The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 97-10; Poinsettia Properties Master Tentative Map; Tentative Map (CT) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: DATE RECEIVED: BACKGROUND (To be complete by staff) 1. CASE NAME: C.T. 97-10 Master Tentative Map for Poinsettia Properties 2. APPLICANT: HSL/BP/Michan L.P. c/o Benchmark Pacific 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2892 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone (760) 729-1677 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Master Tentat-ivp Map is being processed to create Open Space lots and Planning Area lots for Parcel "A" of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. Reference:Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan E.I.R. 96-01 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning x] Population and Housing i Geological Problems x] Water f^l Air Quality [^"| Transportation/Circulation [x~| Public Services [^"| Biological Resources fx] Utilities & Service Systems | | Energy & Mineral Resources f^] Aesthetics | | Hazards fx] Cultural Resources [^"| Noise | | Recreation [ [ Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may: be ' I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (EIR Sect. 5.J. 5.1-8 b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( 5.1-9 ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( 5.1-8 ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? ( 5.1-6 & 7-5) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (5.1-8 ) Potentially Significant Impact D D n D n Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated n n n n Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact n n n II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( EIR Sec. 5.2>-3 b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (EIR Sec. 5.2-)l & 7.2 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( 3-1 ) D n n n n n n III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (EIR Appendix) G Page 4 b) Seismic ground shaking? ( EIR Appendix) G Page 5 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( EIR App. G ) Page 5 d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( EIR App. G ) G.E.I, report Page 12 Landslides or mudflows? EIR App. G Page 9e) 0 g) h) i) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( EIR App. G ) Page 8 Subsidence of the land? (EIR App. G ) Page 8 Expansive soils? (EIR App. G ) Page 7 Unique geologic or physical features? (EIR APp. G ) Page 7 D D D D Dnn nnn n nn nn n H n n 0a n E n Q D IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: EIR Sec. 5.11 a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( EIR Sec. 5.} 1—5 b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (EIR Sec. 5.1)1-5 D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental.docume^- c) d) e) f) h) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (EIR 5.11-7 ) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (EIR 5.11-5 ) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( EIR 5.11-5 ) 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? ( EIR 5.11-5 ) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (EIR 5.11-5 ) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( EIR 5.11-7 ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (EIR 5.11-5 ) Potentially Significant Impact n n n n n Potentially Less Than No Significant Signtfican Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated DDE nan nsn 'nan n n n fxl V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (EIR 5.4 and ) 7.1 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (EIR 5.4-7 ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (EIR 5.4-1 ) d) Create objectionable odors? (EIR 5.4-4 ) n n n n n n a n a n n n VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: EIR Sec. 5.3 a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (EIR 5.3-6 ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (EIR 5.3-1 ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (EIR 5.3-1 and 5.3-24 d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (EIR 5.3-1 ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( EIR 5.3-13 ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( EIR 3-1 ) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? ( EIR 5.3-1 ) n n n n n n n n |x I n n n n a n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and~caiachecl) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: EIR Sec. 5.6 a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? ( EIR 5.6 ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (EIR 5.6-8 ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (EIR 5.6-8 ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( EIR 5.6-8 ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( EIR 5.6-8 ) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact D D D D D D D VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (EIR 7.5 ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( EIR 7.5 ) 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? ( EIR 7.5 ) D D a D n n D a 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)? ( EIR 5.0 ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( EIR 5.0 ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? ( EIR 5.0 ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( EIR 5.0 ) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( EIR 5.0 ) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( EIR Sec. 5.3 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( EIR 5.61: ) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 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? ( EIR 5.10-1 ) b) Police protection? ( EIR 5.10-2 ) c) Schools? ( EIR 5.10-8 ) D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents mcy'be referred'to. anatatiacJieS) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( EIR 5.10 ) and 7-5 e) Other governmental services? (EIR 5.10 ) Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporatedn n Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact n XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the EIR 5.10 proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( EIR 5.2-1 ) b) Communications systems? ( EIR 5.2-1 ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( EIR 5.1-3 ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (EIR 5.1-3 ) e) Storm water drainage? (EIR 5.1-3 ) f) Solid waste disposal? (EIR 5.1-3 ) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( EIR 5.1-3 ) D D D D D D D D D D D D D H [xl E D D D D D XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ( EIR Sec. 5.9 b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (EIR Sec. 5.9) c) Create light or glare? (EIR Sec. 5.9) D D n n n n XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (EIR 5.7 ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (EIR 5|. 7 ) c) Affect historical resources? ( EIR 5.7 ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( EIR 5.7 ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( EIR 5.7 ) nnn n nnnn n nn n n XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( EIR 5.2 ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( EIR 5.2 ) n n n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (S$plementai.documentS'.may:be referred to. arid attached) 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? (EIR 7.1) 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)? (EIR 7.1) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (EIR 7.1) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact D D D E 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 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE PROJECT The proposed project is the development and operation of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan and related discretionary actions as proposed by the applicant, HSL/BP/Michan, L.P. Related discretionary actions include a General Plan Amendment; Local Coastal Program Amendment; Zone Change; and Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (Zone 22). Approval of the project will allow the development of commercial, multi-family residential and single-family residential uses on approximately 92 acres of land. PROJECT LOCATION The project site encompasses approximately 92 acres located in the northwestern San Diego County in the City of Carlsbad. The project site is located within the southwest quadrant of the City of Carlsbad. The site lies within the boundary of Local Facilities Management Zone 22. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 5. Local access is provided via Poinsettia Lane, and Carlsbad Boulevard. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The City of Carlsbad determined that an EIR is required pursuant to the CEQ A Guidelines. The environmental issue areas identified in the environmental Initial Study are Land Use Compatibility; Population/Housing; Traffic/Circulation; Air Quality; Noise; Biological Resources; Archaeological and Palentological Resources; Agricultural Resources; Visual Aesthetics/ Grading; Public Services and Utilities; and Hydrology/Water Quality. A summary of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures is provided in Table 2-1. A summary comparison of impacts between the proposed project and alternatives is provided in Table 2- 2. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Based on the data and conclusions of this EIR, the City of Carlsbad finds that the project will result in significant cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic which cannot be fully mitigated. These cumulative impacts are regional in nature and occur in areas outside the jurisdiction of the City. If the City of Carlsbad chooses to approve the project, it must adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" pursuant to Sections 15093 and 15126(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Significant project-level impacts have also been identified for air quality, agricultural resources, archaeological and paleontological resources, biological resources, noise, visual aesthetics/grading, and water quality hydrology. These significant impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of identified mitigation measures. Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan City of Carlsbad Draft Program EIR 2-1 April 1997 POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONTROVERSY The CEQA Guidelines require potential areas of controversy to be identified in the Executive Summary. Any of the following issues related to this project may generate controversy: Land Use Compatibility Population/Housing Traffic/Circulation Air Quality Noise Biological Resources Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Agricultural Resources Visual Aesthetics/Grading Public Services and Utilities Water Quality/Hydrology Cumulative Impacts Growth-inducing Impacts ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The alternatives evaluated during the analysis of the proposed project include: No Project/No Development Alternative Existing General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Alternative Increased Residential Density Alternative Alternative Location These alternatives are discussed in detail in Section 6.0 of this document. Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Draft Program EIR 2-2 City of Carlsbad April 1997 TABLE 2-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES I Unavoidabfe SgraScani Environmental Impacts (Lead Agencvnrost issue "Statement of Overriding Considerations" under Section 15Q93 and 15126(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines if the agency determines these effects are Jignhlcam' and wishes to approve the project). Cumulative Significant Air Quality Impact Implementation of the proposed project will result in an increase in short-term construction emissions and long-term mobile and stationary emissions. Project- specific impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 listed below, and through the implementation of transit oriented development design. The cumulative impact remains significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Significant Traffic/Circulation Impact Implementation of the proposed project will result in an increase in vehicular trips on the surrounding street system. The project is required to contribute its fair-share for improvements as part of the City's Growth Management program, and does not, in and of itself create the need for additional transportation mitigation measures beyond the improvements planned by the City's Capital Improvements Program. The cumulative impact remains significant and unavoidable. II. Significant Environmental Impacts That Can Be Avoided or Mitigated (Section I5126~(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines). AIR QUALITY Environmental Impact Air pollution emissions will increase as a result of construction activity, traffic, and gas and electric use. Mitigation Measures 1. During grading and construction, the project developer shall comply with the following: a. During clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation, maintain equipment engines in proper tune. b. After clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation: 1) Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. 2) Spread soil binders; and 3) Implement street sweeping as necessary. c. During construction: 1) Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; 2) Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day, 3) Use low sulfur fuel (.05% by weight) for construction equipment Compliance with this measure shall be approved by the Citv of Carlsbad Poinsettia Properties Draft Program 2-3 City of Carlsbad April 1997 TABLE 2-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued) 2. Revegetation of exposed soils on-she due to grading activity shall take place as early as feasible in order to minimize wind erosion. Impact After Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 will reduce the short-term construction impacts to a less than significant level The long-term project-specific air quality impact is less than significant as the project, by virtue of the transit oriented development design which implements the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy Plan policies and planned land use pattern mitigation measures identified in the City's General Plan Master EIR. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Impact The proposed project will result in the conversion of vacant land located within the LCP Agricultural Overlay Zone. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall pay applicable agricultural conversion fees in compliance with Section 30171.5 of the Coastal Act The amount of the fee shall be determined by the City Council at the time it considers a Coastal Development Permit for urban development of the property. The fees shall not be less than five thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars per net converted acre of agricultural land and shall reflect the approximate cost of preserving prime agricultural land pursuant to Section 21.202.060(B) of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Permit Implementation Ordinance. The fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits for the project All mitigation fees shall be deposited in the State Coastal Conservancy and expended by the State Coastal Conservancy in the order of priority as outlined in Section 21.202.060(B) of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Permit Implementation Ordinance. Impact After Mitigation No significant impact to prime agricultural farmland is anticipant No significant impact to a decrease in County agricultural lands is anticipated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce the impact of the conversion of land located within the LCP Agricultural Overlay zone to a less than significant level. ^^ ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Environmental Impact The proposed project will result in grading in an area identified as having a moderate potential for yielding significant paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any portion of Parcel A, B, or C, the developer shall present a letter to the City of Carlsbad indicating that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.) i___ Poinsettia Properties 2-4 City of Carlsbad Draft Program April 1997 TABLE 2-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued) 2. A qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre-constniction meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors. 3. A paleontological monitor shall be on-site a minimum of half-time during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments to inspect cuts for contained fossils. In the event that fossils are discovered it may be necessary to increase the per/day in field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not being found then the monitoring should be reduced. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.) 4. When fossils are discovered the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In most cases this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In these instances the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary in certain instances, to set up a screen-washing operation on the she. 5. Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged. 6. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shall be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Donation of the fossils shall be accompanied by financial support for initial specimen storage. 7. A final summary report shall be completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, strau graphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils. Impact After Mitigation The impact to the she CA-SDI-13739/H is less than significant Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce the impact to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Environmental Impact The proposed project may resuh in an indirect impact to vernal pool habitat located west of the project she. Mitigation Measures 1. The she development plan(s) for Parcel A shall include an open space buffer along the western edge of Parcel A as depicted in Figure 5-16. The buffer shall extend from the edge of the railroad right-of-way eastward to at a minimum, the centerline of the existing dirt road. A soundwall is proposed along the approximate centerline of the dirt road. The area between the wall and right-of-way shall comprise the buffer. Within the buffer (i.e., west of soundwall and east of the right-of-way), the following uses may be appropriate: a. An 8- to 10-foot wide pedestrian trail composed of decomposed granite treated with concrete for stabilizing purposes. The trail shall be located no more than 21 feet away from the soundwall. b Landscaping shall consist entirely of native, drought-tolerant vegetation. Recommended species include laurel sumac (Maiosma laurina\ lemonadeberry (Rhus imeghfolia), Cleveland's sage (Salvia clevelandii), black sage (Salvia mellifera), flat-top buckwheat (Eriogomm fasciculatum). and bush monkevflower (Mimulus aurantiacus). Poinsetlia Properties Draft Program 2-5 City of Carlsbad April 1997 TABLE 2-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued) c. A protective chain-link fence shall be installed, west of the trail, at the edge of the railroad right-of-way. The fence would serve as a barrier between the vernal pools and the trait The fence shall be located/shed in conformance with North County Transit District's memorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Fish and Game. The fence shall be far enough from the trail as to not distract from the enjoyment of the trail, but should provide adequate protection to the vernal pool habitat. The trail shall be a minimum of 17 feet east of the railroad right-of-way, with drought-tolerant native landscaping and interpretive signage in the intervening area. The soundwall shall be a minimum of 46 feet east of the railroad right-of-way. Impact After Mitigation No direct impact to biological resources is anticipated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce the indirect impact to vernal pool habitat located west of the project site to a less than significant level. NOISE Environmental Impact The proposed project may result in the exposure of proposed residential units to a CNEL that exceeds City standards. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to issuance of a building permits), when precise grading plans and architectural drawings are available, detailed exterior/interior acoustical analyses shall be prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer. The project shall comply with the precise recommendations of the study to attenuate exterior and interior noise levels to acceptable levels as established in the City of Carlsbad Noise Element Noise barriers shall be constructed surrounding the project she as specified in the Exterior Noise Analysis for Parcels A. B. and C or the acoustical study prepared for a site development plan. 2. If second or third floor balconies are planned facing the railroad tracks, balconies shall not be given credit towards meeting the City's requirement for recreational space unless noise is buffered through the use of plexiglass (or other suitable shielding as determined by an acoustical engineer) to an acceptable level as indicated in the City of Carlsbad Noise Element 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits for second story residential, along the railroad tracks, Avenida Encinas, or Carlsbad Boulevard, an acoustical analysis shall be conducted to determine the required building upgrades to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard. Any required upgrades will be included in the project building plans and implemented prior to building occupancy. 4. Mechanical ventilation shall be required for any homes adjacent to Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad Boulevard, Poinsettia Lane or the railroad tracks. The system must supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outside. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum often feet of straight or curved duct, or six feet plus one sharp 90 degree bend. Air conditioning units are an adequate substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as they meet the ventilation requirements specified in the Uniform Building Code. Impact After Mitigation No significant short-term construction noise impact is anticipated. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the exposure of on-site land uses to traffic and railroad noise, which when combined exceed City noise standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 through 4 will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. No impact to off-site land uses as a result of Droject traffic generated noise is anticipated. Poinsettia Properties 2-6 City of Carlsbad Draft Program April 1997 TABLE 2-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued) VISUAL AESTHETICS/GRADING Environmental Impact The proposed project will result in the development of a currently vacant site with residential and commercial uses. The proposed project will result in grading within the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, and is subject to specific mitigation requirements of Section 21.203.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project she has been utilized for agricultural operations. The General Plan Master EIR requires the preparation of a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment prior to development of the she. Mitigation Measures 1. Grading shall comply with the provisions of Section 21.203.040 Development Standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as part of the Coastal Development Permit. The provisions of Section 21.203.040 shall be attached as conditions to future Coastal Development Permits for the project site. 2. Prior to the approval of site development permits, a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to City and County Health Departments for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic use, handling, or storage of agricultural chemicals restricted by the San Diego County Department of Health Services. The report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at concentrations in the soil which would have a significantly adverse effect on human health. All recommendations contained in the report shall be implemented prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact After Mitigation No significant impact to visual aesthetics has been identified. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 and 2 will reduce the impact associated with grading to a level less than significant. WATER QUALITY/HYDROLOGY Environmental Impact The proposed project may result in a short-term impact to runoff, erosion, and water quality as a result of construction activity. The proposed project will result in an increase in imperious surfaces and urban runoff which may impact surface water quality. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a water quality protection program for the construction phase for review and approval by the City Engineer. This program shall be prepared to inform construction workers of: containment of paint, fuel, masonry and other construction wastes; use of trash receptacles to prevent debris in the run-off, and retention/detention basins. 2. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a construction phase erosion and sediment control plan for the drainage area under consideration for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall be developed and implemented in accordance with the City of Carlsbad policies, and the measure identified in the Specific Plan. 3. Concurrent with submittal of the first site development permit application, the applicant shall submit a program of Best Management Practices including structural controls and detention basins for the storm drain system for the drainage area under consideration for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall include, where feasible, the following structural controls: native vegetation desilting/detention; trash racks in catch basins; sand/arease traps in catch basins; and catch basin/gutter stenciling. Poinsettia Properties Draft Program 2-7 City of Carlsbad April 1997 TABLE 2-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued) 4. Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, the applicant shall submit a program of Best Management Practices, non-structural controls to include, but not be limited to: a street sweeping and street flushing program; and community awareness and public participation progiams for review and approval by the City Engineer. This community awareness program shall be prepared to inform home buyers of: the impacts of dumping oil, antifreeze, paints, solvents, or other potentially harmful chemicals into storm sewers; identification of appropriate disposal locations for these materials, the proper use and management of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in home landscaping and gardening practices; the impacts of littering and improper waste disposal; and the need to clean up and properly dispose of pet wastes. Impact After Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 will reduce the short-term impact ro runoff, erosion, and water quality to a less than significant level. No significant impact to on-srte drainage is anticipated. No impact to off-site properties is anticipated as the runoff generated by the project will be collected by facilities proposed on-she, and conveyed to an existing system to the south of the site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3 and 4 will reduce the impact to surface water quality from urban runoff to a less than significant level No impact to groundwater quality is anticipated. DDL Impacts considered but found tn be fess thanshpiifkant: Land Use Compatibility Population/Housing Traffic/Circulation (project-specific) Public Services and Utilities Poinsettia Properties 2-8 City of Carlsbad Draft Program April 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 97-10/CDP 97-16 DATE: January 15. 1999 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Poinsettia Properties - Master Tentative Map 2. APPLICANT: HSL/BP Michan L.P. 3. 4. 5. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5055 Avenida Encinas. Suite 210. Carlsbad CA 92008 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 7/1/98 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a master tentative tract map and coastal development permit to subdivide a 55.6 acre site into 5 developable lots and 2 open space lots at the northwest corner 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. Q Land Use and Planning fj Population and Housing fj Geological Problems rj Water [X] Air Quality Transportation/Circulation fj Public Services Biological Resources fj Utilities & Service Systems Energy & Mineral Resources [X] Aesthetics Hazards fj Cultural Resources Noise f_] Recreation 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. fj 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. fj 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. [g] 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 (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. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date Planning Director>s~$ignatufer 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 DISCI TSSTON 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). 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.13) 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) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local j I population projections? (#1, pg. 5.2 - 2) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly I I 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 I I housing? (#l,pg. 5.2-2) D D D D D III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14) Fl fl b) Seismic ground shaking? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14) I I I I c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? I I I I (#2, pgs. 5.1-1-14) L-' L-' d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#2, pgs. 5.1- I I I 1 1-14) LJ L_) e) Landslides ormudflows? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14) I—I I I f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil I I I I conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1-14) . g) Subsidence of the land? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14) I—I I—I h) Expansive soils? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14) I I I I i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#2, pgs. I I I I 5.1-1-14) L-' L-J D D D D n D 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) D D 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? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1 - 8) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1 -8) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1 - 8) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1-8) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1 - 8) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1-8) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D D D D D 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) D D D D D D D D D D D IEI D El 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 D D D D 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 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated IEI n n n 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 n n n n n n n n 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) n n n IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of I I hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and 5.10.2) b) Possible interference with an emergency response i I plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#2, pgs. 5.10- 1 and 5.10.2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential I I health hazards? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and 5.10.2) L~' d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential I I health hazards? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and 5.10.2) LJ e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, i | grass, or trees? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and 5.10.2) L-' D D n n n n n 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 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) Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D 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) I—I b) Communications systems? (#2, pgs. 5.12.5-1) I—I c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution i—i facilities? (# 1, pg. 5.10-3 & 4) L~' d) Sewer or septic tanks? (# 1, pgs. 5.10-3 & 4) I—I e) Storm water drainage? (#1, pgs. 5.10-11- 5 I I through 8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#2, pgs. 5.12.4-1) I—I g) Local or regional water supplies? (#2, pgs. 5.12.2- I I 1 through 6) D D D D 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? (#l,pgs. 5.9-1-3, #3) c) Create light or glare? (#1, pgs. 5.9-1 - 3) D D 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)D D D D 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 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 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 master tentative tract map intends to subdivide Parcel A of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan into five independent legal lots which would follow the planning area boundary lines established by the specific plan. The subdivision would also allow for separate ownership of each parcel. During its review of the specific plan, the California Coastal Commission added the requirement for a sight line analysis to identify and avoid significant impacts to existing public views from Interstate 5. As designed and conditioned, the project addresses this concern and is consistent with all relevant City and Coastal Commission regulations and policies. No adverse visual impacts are created by the proposed subdivision of land. The vacant project site has been disturbed by agricultural operations and contains ruderal vegetation limited to non-native grasses and small shrubs. The subject site is located within the southwest quadrant of the City in Local Facilities Management Zone 22. The site is bounded on the north and east by Avenida Encinas, by Poinsettia Lane to the south, and by the San Diego Northern Railroad (SDNR) right-of-way on the west. 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. 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. 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, 10 Rev. 03/28/96 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 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. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 Parcel C. 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 QF 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 14 Rev. 03/28/96