HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP 94-02; Poinsettia Shores PA B-2; Condo Permit (CP) (15)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 94-08/CP 94-01 and CP 94-02
DATE: February 22. 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Poinsettia Shores - Planning Areas B-l and B-2
2. APPLICANT: Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7220 Avenida Encinas. Suite 200
Carlsbad. CA 92009
(619) 931-9100
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 25. 1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Two planning areas within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan: (1) Area "B-l"
involves a Tentative Tract Map (to subdivide into air space ownership units) and a Condominium Permit
pursuant to the City's Planned Development Ordinance and consists of 158 clustered single family units
on 20.1 acres, and (2) Area "B-2" involves a Condominium Permit pursuant to the City's Planned
Development Ordinance and consists of 16 clustered single family units on 2.4 acres. Both planning areas
are consistent with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.
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 X Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water Hazards Cultural Resources
X Air Quality X Noise Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 1/30/95
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D
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. d
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one 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, if the
effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 0
L—^iCc / I LL^<r^ ?-1 3-~) /
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director Signature C/ Date
Rev. 1/30/95
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, (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 (c) none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all of the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental
document have been required or incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document
is required (Prior Compliance).
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.
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.
Rev. 1/30/95
• 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.
• 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 n 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. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source #1)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (Source Ws: 1,3)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source #1)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? (Source #*s: 1,2)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (Source # 1)
JL
H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #1)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source #1)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #1)
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
ffl. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source ^s: 2,4)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source tf's: 2,4)
c) Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Source #s: 2,4)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source tf's: 2,4)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source Fs: 2,4)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? (Source tf's: 2,4)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Source f's: 2,4)
h) Expansive soils? (Source #*s: 2,4)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #*s:
2,4)
X
X
_x_
_ JL
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source
rs: 2,5)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Source tf's: 2,5)
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? (Source tf's: 2,5)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water
in any water body? (Source #*s: 2,5)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (Source #2)
f) Change 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? (Source #2)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source #2)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #2)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? (Source #2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
JL
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
Fs: 1,2,8)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source Ws:
1,2)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (Source tf's: 1,2)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source tf's: 1,2)
_ JL
X
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
VL TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source
tfs: 1,6,8)
b) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source
#s: 1,2)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source tf's: 1,2)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (Source tfs: 1,2)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? (Source Ws: 1,2)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source tfs: 1,2)
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic
impacts? (Source tt's: 1,2)
JL _
_ JL
_ JL
JL
_ JL
_ JL
VH. 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? (Source tf's: 1,2,3)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (Source #s: 1,2)
_ JL
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source
U,3)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (Source #s: 1,2,3)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors? (Source tf's: 1,2,3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
JL
JL
JL
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Source #s: 1,2)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source Ws: 1,2)
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? (Source
Ws: 1,2)
JL
_ JL
DC. 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? (Source tf's:
U)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source
rs: 1,2)
c) The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? (Source #*s: 1,2)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? (Source #*s: 1,2)
_ JL
_ JL
JL
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (Source Ws: 1,2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source tf's: 1,2)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? (Source ^s: 1,7)
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? (Source tf's: 1,9)
b) Police protection? (Source tfs: 1,9)
c) Schools? (Source #s: 1,9)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Source ^s: 1,9)
e) Other governmental services? (Source ^s: 1,9)
JL
JL
x
JL
JL
xn. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result hi a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source #*s: 1,9)
b) Communications "systems? (Source #1)
JL
JL
10 Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (Source #*s: 1,9)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source tf's: 1,9)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #*s: 1,9)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source ^s: 1,9)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source tt's: 1,9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
JL
Xm. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? (Source #1)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (Source #1)
c) Create light or glare? (Source #1)
X
JL
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source tt's: 1,2)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source tf's: 1,2)
c) Affect historical resources? (Source #s: 1,2)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (Source tf's: 1,2)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? (Source tf's: 1,2)
X
JL
JL
11 Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source
#D
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source
#1)
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 wild life 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?
("Cumuktively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed hi 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 substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
JL
12 Rev. 1/30/95
XVH. 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 hi an earlier EIR or negative declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of
the CEQA Guidelines. 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. All pertinent
earlier analyses have been identified at the beginning of the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.
The Source Documents identified have been cited as appropriate in the checklist and environmental
discussion.
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.
1. Air Quality and Circulation Impacts: Statements of Overriding Consideration made with the City's
General Plan Master EIR (Source Document #8).
2. Archeoloeical and Paleontological Impacts: Mass grading monitoring required by Source Documents #1
and 2.
3. Noise Impacts: Noise study (Source #7) was required by Source Document #1.
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.
Mitigation measures specific to this project include: (1) Archeological and paleontological monitoring which
was carried out during the mass grading of the site hi accordance with the approval of CT 94-01, and (2)
noise mitigation designed into the project pursuant to a site specific noise analysis conducted for the proposed
project.
13 Rev. 1/30/95
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
SOURCE DOCUMENTS CITED (All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075
Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009; (619) 438-1161)
1. Poinsettia Shores Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding Environmental Impact
Assessment Form Part n dated July 26, 1993.
2. Poinsettia Shores Master Tentative Map Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding Environmental
Impact Assessment Form Part n dated April 1, 1994.
3. West Batiquitos LCP certified by the Coastal Commission May 12, 1994
4. Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park by Woodward-Clyde
Consultants dated June 4, 1986.
5. Hydrology Study prepared by O'Day Consultants dated April 30, 1993.
6. Transportation Analysis for Poinsettia Shores by Urban Systems Associates dated May 17, 1993.
7. Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores Planning Area B-l by Mestre Greve Associates dated July 19, 1994.
Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores Planning Area B-2 by Mestre Greve Associates dated June 29, 1994.
8. City of Carlsbad General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 approved by City Council Resolution No. 94-246.
9. Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) documents including amendment LFMP 87-09(A) (approved
January 4, 1994) and the Zone 9 Finance Plan (approved September 6, 1994)
PROJECT BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Planning Areas B-l and B-2 are proposed in full compliance with all applicable provisions of the Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan. The proposed densities are within the limits established by the master plan which designated these
planning areas with Residential-Medium (RM) General Plan designations. Area B-l proposes 158 clustered single
family units (161 allowed) and Area B-2 proposes 16 clustered single family units (16 allowed). The clustered
single family product is a specific product type allowed by the master plan that features a 24 foot wide driveway
to serve four detached single family units. All applicable development standards and design criteria are complied
with. Areas B-l and B-2 are within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan as shown on the attached Location Map.
The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175-D) was approved in January 1994 and incorporated a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (Source Document #1) which was intended to identify environmental impacts and related
mitigation measures to allow the buildout of the residential portion of the master plan. As a result, the master plan
contains environmental mitigation measures on a planning area by planning area basis. The subject planning areas
have either completed applicable mitigation measures or incorporated them into their project design. Subsequent
to the master plan approval, the Poinsettia Shores Master Tentative Map (CT 94-01) was approved in August 1994
and incorporated another Mitigated Negative Declaration (Source Document #2) to allow mass grading of the
master plan property, construction of the Avenida Encinas roadway, and construction of drainage improvements
on the west side of the master plan site. The subject planning area sites are already mass graded from the approval
14 Rev. 1/30/95
of CT 94-01. All necessary infrastructure to serve the buildout of the residential planning areas has either already
been constructed or are financially secured to guarantee their construction concurrent with need.
Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines allows a residential project, developed
consistent with applicable General Plan designations, to be determined hi prior compliance with existing
environmental review if an EIR has been certified for the subject General Plan. Such is the case with the City's
General Plan Update Final Master EIR 93-01 (Source Document #8) certified in September 1994. This document
is referenced hi addressing the Ah" Quality and Circulation impacts associated with master plan buildout.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DISCUSSION (The brief discussions below are intended to summarize and/or
supplement the evidence contained in the pertinent Source Documents as noted on the checklist).
1. Land Use and Planning
a)-c), e): The proposed planning areas implement the governing Poinsettia Shores Master Plan hi conformance
with all master plan standards and guidelines, the Residential-Medium (RM) General Plan designation and the
coastal regulations of the West Batiquitos Lagoon Local Coastal Program (LCP).
d): All agricultural conversion fees required for the mass grading of the master plan site associated with the
approval of CT 94-01 have been paid or secured to the City's satisfaction. Mass grading of the site is near
completion at this tune.
2. Population and Housing
a)-c): Local population projections and limits will not be exceeded by the buildout of the Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan including the development of the subject planning areas. Development of the Avenida Encinas
roadway and related infrastructure associated with CT 94-01 will induce the buildout of the master plan hi
accordance with the General Plan and zoning regulations including Growth Management compliance.
3. Geologic Problems
a)-i): The sites for Planning Areas B-l and B-2 have recently been mass graded per the approval CT 94-01.
Refined finish grading is required for the construction of building pads and internal roadways. B-l requires
approximately 21,300 cubic yards (cy) of cut, 17,000 cy of fill and 4,300 cy yards of export. B-2 requires
approximately 1,900 cy of cut, 1,100 cy of fill and 800 cy yards of export. Standard grading permit
procedures will apply. No seismic, geologic of surface substrate hazards are associated with the master plan
site including the subject planning area sites.
4. Water
a)-i): The development of streets and residential units will increase the amount of impervious areas and
change existing absorption rates, however, all proposed drainage for buildout of the master plan's residential
planning areas meets City and Engineering Department standards. Major drainage infrastructure has been
provided by approval of CT 94-01. No flood hazards will be created by the development of the subject
planning areas. No adverse impacts to the Batiquitos Lagoon system will be created by the buildout of the
master plan including the subject planning areas. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
standards are required to reduce urban pollutant quantities hi drainage runoff. No impacts to any groundwater
resources will be created by buildout of the master plan.
15 Rev. 1/30/95
5. Air Quality
a): Since the proposed planning areas are residential projects per Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section
15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the buildout of the master plan including the development of the subject
planning areas was included in the updated 1994 General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 and will result in
increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result hi
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 hi the City as well as in the
San Diego Ah- Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional ah* emissions
are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed hi the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation
measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and
intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through
the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage
alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient
building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a
"non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This
project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies
to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore,
no further environmental review of ah* quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
b)-d): Development of the subject planning areas will not expose sensitive receptor to known significantly
adverse pollutants or significantly change any air characteristics including moisture, temperature or odor.
6. Transportation/Circulation
a): Since the proposed planning areas are residential projects per Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section
15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the buildout of the master plan including the development of the subject
planning areas was included hi the updated 1994 General Plan and will result hi 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.
16 Rev. 1/30/95
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 significant because of the failure of
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the Initial Study"
checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan,
therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01,
by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation
impacts. This "Statement Of 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.
b)-g): All streets will meet City standards, facilitate emergency vehicle access into the subject planning areas,
create no conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists and will not interfere with railroad activities. Various
master plan components incorporate bicycle racks, provisions for buses and mass transit and pedestrian trails
and linkages which will benefit the residents of the subject planning areas.
7. Biological Resources
a)-e): No biological resources or sensitive habitat are associated with the subject planning area sites. All open
space requirements of the master plan have been secured to allow buildout of the master plan. The Batiquitos
Lagoon and associated wetlands and sensitive bluffs will not be impacted by the development of Areas B-l
and B-2,
8. Energy and Mineral Resources
a)-c): Non-renewable resources, energy and mineral resources will not be affected by the development of the
subject planning areas.
9. Hazards
a)-e): No hazards will be associated with the construction and development of the subject residential planning
areas. Emergency vehicle access is provided to adequately serve Areas B-l and B-2. Flammable hazards or
explosion potential will not created by the project
10. Noise
a): The development of residential dwelling units will not significantly increase existing noise levels.
b): As required by previous environmental review and corresponding mitigation measures, Areas B-l and B-2
have been designed pursuant to the recommendations of site specific noise studies so that compliance with the
City's Noise policy and element of the General Plan will be maintained and no significant noise impacts will
result.
17 Rev. 1/30/95
11. Public Services
a)-e): Both subject planning areas comply with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and the requirements and
standards of the Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan and related documents. Therefore, all necessary
public facilities and services will be adequately provided to serve the buildout of the master plan including
Areas B-l and B-2.
12. Utilities and Services Systems
a)-g): Provisions for adequate utilities, water treatment, sewage, storm water drainage and water supplies have
been secured and/or accounted for via the infrastructure associated with CT 94-01 and compliance with the
Zone 9 LFMP. Coast Waste Management has reviewed the subject planning areas and have indicated that
adequate solid waste disposal service can be provided.
13. Aesthetics
a)-c): No scenic vista or highway considerations are pertinent to the subject planning areas. No aesthetic
impacts will result from development of Areas B-l and B-2.
14. Cultural Resources
a)-e): No cultural resources of any kind are associated with the subject planning area sites. All required
archeological and paleontological monitoring that was required during the mass grading process has been
satisfactorily completed. No historic or significant ethnic cultural or religious resources will be impacted by
the development of Areas B-l and B-2.
15. Recreation
a)-b): No recreational facilities currently exist on or near the subject planning areas. Passive recreation areas
are provided throughout the site designs of Areas B-l and B-2 usually near the interface with the master plan's
trail system. Another planning area in the master plan (Area M) is designated and designed as a multiple use
active and passive recreation center intended for the use of master plan residents, including those of Areas B-l
and B-2. No impacts to recreational resources or opportunities will result from the development of the subject
planning areas.
18 Rev. 1/30/95
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES OF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM OF 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.
Date Signature
19 Rev. 1/30/95
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
POINSETTIA SHORES
RA. B-1 -CT 94-08/CP 94-01
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
POINSETTIA SHORES
RA. B-2--CP 94-02