HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 98-38; Poinsettia Properties PA 5; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (2)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 98-09/CDP 98-38
DATE: January 15. 1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Poinsettia Properties - Planning Area 5
2. APPLICANT: HSL/BP Michan L.P.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5055 Avenida Encinas. Suite 210.
Carlsbad CA 92008
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 7/1/98
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a site development plan and coastal
development permit to construct 92 affordable apartment units near the northwest comer of
Avenida Encinas and Poinsettia Lane
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning ^ Transportation/Circulation Q Public Services
Population and Housing Q Biological Resources Q Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems Q Energy & Mineral Resources ^ Aesthetics
Water Q] Hazards Q] Cultural Resources
Air Quality Q Noise Q Recreation
Q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Q I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Q I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
Q I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
f] 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.
^ 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 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Notice
of Exemption will be issued.
Planner Signature Date
Planning DirectonrSignatare Date
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by
the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously
approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be
explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors
as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential
impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards
and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than
Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the
circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation
measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project,
then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to
prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant
to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the
project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if
there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those
mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the
appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not
limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been
discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does
not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement
of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier
EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4)
through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a
potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a
potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form
under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to
discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#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? (#l,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)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#1, pg. 5.2 - 2)
b) 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. 5.2-2)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l,pg. 5.2-2)
III. 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)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#1, pgs.
5.11-1-8)
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
D.aa
a
aa
aa
D
a
a
a
a
a
aaD
a
aa
aa
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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? (#l,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)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a
a
a
a
a
D
a
a
a
a
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
DDK
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
a
a
a
a
a
D
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
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)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (#1, pgs. 5.3-1 - 25; #1, pgs. 7-1 - 7)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#1, pgs. 5.3-1-25; #1, pgs. 7-1-7)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#1, pgs. 5.3-1 - 25; #1, pgs. 7-1 - 7)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (#1, pgs. 5.3-1 - 25; #1, pgs. 7-1 -
7)
D
D
D
D
D
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1, pgs.
5.3-1 - 25; #l,pgs. 7-1-7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
n
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D D
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (#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)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1, pgs.
5.6-1 - 10)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#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)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#2,
pgs. 5.10-land 5.10.2)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#2, pgs. 5.10-
1 and 5.10.2)
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)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1, pgs. 5.5-1 -
12)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1,
pgs. 5.5-1 - 12)
D D
D
D
D D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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, #3)
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
(#1, pgs. 5.9-1 - 3, #3)
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)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Dn
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
n
n
n
n
nn
H
nn
D
n
n
H
IEI
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
n
n
n
n
nnn
nn
n
H
IEI
D
D
D
D
n
No
Impact
B
IEI
IEI
m
H
m
1
1
n
n
B
n
n
nn
IEI
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
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?
D
D
D
D
D D
D
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions
for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project includes the development of 92 affordable housing units within Planning Area 5 of
the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan area. In January 1998 and October 1998, the City Council and
California Coastal Commission respectively approved the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. This
document addresses eight planning areas wrapping around the east, west and south sides of the Poinsettia
Transit Station. The Specific Plan was designed to create a transit-oriented development (TOD) project
located near the rail station and the nearby major transportation corridor, Interstate 5. The subject site is
located within the southwest quadrant of the City in Local Facilities Management Zone 22. Planning
Area 5 is bounded on the north and east by Avenida Encinas, on the immediate south by PA 4
(designated for single family development) and on the immediate west by PA 6 (designated for
commercial/retail land development). The vacant project site has a basically flat elevation and has been
disturbed by agricultural operations and contains ruderal vegetation limited to non-native grasses and
small shrubs. Approximately 35,500 cubic yards of fill will be imported to the subject to create a level
building pad.
Six buildings wrap around the exterior of the site—three sixteen-plexes, three twelve-plexes, and one
eight-plex. The interior of the site is designed as a common neighborhood area for a variety of activites
including an approximately 2,500 square foot recreation building with a kitchen, fireplace, common
room, and laundry facilities; a "tot-lot" with playground equipment; a swimming pool with changing
rooms; a private pedestrian trail system; a passive recreation area for senior citizen activities, and an
active recreation area for open play. Ample benches, tables, and seating are sprinkled throughout the
development to encourage more resident interaction and passive recreation opportunities.
Easy pedestrian access is provided to PA 6 (the mixed-use area) through the tree-lined main entry on the
west side of the site. To establish better interaction between resident and pedestrians, units were
designed to front on the public street and were provided with fenced-in patios at the ground level and
balconies at the second level. Pedestrian circulation is achieved throughout the development with
pathways to recreation facilities, parking, the public street, and direct access to the street from 32 of the
units. Abundant landscaping accents the development at the main entry, the neighborhood area, and
throughout the parking lot which provides 193 uncovered parking spaces. All public improvements
required public facilities and improvements have been incorporated into the project design.
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 impacts
created by this subdivision beyond those discussed in EIR 96-10 for the reasons noted below and has
declared this project exempt from further environmental documentation per Section 15182 under CEQA.
AIR QUALITY:
The implementation of projects that are consistent with 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.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
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 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.
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.
AESTHETICS
11 Rev. 03/28/96
The certified Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan EIR determined that there would be no significant
impact to visual aesthetics from any project within the specific plan area. When the Local Coastal Plan
amendment for the specific plan was reviewed by the Coastal Commission, a modification was added to
require a viewshed analysis examining view impacts from Interstate 5. In analyzing the view impacts on
Parcel A, the applicant prepared a viewshed analysis for Parcels A and B located on the north side of
Poinsettia Lane and for Parcel C located on the south side of Poinsettia Lane.
Parcels A and B, north of Poinsettia Lane
There are two areas of potential impact related to these parcels. This includes the parking lot south of the
Volvo dealership and the cul-de-sac north of the Raintree Motel. The viewshed analysis determined that
the elevation of the freeway at these locations is 71.5' with a car occupant at an elevation of about 75'.
At the two test sites, ocean horizon views are obscured by the vegetation located at the Carlsbad State
Beach. Vegetation along the State park reaches a consistent height of 79' to 83'. Along the northern
properties, there is no potential loss of ocean horizon views because there are no ocean views at the 75'
elevation.
Parcel Cr south of Poinsettia Lane
At this site, the viewshed boundaries were defined by a prior coastal development permit for Poinsettia
Village. Carrying these lines through to the ocean indicates the boundaries as narrowly missing Parcel
C. A video done by the applicant from a car traveling south at 65 mph on Interstate 5 indicates a 1-2
second view of the ocean horizon in this viewshed; however, this is not in the viewshed identified by the
Coastal Commission nor located on the subject site. There is also a 1-2 second view of the ocean
horizon from the southbound 1-5 on-ramp. The elevation at this location is significantly higher than any
surrounding development to the north or south. It would be impossible for any westerly development to
preserve this brief view. In addition, for safety's sake, drivers should be looking south rather than to the
west.
It is staffs recommendation that the ocean views on the south side of Poinsettia Lane cannot be
determined to be significant because they are extremely brief, do not constitute any vista-type views such
as those that the traveling public would enjoy when crossing Batiquitos Lagoon to the south, and do not
require mitigation.
1. Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Impact Report and Addendum, dated July 1997,
certified January 1998.
2. Final Master EIR for the General Plan Update, dated March 1994, certified September 1994.
3. Viewshed Analysis, dated March 3,1999.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
13 Rev. 03/28/96
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE!
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.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
Date
15 Rev. 03/28/96