edge of the site, and the center is depression at
about 49 to 48 feet MSL. The proposed stockpile will range in height from a level at grade along
Avenida Encinas to a height of about 9 feet above existing grade along the north/south centerline of the
property. The vacant project site has been disturbed by agricultural operations and contains ruderal
vegetation limited to non-native grasses and small shrubs. Vernal pools exist off-site along the westerly
edge and a 200 foot wetlands buffer is partially located on the subject property.
The stockpiling of 100,000 cubic yards of import will result in short-term construction impacts to
localized air quality and traffic congestion. These short-term impacts were analyzed during the
preparation of EIR 96-10. It is estimated that initial stockpiling of about 60,000 cubic yards will last
approximately 2-3 weeks. Subsequent import from various locations will be stockpiled as it becomes
available. With an average of 18 cubic yards per truck load, the entire project will generate about 5,556
truck loads. All earthwork and grading operations will be conducted during normal grading hours in
accordance with the City of Carlsbad's standards, between 7:00 a.m. and sunset, Monday through Friday.
Material stockpiled for this project will be incorporated into the designs of future tentative maps, final
maps, and grading planes for Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4.
The proposed project was included in the Program EIR (EIR 96-10) prepared for the Poinsettia
Properties Specific Plan which was certified in January 1998. The Program EIR addressed subsequent
discretionary approvals of the specific plan, including actions such as subdivisions, zone changes,
planned unit developments, etc. All future development, at the time of project review, was required to be
examined to determine whether the environmental impacts were fully analyzed in the Program EIR. No
further CEQA compliance in the manner of a Negative Declaration is required for those activities having
no effect beyond those analyzed in the Program EIR. Staff has determined that there are no new impacts
created by this stockpile permit beyond those discussed in EIR 96-10. Therefore, no further
environmental documentation is necessary and the project is considered exempt under Section 65457 of
the California Government Code and Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
V. AIR QUALITY:
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and included within the scope of the updated
1994 General Plan MEIR will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. Such projects will 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
11 Rev. 03/28/96
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 and the Poinsettia Properties Specific 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 Final Master EIR for the General Plan Update, including this project, therefore, no further
environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
VI CIRCULATION:
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and included within in the updated 1994 General
Plan MEIR 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 impacts 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
and the Poinsettia Properties Specific 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.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The western edge of the site may serve as a watershed for the vernal pool habitat located immediately
off-site within the railroad right-of-way corridor. A chainlink fence has been erected adjacent to the 200
foot wetland buffer from the perimeter of the habitat area in accordance with previous mitigation
measures for EIR 96-01. The proposed toe-of-slope of the stockpile is located approximately 150 from
the closest location to the wetland buffer and approximately 150 feet from a ponded area that contained
Riverside Fairy Shrimp. A number of erosion control devices will be incorporated into the project and
include a straw bale dike surrounding the entire stockpile on the north, south and west sides, a silt fence
located outside of the straw bale dike, and four visqueen downdrains to prevent sedimentation and
erosion of the stockpile area into other areas of the property. Based on a letter from Dudeck &
Associates, Inc, Environmental Consultants, which analyzed the location of the stockpile and the
proposed erosion control measures, no impacts will occur to the sensitive habitat area
12 Rev. 03/28/96
IX. HAZARDS
A preliminary soils report indicates that there are detectable amounts of pesticides in the existing soils.
Any future development proposal will require subrm'ttal of a detailed soils report including
recommendations to mitigate the presence of pesticide infected soils for residential purposes.
Stockpiling the proposed import will not result in any hazard or risk of exposure to workers.
1. EIR 96-01 Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Impact Report and Addendum, dated July 1997,
certified January 1998.
2. EIR 93-01 Final Master EIR for the General Plan Update, dated March 1994, certified September
1994.
3. Letter from Dudeck & Associates, Inc, dated March 24, 2000.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES OF APPLICABLE^)
None.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
None.
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