HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 93-09; Ocean Bluff; Tentative Map (CT) (100)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART n
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09
DATE: September 18. 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: OCEAN BLUFF
2. APPLICANT: OCEAN BLUFF PARTNERSHIP
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 30, San
Diego, CA 92037
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 6, 1993
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a zone change from L-C to the R-l single family zone
in which minimum 7,500 square foot lots are permitted, the subdivision of 92 single family lots, and one
multifamily lot on a 31.2 acre parcel located in Planning Area C of the Zone 20 Specific Plan area.
Consistent with the underlying RLM General Plan designation, the total number of units is 108 (92 single
family and 16 multifamily units) on 30.2 developable acres resulting in an overall project density of 3.6
dwelling units per acre which is consistent with the underlying RLM General Plan designation. The 16
unit apartment project will fulfill the projects inclusionary housing requirement.
Offsite improvements necessary to serve the project include Street "A" from the southwest corner of the
project south to the intersection of future Poinsettia Lane extension, Poinsettia Lane between the existing
easterly terminus to Street A, and Blackrail Road from its existing northern terminus to the northeast
corner of the project. Onsite grading involves 320,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill and results in
a terraced hillside design in accordance with the Hillside Development Ordinance.
Rev. 1/30/95
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.
X Land Use and Planning X Transportation/Circulation
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
X Air Quality
X Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
X Noise
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
X Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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/MITIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on 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 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. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Date
95
PlanniAg-Cirecto/Signature ~7 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 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, 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.
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.
Rev. 1/30/95
• 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? (Sources #1 & #2)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (Source #2)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Sources #1 & #2)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? (Source #2)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (Source #2)
X
X
X
X
H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Sources #1 & #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)? (Source #2)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #2)
X
X
X
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
HI. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Sources #2 & 3)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Sources #2 & 3)
c) Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Sources #2 & 3)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Sources #2 &
3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Sources #2 & 3)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? (Sources #2 & 3)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #3)
h) Expansive soils? (Source #3)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #3)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Sources
#1 & #4)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Source #4)
X
X
Rev. 1/30/95
Potentially
Significant
ImpactIssues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? (Source #1)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water
in any water body? (Source #1)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (Source #1)
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 #1, #3)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source #1, #3)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #1, #3)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? (Source #1, #3)
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(Sources #1 & #2)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source #1
&2)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (Sources #1 & #2)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Sources #1 & #2)
X
JL
X
Rev. 1/30/95
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Sources
#1 & #2) X
b) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source
#2) X
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source #2) X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (Source #2) JL
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? (Source #2) X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source #2) X
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts? (Source #2) X
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? (Sources #2 & #5) X
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (Source #2 & #5)
Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #2 &
#5)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (Source #2)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors? (Source #2 & #5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Source #1, Section 5.12.1)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source #1)
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
#1)
X
X
X
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? (Source #1)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(Source #1)
c) The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? (Source #1)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? (Source #2)
X
X
X
10 Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (Source #2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #2 & #7)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? (Source #7)
XL 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? (Sources #1 & #2)
b) Police protection? (Sources #1 & #2)
c) Schools? (Sources #1 & #2)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Sources #1 & #2)
e) Other governmental services? (Sources #1 & #2)
X
X
JL
JL
x
x
XH. 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? (Source #1)
b) Communications systems? (Source #1)
JL
X
11 Rev. 1/30/95
Potentially
Significant
ImpactIssues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (Sources #1 & #2)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources #1 & #2)
e) Storm water drainage? (Sources #2 & #4)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Sources #1 & #2)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Sources #1 & #2)
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
No
Impact
XEI. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? (Sources #1 & #2)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (Source #2)
c) Create light or glare? (Source #2)
X
X
X
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #2)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #2)
c) Affect historical resources? (Source #2)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (Source #2)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? (Source #2)
JL
X
X
X
12 Rev. 1/30/95
c
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
ImpactIssues (and Supporting Information Sources):
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source
#2) X
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source
#2) JL
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? X
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) X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? X
13 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 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.
14 Rev. 1/30/95
W •*'
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Earlier Analyses and its applicability to project
The project is part of the Zone 20 Specific Plan approved by the City Council in 1994. CEQA
compliance for the specific plan was achieved through the certification of the Zone 20 Program EER
which identified, analyzed, and recommended mitigation to reduce potentially significant impacts to
insignificant levels. The Zone 20 Program EER (PEER) analyzed potential impacts to agriculture, air
quality, biology, circulation, land use, noise, pesticide residue, paleontology, public facilities financing,
soils/geology, and visual aesthetics that could result from the development of the Specific Plan area.
The PEER is intended to be used in the review of subsequent projects within Zone 20. The project
incorporates the required Zone 20 PEIR mitigation measures, and through the aid of the required
additional biological, soils/geological, noise, slope, viewshed, and cultural resource analyses, a
determination has been made that no additional significant impacts beyond those identified and
mitigated by the PEER will result from this project. The following discussion of environmental
evaluation briefly explains the basis for this determination along with identifying the source documents
which verify the PEER impact identification, analysis, and mitigation requirements.
B. Environmental Analysis
The subdivision site consists of approximately 31 acres of vacant land previously used for agricultural
use and surrounded by rural residential and agricultural properties. Elevations across the site range
from a high of approximately 380 feet (MSL) on a gently inclined, north-south trending ridge near the
middle of the property to a low of about 280 feet(MSL) in a wide, steep-sided ravine providing natural
drainage in the northwestern portion of the site. The site drains predominantly to the east and west.
On-site vegetation consists of scattered clusters of trees, shrubs, and grass. The majority of the site
has been cultivated in the past. The sides of the northwestern ravine are severely eroded, however,
there is some vegetation present in most areas and includes southern mixed chaparral, a small pocket
of chamise chaparral, and disturbed habitat with scattered southern maritime chaparral. No plant or
wildlife species listed as rare, endangered, or threatened by the state of federal governments were
observed on the property.
Offsite improvements necessary for the project include the extension of Poinsettia Lane, Street A from
the southwestern corner of the site to Poinsettia Lane, and Blackrail Road from its existing northerly
terminus to the project's northeastern boundary. The extension of Poinsettia Lane from its existing
eastern terminus to Street A and Street A will: 1) disturb areas currently being utilized for agricultural
purposes with no sensitive or endangered plant species, 2) impact the edge of a canyon containing
southern mixed chaparral, disturbed coastal sage brush, and a single pair of California gnatcatchers;
and 3) disturb a small patch of disturbed coastal sage scrub adjacent to the existing agricultural road
along the southwestern corner of the project site.
Existing improvements to the overall site include fences, dirt roads, water lines, and overhead
powerlines.
15 Rev. 1/30/95
m. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
la. The project will not exceed the density range of 0-4 dwelling units per acre allowed by the underlying
Residential Low Medium (RLM) density land use designation. The project density including
affordable units is 3.6 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the RLM designation but
exceeds the Growth Management growth control point (gcp) of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The
Growth Management gcp is imposed to ensure that the number of dwelling units in each quadrant of
the City at buildout does not exceed the dwelling unit caps specified by ordinance. As a result, the
project requires a density increase above the gcp which will require the removal of 12 units from the
quadrant's excess units. There currently exists sufficient excess units in the southwest quadrant to
accommodate the request for the density increase above the gcp.
The Zone 20 Specific Plan requires a change in zoning from L-C to R-l in the project planning area
and the Zone 20 Program EIR (PEIR) analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the required
changes in zoning from L-C to R-l. The PEIR identified no significant impact since the underlying
RLM (Residential Low Medium density) General Plan designation permits up to four dwelling units
per acre, and zoning to single family lots on minimum 7,500 square foot lots is consistent with the
low to medium density land use designation.
Ib. The project is also subject to the Mello n Local Coastal Program (LCP) requiring approval by the
California Coastal Commission. The project is consistent with the LCP "PA" land use designation
allowing low-medium residential density development which is consistent with all Mello n land use
policies. However, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is required to change the zoning from LC
to R-l, and LCPA 95-09 is being processed with the project for this purpose.
lc,d. As detailed by the PEIR, Zone 20 is comprised of agricultural uses which are typically incompatible
with residential uses due to physical and operational characteristics such as tilling and
pesticide/herbicide spraying. The Ocean Bluff project will not impact or be impacted directly by
agricultural uses since the project will not abut any property under cultivation. PEIR mitigation
required to reduce these impacts including notification to all future residential land owners that this
area is subject to dust, pesticide, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural operations will be a
condition of map approval and the provision of temporary road connections to maintain continued
access to adjacent agricultural properties will be a condition of map approval.
2a. Local population projections are based upon the residential density permitted in each land use
designation. In accordance with the discussion under la. above determining that the project is
consistent with the property's underlying RLM land use designation, the additional population resulting
from the project will not cumulatively exceed local population projections.
2b. As specified by the Zone 20 PEIR, the development of projects including transportation routes, public
services, and land uses within the Zone 20 planning area is not growth inducing since the area has
been previously planned and designated for residential development by the City's General Plan, Growth
Management Program, and Zone 20 LFMP. Although the Poinsettia Lane extension will provide
access to undeveloped parcels within Zone 20, it is a planned east-west circulation arterial and
development already exists to the east, west, north, and south of Zone 20 properties; therefore,
urbanization of the area is inevitable.
16 Rev. 1/30/95
3b,e. Consistent with the PEIR for Environmental Area I, an additional geotechnical investigation has
been prepared for the project by Ninyo and Moore. The conclusion of this report is that "based upon
our geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that site development is feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint provided the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction
of the subject project. There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints on the site that
cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design, and sound construction practices". Compliance with
the recommendations of the Ninyo and Moore Geotechnical Investigation for this project will avoid
significant unstable earth conditions and or increased exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards. These recommendations will be incorporated as project conditions in accordance with Zone
20 PEIR.
4a. According to the project's Preliminary Hydrology Study prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, in which
the potential for changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff
are analyzed, a temporary detention basin for the westerly drainage basin will attenuate post
development runoff to pre-development levels and "the increase in the runoff from development
is compensated for by the increased times of concentration...from the proposed grading which creates
longer flow paths and flatter grades." The final hydrology study will examine the flows in more detail
and size the detention basin which is proposed along the western project boundary.
The Zone 20 mitigation required to avoid adverse impacts to the quantity or quality of surface water
consists of compliance with the adopted LFMP performance standards. Individual projects must show
compliance with drainage and water distribution design and performance standards in accordance with
the adopted LFMP and City standards as well as conform to the NPDES permit requirements pursuant
to Regional Water Quality Control Board No. 90-42 adopted by City Council Resolution No. 90-235.
The project will be conditioned to comply with these standards.
5. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled.
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases,
oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors
to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is
a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant:
therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of
mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for
roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to
reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit
services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in
regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan
air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are
included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located
within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially
Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of
17 Rev. 1/30/95
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 air
quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
6a. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included hi the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted
by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include
all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's
adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to
ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative
modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and
commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The
diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates
impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate
General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the
project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively 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 EER, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
6b. The Poinsettia Lane extension and the onsite circulation are designed in accordance with the General
Plan Circulation element and City standards thereby avoiding hazards to safety from design features.
Additionally, temporary road connections to maintain continued access to adjacent agricultural
properties that could be impacted by future Poinsettia Lane improvements will be provided.
7a. The Biology Section (3.4) of the Zone 20 Specific Plan PEIR provides baseline data at a gross scale
due to the large size of the specific plan area. Given the large number of property owners and their
differing development horizons and the inevitable change in biological conditions over the long-term
buildout of the specific plan area, it is not possible to mitigate biological impacts from the buildout
of the entire specific plan under one comprehensive open space easement that crosses property lines
or a habitat revegetation/enhancement plan sponsored solely by the property owners. The
implementation of the biological section of the EIR is based on future site specific biological survey
studies that focus on the impacts created by individual subsequent development projects. These
additional biological studies are required to consider the baseline data and biological open space
recommendations of the PEIR and provide more detailed and current resource surveys plotted at the
18 Rev. 1/30/95
tentative map scale for each property. The range of the future mitigation options may include
preservation of sensitive habitat onsite in conjunction with enhancement/revegetation plans, payment
of fees into a regional conservation plan, or the purchase and protection of similar habitat offsite.
To meet these EIR requirements, a biological resources field survey was prepared for the project by
Anita M. Hay worth, Biological Consultant, dated March 1995. This subsequent biological study
provides more focused, current, and detailed project level analysis of site specific biological impacts
and provides more refined project level mitigation measures as required by the Zone 20 PEIR. The
property was surveyed for the burrowing owl and the bird was not observed on the site. No brown-
headed cowbirds were observed on the property or in the vicinity. The biological report indicates that
implementation of the project would not result in the disturbance of biological resources onsite,
however, construction of offsite Poinsettia Lane to the west from "A" Street to Alga Road and the
construction of "A" Street between the project's southwestern boundary and Poinsettia Lane will result
in impacts to a single pair of gnatcatchers and approximately 4 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub
habitat. The 3.7 acres of Diegan sage scrub habitat located along the proposed Poinsettia Lane
alignment consists of California sagebrush, flat-top buckwheat, yerba santa, laural sumac, wart-
stemmed ceanothus, California encelia, black sage, and weedy species such as tree tobacco, and shows
signs of past and continuing disturbance. The habitat quality in the impacted area varies and has been
disturbed by human activities associated with encampments and illegal dumping. Although the habitat
area does offer cover and foraging areas for wildlife found in the area, the PEIR mitigation mapping
indicates that this area will be isolated by Poinsettia Lane to the north, the Aviara development to the
south and continued agricultural uses to the east and west. Coastal sage scrub habitat areas directly
impacted by the Poinsettia Lane alignment requiring mitigation are approximately 3 acres in size,
however, indirect impacts to the remaining .7 acres should also be mitigated. The total area of
disturbance for the Poinsettia Lane extension requiring mitigation is therefore 3.7 acres and the
mitigation recommended by Biological Consultant Hay worth is the preservation of 3.7 acres of coastal
sage habitat within the high quality, gnatcatcher inhabited coastal sage area found in the Carlsbad
Highlands mitigation bank area. Another 1.1 acres located at the southwestern corner of the
Oceanbluff parcel is identified as containing disturbed coastal sage scrub. Disturbance to .28 acres
of the 1.1 acre area of coastal sage scrub will result from necessary offsite grading to construct Street
"A" from the southwestern corner of the Oceanbluff site to the proposed Poinsettia Lane extension.
The proposed mitigation for this .28 acre area of disturbance to coastal sage scrub is preservation of
an additional .28 acre area in the Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank area for a total of 3.98 acres.
The Poinsettia Lane extension is within Preserve Planning Area 4, as defined by the City's draft
Habitat Management Plan dated July, 1994, in which 84 acres of coastal sage scrub and 38 acres of
chaparral habitat are identified within the core area. Although disturbance to approximately 4 acreas
of coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral habitat will result from construction of Poinsettia
and Street "A", it will not preclude connectivity between PPA's nor preclude the preservation of 50%
of the habitat in PPA4. Moreover, this project provides mitigation in the form of offsite mitigation
because it will preserve one acre of these habitat in PPA2 for every acre of the same habitat affected
by the proposed project. Additionally, the Zone 20 PEIR mitigation measure 3.4.3.10 which is
incorporated as a project condition requires that an oversized roadway culvert be installed under the
Poinsettia Lane extension at the SDG&E easement to maintain and enhance wildlife connections in
native habitat areas that would otherwise be fragmented by impassable roadway crossings. The
feasibility of constructing an oversized culvert at this location shall be evaluated at the time roadway
improvement plans are submitted to the City Engineering department for review. Specific mitigation
measures required to be incorporated into the design of this culvert, if necessary, shall be based on
19 Rev. 1/30/95
a biological study performed for this purpose which will be subject to review and approval by the
Planning Department.
7c. The project is consistent with Mello n LCP policies regarding the disturbance of 25% slopes
possessing endangered species and/or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities (dual
criteria). Onsite, the only area possessing 25% slopes with this type of habitat will be preserved in
open space. The Poinsettia Lane alignment offsite will encroach into an area meeting this dual
criteria, however, the dual criteria policy does not apply to the construction of roads on the City's
Circulation Element.
8.a-c. The project's compliance with Building Codes, Title 20, and Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code in
accordance with the MEIR mitigation measures to reduce impacts (Electricity and Natural Gas Section
5.12.1 of the MEIR) associated with the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful manner will
ensure the implementation of energy conservation measures
The MEIR has identified mineral resources within the City of Carlsbad boundaries, and no mineral
resources are located within the project area.
9a-d. The single family residential project is not a use typically associated with risks such as accidental
explosion or release of hazardous substances thereby creating a potential health hazard. Although
agricultural operations will continue on parcels in the vicinity of the Oceanbluff subdivision,
compliance with the Zone 20 PEIR measures and Zone 20 Specific Plan development regulations to
buffer residential development from agricultural operations will avoid health hazards resulting from
pesticide residue. Specifically, the project is conditioned to require prior to final map approval a
detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer for City and
County approval, a minimum 25' buffer shall be provided between the project boundaries and open
field cultivation, temporary road connections required to maintain continued access to adjacent
agricultural properties that could be impacted by the Poinsettia Lane extension improvements will be
provided, a Notice of Restriction notifying all owners, users, and tenants of this project that the area
is subject to dust, pesticides, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural operations shall be
recorded prior to final map approval, and drainage will be disposed of through stormdrains in
accordance with City standards and compliance with NPDES standards is required for the project.
9e. The project's compliance as conditioned with the City's Landscape Design Manual - Fire Protection
policies will avoid increasing fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, trees, and grass.
10a,b. The Zone 20 PEIR noise mitigation included a requirement that all projects within 500 feet of the
existing Poinsettia Lane prepare a noise study hi accordance with the General Plan Noise Element.
The Noise Report prepared for the Ocean Bluff project revealed that noise levels exceeding 60 dBA
CNEL would potentially impact Lots 78 - 87 and Lots 91-91 which are adjacent to the roadway
without acceptable mitigation. Berms and 6' noise walls have been incorporated into the project within
the 50' landscaped setback from Poinsettia Lane approximately 40' from the right of way line to reduce
the noise exterior levels of these lots to 60 dBA CNEL or below within the usable yard areas as
required by the Zone 20 PEIR and the City's General Plan Noise Element.
11-12. In accordance with the City's MEIR, the project must be consistent with and will be conditioned
to comply with the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards for public facilities and
services to ensure that adequate public facilities are provided prior to or concurrent with development.
20 Rev. 1/30/95
The project is within and subject to the Zone 20 Specific Plan requiring it to be in accordance with
the approved Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan thereby ensuring that performance standards
for public facilities will be met through build-out of the zone.
13. The Zone 20 PEIR visual aesthetic mitigation relevant to the Ocean Bluff project includes the
following prior to tentative map approval:
a. additional visual analysis within any significant viewsheds and the addition of any recommended
mitigation measures as conditions of project approval;
b. structures and roofs shall be earth tone in color and prior to issuance of building permits the
applicant is required to submit for Planning Director approval a color board depicting the
proposed earth tones;
c. manufactured slopes and roadway cuts shall be landform-graded, contoured, and heavily screened
by landscaping hi conformance with Zone 20 Specific Plan; and
d. general visual design guidelines shall be taken into consideration during initial site planning and
design phases prior to approval of a tentative map or implementing permit for any development
within the Specific Plan area.
The Ocean Bluff project includes a hillside development permit application (HDP 93-09) which
requires compliance with hillside architectural and grading standards. The Ocean Bluff project is in
compliance with hillside grading standards and PEIR mitigation requiring landform grading and
contouring, and landscaping to screen cut and fill slopes. The project is located within the Palomar
Airport Road and Palomar Airport viewsheds identified by the Zone 20 PEIR. Additional visual
analysis performed by the applicant has identified that units along the northeastern and northern
elevations will be visible from these viewsheds, however, as specified in the Zone 20 PEIR, any visual
impact along the Palomar Airport Road viewshed will be brief and possibly less than significant due
to traveling speeds and topography. The hillside development permit will therefore be conditioned
to require compliance with the general visual design guidelines specified by the PEIR with special
emphasis on providing a combination of one and two story homes, a variety of roof heights and roof
massing, a variety of earth tone roof and wall materials and colors, and enhanced fenestration. Since
the project is a standard subdivision with no proposed architecture at this time, a condition will be
added to the hillside development permit (HDP 93-09) requiring that an amendment be processed prior
to the issuance of building permits to ensure that the proposed architecture is consistent with the
general visual design guidelines as well as the Hillside Development Ordinance architectural standards.
14. The project contains no sites listed as Level 3 or 4 by the Zone 20 PEIR; therefore no additional
environmental review of cultural resources is required.
15. The project will increase the demand for community parks, however, the project will be conditioned
to require compliance with the Growth Management Ordinance and Zone 20 LFMP which requires
that parks hi accordance with the growth management standard are provided to serve new
development.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075
Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161).
21 Rev. 1/30/95
Planning Department, certified September 6, 1994.
2. "Final Program Environmental Impact Report for Zone 20 Specific Plan" and Planning Commission
Resolution 3525 for EIR 203 dated June 16, 1993.
3. "Geotechnical Investigation" dated February 6,1989, performed by Ninyo & Moore, Geotechnical and
Environmental Sciences Consultants
4. "Preliminary Hydrology Study for Ocean Bluff, City of Carlsbad" dated September 3, 1993 prepared
by Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc.
5. "Biological Field Survey Update, Oceanbluff Ct 93-09" dated March 1995 performed by
Anita M. Hayworth, Biological Consultant.
6. Jack Henthorn's letter dated May 3, 1995, "Archaeological Site CB-lSDi-12026- Oceanbluff CT 93-
09".
7. "Report on an Acoustical Study - Ocean Bluff - On the extension of Poinsettia Lane at Black Rail
Road, City of Carlsbad" dated August 6, 1993, and Addendum received May 12, 1995, performed by
James C. Berry, Acoustician.
22 Rev. 1/30/95