HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-22; Poinsettia Properties PA8; Tentative Map (CT) (2)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 97-22. CP 98-09. CDF 97-55
DATE: March 2. 1999
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Poinsettia Properties Planning Area 8
APPLICANT: Shea Homes
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 10721 Treena Street. Suite 200
Diego. CA 92131
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 12. 1997
San
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approval of a tentative tract map, condominium permit and coastal
development permit to subdivide one parcel into 3 lots for 112 single family homes. 6 open
space areas, private streets and a recreational vehicle storage area on 15.9 acres at the southeast
corner of Carlsbad Boulevard 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.
[H Land Use and Planning
CD Population and Housing
CD Geological Problems
D Water
Kl Air Quality
IXI Transportation/Circulation I I Public Services
|~"1 Biological Resources |~~| Utilities & Service Systems
I I Energy & Mineral Resources I I Aesthetics
I I Hazards I I Cultural Resources
I | Noise I I Recreation
I | Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Q I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Q I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
Q I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Q] 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.
£3 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier Program EIR (EIR 96-01) pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon I the proposed project. No further CEQA
compliance was required for those activities having no effect beyond those previously analyzed
in the Program EIR. No new impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project and no
new mitigation measures are necessary, therefore,! no further environmental review is required.
The Planning Director determined that the proposed project is pursuant to and in conformance
with Specific Plan 210 for which a Program EIR was prepared and certified, therefore, the
project is exempt under Section 65457 of the California Government Code and a Notice of
Exemption will be issued.
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director' s 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, biological1 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. |
I
• 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. j
• "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 tojthe 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
significant.
there is substantial evidence that an effect is
Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the
circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation
measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project,
then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to
prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant
to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the
project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if
there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those
mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the
appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not
limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been
discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does
not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement
of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier
EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4)
through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a
potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a
potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form
under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to
discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Source #(s): (#1, pg. 3-13, #2,
sections I.F.3& I.F.I3)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project? (#1, pg 3 - 13)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (#l,pg. 5.1 - 10)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses? (#1, pg. 5.1 -
10)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (#1, pg. 5.1
-10)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#1, pg. 5.2-2)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (#1, pg. 5.2-2)
c) Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing? (#1, pg. 5.2-2)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal
result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14)
c) Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#2, pgs.
5.1-1 - 14)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions from excavation, grading, or
fill? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1-14)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1 - 14)
h) Expansive soils? (#2, pgs. 5.1-1-14)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#2,
pgs. 5.1-1-14)
Potentiall
y
Significa
nt Impact
D
D
D
D
Dn
n
nn
n
Potentiall
y
Significan
t Unless
Mitigatio
n
Incorporat
ed
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
nnn
Less
Than
Signific
ant
Impact
No
Impac
t
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1 -8)
g b) Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? (#1, pgs.
5.11-1 -8)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(#1, pgs. 5.11-1-8)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1-8)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1-8)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (#1, pgs.
5.11-1-8)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1 - 8)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1, pgs.
5.11-1 -8)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? (#1, pgs. 5.11-1 - 8)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (#1, pgs. 5.4-1 - 8; #1 pgs. 7-1 - 7)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1,
pgs. 5.4-1-8; #1 pgs. 7-1-7)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (#1, pgs. 5.4-
1 - 8; #1 pgs. 7-1 - 7)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#1, pgs. 5.4-1 -
8; #1 pgs. 7-1 - 7)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(#1, pgs. 5.3-1-25; #1, pgs. 7-1-7)
Potentiall
y
Significa
nt Impact
Potentiall
y
Significan
t Unless
Mitigatio
n
Incorporat
ed
Less
Than
Signific
ant
Impact
No
Impac
t
D
D
n
D
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VII.
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; #l,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)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1,
pgs. 5.3-1-25; #1, pgs. 7-1-7)
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)
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)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
7
Potentiall
y
Significa
nt Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentiall
y
Significan
t Unless
Mitigatio
n
Incorporat
ed
D
D
D
D
n
n
n
Less
Than
Signific
ant
Impact
No
Impac
t
D
D
D
n
D
D D
D D
D D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and 5.10.2)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and 5.10.2)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and 5.10.2)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and
5.10.2)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (#2, pgs. 5.10-1 and
5.10.2)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1, pgs.
5.5-1 - 12)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(#1, pgs. 5.5-1-12)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#1, pgs. 5.10-1; #2, pgs.
5.12.5-1 and 5.12.6-1)
b) Police protection? (#1, pgs. 5.10-1; #2, pgs.
5.12.5-1 and 5.12.6-1)
c) Schools? (#1, pgs. 5.10-1; #2, pgs. 5.12.5-1
and 5.12.6-1)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (#1, pgs. 5.10-1; #2, pgs. 5.12.5-1 and
5.12.6-1)
e) Other governmental services? (#1, pgs. 5.10-
1; #2, pgs. 5.12.5-1 and 5.12.6-1)
-XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#2, pgs. 5.12.1-1)
b) Communications systems? (#2, pgs. 5.12.5-1)
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (#1, pg. 5.10-3 & 4)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1, pgs. 5.10-3 & 4)
Potentiall
y
Significa
nt Impact
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Potentiall
y
Significan
t Unless
Mitigatio
n
Incorporat
ed
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
n
Less
Than
Signific
ant
Impact
n
No
Impac
t
D
D
D
D
n
n
n
n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
e) Storm water drainage? (#1, pgs. 5.10-11- 5
through 8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#2, pgs. 5.12.4-1)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#2, pgs.
5.12.2-1 through 6)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
(#1, pgs. 5.9-1-3)
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic
effect? (#1, pgs. 5.9-1 - 3)
c) Create light or glare? (#1, pgs. 5.9-1 - 3)
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)
RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(#2, pgs. 5.12.8-1-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(#2, pgs. 5.12.8-1 -7)
b)
FINDINGS OFMANDATORY
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?
Potentiall
y
Significa
nt Impact
Potentiall
y
Significan
t Unless
Mitigatio
n
Incorporat
ed
D
D
Less
Than
Signific
ant
Impact
No
Impac
t
1 *
D
D D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentiall
y
Significa
nt Impact
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?
Potentiall
y
Significan
t Unless
Mitigatio
n
Incorporat
ed
D
Less No
Than Impac
Signific t
ant
Impact
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.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project includes the subdivision of a 15.9 acre parcel into 112 single family residential lots,
6 open space lots, 3 private street lots, 1 recreational vehicle storage lot plus the recreation, RV storage
and other amenities associated with a planned unit development located at the southeast corner of
Carlsbad Boulevard and Poinsettia Lane.
The proposed project includes the development of 112 airspace condominiums within Planning Area 8 of
the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan area. In January 1998 and October 1998, the City Council and
California Coastal Commission respectively approved the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. This
document addresses eight planning areas wrapping around the east, west and south sides of the Poinsettia
Transit Station. The Specific Plan was designed to create a transit-oriented development (TOD) project
located near the rail station and the nearby major transportation corridor, Interstate 5. The subject site is
located within the southwest quadrant of the City in Local Facilities Management Zone 22. Planning
Area 8 is bounded on the north by Poinsettia Lane, on the south by PA 1 (designated for commercial
development), on the east by the San Diego Northern Railroad, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean..
The site is composed of terrain that gently slopes from the north about 10 feet downwards to the
southeast with a long north/south knoll running down the center of the property. Elevations range from
58 feet above mean sea level to 48 feet at the southeastern corner. The vacant project site has been
disturbed by agricultural operations and contains ruderal vegetation limited to non-native grasses and
small shrubs.
Six buildings wrap around the exterior of the site—three sixteen-plexes, three twelve-plexes, and one
eight-plex. The interior of the site is designed as a common neighborhood area for a variety of activities
including an approximately 2,500 square foot recreation building with a kitchen, fireplace, common
room, and laundry facilities; a "tot-lot" with playground equipment; a swimming pool with changing
rooms; a private pedestrian trail system; a passive recreation area for senior citizen activities, and an
active recreation area for open play. Ample benches, tables, and seating are sprinkled throughout the
development to encourage more resident interaction and passive recreation opportunities.
Easy pedestrian access is provided to PA 6 (the mixed-use area) through the tree-lined main entry on the
west side of the site. To establish better interaction between resident and pedestrians, units were
designed to front on the public street and were provided with fenced-in patios at the ground level and
balconies at the second level. Pedestrian circulation is achieved throughout the development with
pathways to recreation facilities, parking, the public street, and direct access to the street from 32 of the
units. Abundant landscaping accents the development at the main entry, the neighborhood area, and
throughout the parking lot which provides 193 uncovered parking spaces. All public improvements
required public facilities and improvements have been incorporated into the project design.
Preparing the site for development will include cubic yards of earthwork leading to a balanced
grading operation on site. Pad elevations at the northwest corner of the site will be approximately one
foot above the elevation of Carlsbad Boulevard and approximately three-four feet above Carlsbad
Boulevard at the southwest corner of the site. Pad elevations have been lowered as much as possible
while maintaining positive sewer and drainage flow.
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:
11 Rev. 03/28/96
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,
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
12 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
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.
NOISE
A detailed exterior/interior acoustical analysis was included as a mitigation measure in the Program EIR
to determine what mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce noise levels to acceptable amounts.
The Noise Technical Report, prepared for Planning Area 8, indicates that the subject site is impacted by
railway noise from operations on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway as well as future traffic
noise generated on Carlsbad Boulevard and Poinsettia Lane. Future traffic volumes for Carlsbad
Boulevard and Poinsettia Lane were obtained from the Series 8 growth forecasts prepared by SANDAG.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
For Carlsbad Boulevard, traffic volumes for the year 2015 are projected to be 26,000 average daily trips
(ADT) and 13,000 ADT for Poinsettia Lane. Exterior noise levels to first- and second-floor receivers
were calculated from a distance five feet above ground level and 15 feet above ground level. Noise
levels at the ground level range from 59 to 62 CNEL and at the second floor from 63 to 69 CNELs.
Construction of a combination noise barrier consisting of a two foot berm and 6 foot wall will reduce
noise at the ground level to 59 or 60 CNEL which is at the acceptable City level.
Even with the construction of noise barriers, noise levels at the second-floor levels along the major
roadways and railway could exceed 65 CNEL. Prior to building permits, a detailed acoustical analysis
will be required to ensure that proposed building construction will lower interior noise levels to below
the 45 CNEL standard. The project will also be required to provide mechanical ventilation. The
combination of walls, berms, building construction and mechanical ventilation will reduce noise levels to
acceptable City standards.
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, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not
required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246,
included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master
EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of 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
14 Rev. 03/28/96
ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative
modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and
commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The
diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates
impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General
Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are
included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study"
checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan,
therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR
93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for
circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects
covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental
review of circulation impacts is required.
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. The applicant conducted a
viewshed analysis for 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 indicated 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.
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.
As noted earlier, pad elevations at the northwest corner of the site have been maintained at one foot
above the elevation of Carlsbad Boulevard. This slight increase is necessary to maintain positive sewer
and drainage flow and show create any adverse visual impacts.
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. Noise Technical Report for Poinsettia Shores. City of Carlsbad, Recon Number 2966N, December
17, 1997.
4. Viewshed Analysis, dated March 3, 1998.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
16 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE RECEIVED:
(To be completed by staff)
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Planning Area 8; Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
2. APPLICANT: shea Homes
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 10721 Treena Street, Suite
200>- San Diego, CA 92131 (619) 549-3156
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Map, Condominium Permit and Coastal
Development Permit for a 112 unit project in Planning Area 8 of
the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan.
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 [ | Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services
| | Population and Housing | | Biological Resources [ | Utilities & Service Systems
| | Geological Problems | [ Energy & Mineral Resources j | Aesthetics
| | Water | | Hazards | [ Cultural Resources
|"x] Air Quality | | Noise | | Recreation
| | Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 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
• [f there are one or m(B potentially significant effects, the «p' 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 ElA-Pan II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
""' *
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL F.VALUATION.' Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Issues (.and Supporting !nformatior^»rces): Potentially
/Supplemental documents mav be re/erred to and attached) Significant
Impact
i. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
ai Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1 —
(Source =(s.i: ( ) ' —
bi Conflict with applicable environmental plans or , —
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the ' — •
project? (. )
ci Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? r —
( ) ^~
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts ; —
f~ ,-„;;,- ^r f-,*^,; :_ — : .. A.__ : *:LI. • .
tHaUy
ficant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
n1 — !
ni — i
n
Less Than
Signincnn
t Impact
i js '
i i1 — :
, — ,u
[xj
No
Impact
2]
jTi1 — :
Pv"i1 Xj
i i
land uses? ( )
ei Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community ^including a low-income or
minority community)? ( )
Xi
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
at Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( )
bi Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure i?
( )
cj Displace existing housinc. especially affordable
housing0 ( t
HI. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a i Fault rupture'( >
bi Seismic ground shakina? • i
ci Seismic ground failure, inciudins iiquefaction?
i I
Ji Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
i i
e: Landslides or mudflows? • i
:': Erosion, changes in :oro£.rarhy or unstable so::
concitions trom excavation, jraaina. or fill?
D
r
d D
?ir n
T
IT
Subsidence of the iand1? '
Expansive sous? <
L'r.iaue ^eoiosijc orohvsica: rearurss"IT
AOUIG the rronosai resu;: :~:
;s in .icsoration ritsi. ir-'.r.au- ^snsrr.s. or ".'~ j —
a -mount or'surface runoff" —X
X
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Poier.v.aih
(Supplemental documents may be^krred to and attached) Significant
^^ Imract
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of —;
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved —
oxygen or turbidity)? ( )
dl Changes in the amount of surface water in any water —
body0( ) :—
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water :—
movements? ( ) —
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 recharse
capability? ( )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater0 —
h) Impacts to groundwater quality0 ( ) —
i'i Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater —
otherwise available for public water supplies? —
Potentially
|nificant
unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than
Sigmfican
t imDac:
Xi
fX~
No
Impact
D
m
D
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a i Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation0
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
o Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ( )
d) Create objectionable odors0 f )
TRANSPORTATION CIRCULATION. Would :he
proposal result in:
a i Increasec \ehicie trips or traffic congestion?
i )
b> Hazards :o safety from design features te.g. iharr
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
i e.g. farm ecuipment)0 ( )
c ;• inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses'
)
.:! Insufficient rarxing capacity on-site or off-site1
i )
•-: Hazards or rarr:ers for pedestrians or bicyclists /
f'' Conflicts '.vi:r. adopted poiic:es supponir,;: aiterra::\-.
:rans"orta::cr! -e.-. bus rumouts. bicvcie racks,1?
X
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be ired to and attached)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a i Endangered. Threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects.
animals, and birds? ( )
bi Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
( )
ci Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
di Wetland habitat (e.a. marsh, riparian and vernal pool1)0
< )
e i Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
D
H
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Signirican
t Impact
No
D
n
D
[Xj
[x"!
Lxj
D
D
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
ai Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
( )
bi Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful ana
inefficient manner? ( )
o Result in the loss of availability of a known miners:
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? f )
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a i A risk ot accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (.including, but not limited to: oil. pesticides.
chemicals or radiation)? ( )
bi Possible interference with an emergency response piar.
or emergency evacuation plan ? f )
ci The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? < )
ci) Exposure of people :o existing sources of potenr.a.
health hazards0 ( >
e: Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush.
grass, or rress? ( \
D
D
X
X
x
Y:
X. NOISE. Wouid the proposal resui; 'in:
a i Increases in existing noise ieveis? (
bi Exposure of people to severe noise ieveis?
XI. PU3L1C SERVICES. Would the proposal nave an effect
-non. or resmt in a need for new or aiterec covemrr.ei::
services in any of the following areas:
a i Fire protection." •
'"' Police protection^
Y
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be rred to and attached)
Poter.tiaily
significant
Imcac:
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ,—;
e) Other governmental services? ( ) :—
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? ( ) ;—
b) Communications systems? ( ) ;—
ci Local or regional water treatment or distribution —
facilities? ( ) :—
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) —
ei Storm water drainage? ( ) ;—
ft Solid waste disposal? ( ) —
g) Local or regional water supplies? f ) —
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
ai Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway"1 —
i ) —
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? —
o Create light or glare? ( ) —
XIV CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
ai Disturb paieontoiogicai resources0 ( ' —
bi Disturb archaeological resources? ( —
ci Affect historical resources'1 ( ) —
j) Have :he rotential to cause a physical change whicr. —
wouid affect unique ethnic cultural values? —
i )
ei Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within :hs —
potential impact area? ( i —
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposai:
a i Increase :he demand for neighborhood or regional —
DarKS or ctner recreational facilities ? —
Potentially«ficant
less
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
n
D1 i
1 ;
1 ;
i I
D
i i
j
1 >
j !
Less Than
Sigmfican
t Impact
E
LI
d
[Hi
LI
d
L»
I T.TJ^*i
s
LH
!JL
[X;
No
Impact
i
1 — j
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
i — ;
D
D
_X
"X
X
bi Affec: exiting recreanonai opportunities?X
Issues land Supporting Information Sourcesi:
(Supplemental documents may be r^^-edto and 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?
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 directlv or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentiallytficant
less
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
D D n LI
x;D D D
r D D XI
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)(DV In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
ai Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
tor review.
bi 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 anaivsis.
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 :he extent to which the'.' address site-
scecific conditions for the nroiect.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact"
yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has
adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration'' with regard to air quality and circulation
impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample
text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors.
AIR QUALITY:
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 Consestion and Transportation Demand
Management: 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit sen-ices: 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design: and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01. by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246. included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air
quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR. including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic: however. 12 full and I rart:al intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictionai control. These
generally induce ail freeway interchange areas ana rr.a:cT intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Ever, with the implementation of roadwav -.rr.rrcverr.er.ts. a numcer :•:" 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 EIR. including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE!
See attached Table 2-1
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Program EIR Mitigation
Monitoring Program is on file and available at the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department, located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009.
PARTIEIA
for PLANNING AREA 8 of the
POINSETTIA PROPERTIES SPECIFIC PLAN
L Land Use and Planning
a) No Impact. See page 3-13 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Program EIR
and sections I.F.3 and I.F.13 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan.
b) No Impact. The project will conform with all applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project.
c) No Impact. See section 5.1 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Program EIR.
d) Less than significant impact. See section 5.8 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
e) No Impact. Planning Area 8 is currently vacant. Therefore, this project will not disrupt
or divide any established communities.
II. Population and Housing
a) Less than significant impact. See section 5.2 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
b) Less than significant impact. See section 5.2 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
c) No Impact. Planning Area 8 is currently vacant. Therefore, this project will not displace
existing housing.
HI. Geologic Problems
a) Less than significant impact. See Appendix G (Geotechnical Analysis) of the
Appendices for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Program EIR.
b) Less than significant impact. See Appendix G (Geotechnical Analysis) of the
Appendices for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Program EIR.
c) Less than significant impact. See Appendix G (Geotechnical Analysis) of the
Appendices for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Program EIR.
d) No impact. The proposed project will not expose people to impacts involving seiche,
tsunami or volcanic hazard. The site is not located in an area of volcanic activity and does
not have a history of seiche or tsunami hazards.
e) No impact. The project site and surrounding area is relatively flat. No land forms
associated with landslides or mudflows exist near the project site.
f) No impact. See Appendix G (Geotechnical Analysis) of the Appendices for the Poinsettia
Properties Specific Plan Final Program EIR.
g) No impact. See Appendix G (Geotechnical Analysis) of the Appendices for the Poinsettia
Properties Specific Plan Final Program EIR.
h) No impact. See Appendix G (Geotechnical Analysis) of the Appendices for the Poinsettia
Properties Specific Plan Final Program EIR.
i) No impact. The project site is relatively flat and contains no unique geologic or physical
features. See Section 5.9 of the Poinsettia Properties Final Program EIR.
W. Water
a) Less than significant impact. See section 5.11 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
b) No impact. The project is not located in an area know to experience water hazards.
Furthermore, the project will be engineered in a manner which will avoid exposure of
people to water related hazards.
c) Less than significant impact. See section 5.11 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
d) Less than significant impact. See section 5.11 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
e) Less than significant impact. See section 5.11 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
f) Less than significant impact. See section 5.11 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
g) Less than significant impact. See section 5.11 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
h) No impact. See section 5.11 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Program
EIR.
i) Less than significant impact. See section 5.11 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
V. Air Quality
a) Potentially significant impact. Although the project will contribute to cumulative air
quality impacts, as virtually any development within the San Diego Air Basin will, a
statement of overriding consideration was adopted in the City of Carlsbad's Final Master
EIR for this cumulative impact.
b) No impact. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants.
c) Less than significant impact. Subdividing this parcel for single-family residential lots
will not significantly alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause a change in the
climate.
d) No impact. Subdividing this parcel for single-family residential lots will not create
objectionable odors.
VT. Transportation/Circulation
a) Less than significant impact. See section 5.3 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
b) No impact. No hazards to safety will be created by the project. Development of the site
will comply with the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan and all applicable City
Development Standards.
c) No impact. Emergency access to the project site and access to nearby uses will be
adequate. Emergency access to the project site and access to nearby uses will comply
with the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan and all applicable City Development
Standards.
d) No impact. Parking for the project site and off-site parking will be sufficient. Parking
requirements for the site will comply with the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan and all
applicable City Standards.
e) No impact. Pedestrian and bicycle use will be encouraged in this Transit Oriented
Development. Development of the site will comply with the Poinsettia Properties Specific
Plan, which will ensure that the project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians
or bicyclists.
f) No impact. This is a Transit Oriented Development which will support alternative
transportation by providing walking and bicycling trails throughout the Poinsettia
Properties Specific Plan area which will allow easy access to the Coaster (Poinsettia Rail
Station).
g) No impact. Although the project is located near a railroad, no impact to the railroad,
waterborne or air traffic is anticipated.
VII. Biological Resources
a) No impact. See section 5.6 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Program EIR
and Section 5.4 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad
General Plan Update.
b) No impact. The site does not contain locally designated species. See Section 5.4 of the
Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update.
c) No impact. The site does not contain locally designated natural communities. See
Section 5.4 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad
General Plan Update.
d) Less than significant impact. See section 5.6 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
e) Less than significant impact. See section 5.6 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
VTTT. Energy and Miner Resources
a) No impact. The project will conform with all applicable adopted energy conservation
plans. See Section 5.13 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update.
b) No impact. The project will conform with adopted energy conservation plans and will not
use non-renewable resources in a wasteful nor inefficient manner. See Section 5.13 of the
Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update.
c) No impact. No mineral resources are known to exist on the site. See Section 5.13 of the
Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update.
DC. Hazards
a) No impact. The proposed project will not store any hazardous materials and therefore
will not propose a risk of accidental explosion or release of any hazardous substances.
b) No impact. The proposed project will conform with the Poinsettia Properties Specific
Plan which will ensure that the project does not interfere with any emergency response or
evacuation plans. See section 5.3 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Program
EIR and Section 5.10 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update.
c) No impact. Subdividing this parcel for single-family residential lots will not result in
health hazards. See section 5.0 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Program
EIR and Section 5.10 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update.
d) No impact. There are no existing health hazards on the site. See section 5.0 of the
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Program EIR and Section 5.10 of the Final
Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update.
e) No impact. The site is essentially devoid of flammable vegetation. Therefore, the project
will not result in increased fire hazards.
X. Noise
a) Less than significant impact. See section 5.5 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
b) Less than significant impact. See section 5.5 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
XT. Public Services
a) Less than significant impact. See section 5.10 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
b) Less than significant impact. See section 5.10 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
c) Less than significant impact. See section 5.10 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
d) Less than significant impact. See section 5.10 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
e) Less than significant impact. See section 5.10 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
XTT. Utilities and Services Systems
a) Less than significant impact. See section 5.10 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
b) Less than significant impact. See section 5.10 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
c) Less than significant impact. See section 5.10 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
d) Less than significant impact. See section 5.10 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
e) Less than significant impact. See section 5.10 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
f) Less than significant impact. See section 5.10 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
g) Less than significant impact. See section 5.10 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
XITT. Aesthetics
a) Less than significant impact. See section 5.9 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
b) Less than significant impact. See section 5.9 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
c) Less than significant impact. See section X.F (Lighting) of the Poinsettia Properties
Specific Plan
XIV. Cultural Resources
a) Less than significant impact. See section 5.7 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
b) Less than significant impact. See section 5.7 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
c) Less than significant impact. See section 5.7 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan
Final Program EIR.
d) No impact. Unique ethnic cultural values are not known to be associated with this site.
e) No impact. No religious or sacred uses are known to exist within the project area.
XV. Recreational
a) Less than significant impact. While the project will increase the use of the surrounding
recreational facilities, residents will be within walking distance of the beach. Other
recreational opportunities will also be accessible via the transit center. A significant
increase in demand is not anticipated.
b) No impact. The site is currently vacant and no recreational opportunities currently exist
at the site.
XVT. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) No impact. The project site is a relatively flat lot that has been disturbed through farming
practices. The site is devoid on any significant vegetation or habitat and contains no
known significant cultural resources.
b) Potentially significant impact. Individually, the project does not create any significant
negative impact, but as virtually all projects in San Diego County, the development of this
site does contribute to a cumulative impact on the air quality in the San Diego Air Basin.
A statement of overriding consideration has been adopted for air quality impacts through
the approval of the Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update.
Furthermore, the project will apply applicable air quality mitigation measures into the
design of the project.
c) No impact. The proposed subdivision will not cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings.
XVTI. Earlier Analysis
a) Earlier analyses used: 1. Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Program EIR.
2. Final Master Environmental Impact Report For The City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update (dated March 1994).
These documents are available for review at the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department, located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009.
b) Sections I thru XV of the above EIA Part I were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final Program EIR. Air quality,
agricultural resources, archaeological and paleontological resources, biological resources,
noise, visual aesthetics/grading and water quality/hydrology were areas which were
addressed by mitigation measured by the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Final
Program EIR.
c) Effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" include air quality,
archaeological and paleontological resources, biological resources, noise, visual
aesthetics/grading and water quality/hydrology. Table 2-1 (attached) of the Poinsettia
Properties Specific Plan Final Program EIR describes the mitigation measures, which
include site-specific conditions for the project.
TABLE 2-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts (Lead Agency must issne "Statement of Overriding
Considerations'* under Section 15093 and 15I26(b} of the State CEQA Guideimesif theagency determines these
effects are significant 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 man significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 listed below, and
through the implementation of transit oriented development design. The cumulative impart 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 pan of the City's Growth Management program, and does not, in and of itself create the need for
additional transportation mitigation measures beyond me improvements planned by die City's Capital Improvements Program. The cumulative impart
remains significant and unavoidable.
Significant Environmental Impacts Hat Can Be Avoided or Mitigated (Section 15126(c) of the State CEQA
Guidelines).
AIR QUALITY
Environmental Impact
Air pollution emissions will increase as a result of construction activity, rraffic, 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 soaJdngs. 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.
Poinsema Prooemes
Final Program EIR
C/rv of Carlsbad
' ' Juiv 1997
ee Section 9.0
.esponse B-l
TABLE 2-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Continued)
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 City of Carlsbad.
2. Revegetan'on of exposed soils on-site due to grading activity sha" nkr 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 HR.
ACSHCULTDRAL 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 <h»n pay applicable agricultural conversion fees in compliance with Section 30171.5 of
the Coastal Act. The amount of the fee <>"" be determined by the City Council at the n™* it considers a Coastal Development Permit for urban
development of the property. The fees shall not be less man five thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars per net converted acre of
agricultural land and tha" reflect the approximate cost of preserving prime agricultural land pursuant to Section 21.202.060(8) of Carlsbad's
Local Coastal Permit Implementation Ordinance. The fees «h»n be p»"1 prior to j^mtv.* of building permits for me project. All mitigation
fees shall be deposited in me State Coastal Conservancy and expended by the State Coastal Conservancy in the order of priority as outlined in
Section 21.202.060(3) of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Permit Implementation Ordinance. If Section 21.202.060 (B) is amended to allow for a fee
of less man five thousand dollars per acre to be paid for the conversion of agricultural land the Poinsema Properties project shall be permitted to
pay this lesser fee.
Impact After Mitigation
No significant impact to prime agricultural farmland is anticipated.
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. _____
Poinsema Properties
Final Program EIR
Ci'rv of Carlsbad
Jul\ 1997
TABLE 2-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Continued)
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 paieomologicai procedures and techniques.)
2. A qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre-consmiction meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors.
3. A paleontological monitor "hall be on-site a minimum of half-time daring 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
mamm^j teeth, it may be necessary in certain instances, to set up a screen-washing operation on the she.
5. Fossil remains collected Airing the monitoring and salvage portion of me 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 me 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, stratigraphic secnon(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.
Impact After Mitigation
The impact to me site CA-SDI-13739/H is less man significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 through 7 will reduce me impact to paieomologicai resources to a less than tignififjanr ievei.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Environmental Impact
The proposed project mav result in an indirect imr>act ID vernal pool habitat located west of ne proiec: site.
Poinserria Properties
Fine.: p^osram EIR
dr.- of Carlsbad
' Jui\ 1997
TABLE 2-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Continued)
Mitigation Measures
1. The site 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 me railroad right-of-way eastward to at a minimum me center-line of the existing din road. A
soundwall is proposed along the approximate centeriine of the din road. The area between me 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 nail shall be
located no more man 21 feet away from the soundwall.
b I anrtscaping shall consist entirely of native, drought-tolerant vegetation. Recommended species include laurel sumac (Malosma laurina),
lemonadeberry (Rims integrifblia), Cleveland's sage (Salvia clevelandii), black sage (Saivia mellifera), flat-top buckwheat (Eriogonum
fasdatltmim), and bush monkeyflower (Minadus auranaaau).
c. A protective chain-link fence shall be installed, west of the trail, ar the edge of the railroad right-of-way. The fence would serve as a
barrier between the vernal pools and the trail. The fence shall be located/sited in confonnance 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 nail as to not
distract ft urn the enjoyment of the trail, but should provide ="<«Tm» protection to the vernal pool habitat.
The trail shall be a mmirmmi of 17 feet east of die railroad right-of-way, with drought-tolerant native landscaping and interpretive signage in the
intervening area. The soundwail 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 '""anp> 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 site 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 jr^r-an-d m the City of Carlsbad Noise Element.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for second sfflry residential, along the railroad Backs, 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. _ _ ___ ,
Poinsertia Properties 2-6 City of Carlsbcrt
Final Program EIR MV 199'
TABLE 2-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Continued)
4. Mechanical ventilation shall be required for any homes adjacent to Avenida Encmac Carlsbad Boulevard, Poinsenia Tjne 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 mmTtmim of ten 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-stte land uses to traffic and railroad noise, which when combined exceed City
noise standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 through 4 will reduce die impact to a less man significant level.
No impact to off-site land uses as a result of project traffic generated noise is anticipated.
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 site has been miim^ for agricultural operations. The General Plan Master HR
requires the preparation of a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment prior to development of the site.
Mitigation Measures
1. Grading shall comply with me 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 levei less than sizmficanr.
Poinsema Properties
Final Program EIR
C/rv of Carlsbad
' ' Jui\ I99~
TABLE 2-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Continued)
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 «"rf
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 me drainage area
under consideration for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan *ha" be developed and implemented in accordance wim the City of
Carlsbad policies, and thu measure identified in tf\f Specific Plan.
3. Concurrent with submioal of the first site development permit application, the applicant shall submit a program of Best Management Practices
including structural controls and detention basins for me storm drain system for the drainage area under consideration for review and approval
by die City Engineer. The plan shall include, where feasible, die following structural controls: native vegetation desalting/detention; trash racks
in catch fru^"1*; sand/grease traps in rafr^ immy and rawh basin/guncr stenciling.
4. Prior to recondition of the Final Tract Map. the applicant shall submit a program of Best Management Practices, non-structural controls to
include, but not be limirrd to: a street sweeping and street flushing program; and community awareness and public participation programs 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, paint* solvents, or other potentially harmful chemicals into storm sewers; identification of appropriate disposal
locations for these materials, me proper use and management of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in home landscaping and gardening
practices; die impacts of littering and improper waste disposal; and the need to clean up and properly dispose of pet wastes.
impart 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-site 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-site, and conveyed to an
existing system to me 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 inroad to groundwater quality is anticipated. ^_^_____^^_
Poinsetna Properties
Final Program EIR
2-5 City of Carlsbad
Jutv 1997
TABLE 2-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Continued)
Impacts considered but found to be jess than, significant?
T-anri Use Compatibility
Population/Housing
Traffic/Circulation (project-specific)
Public Services and Utilities
Poinsettia Properties
Final Program C.IR
dry of Carlsbad
' Iui\ 199"
July 6, 1998
Note to the Environmental File of CT 97-22
The proposed project was included in the Program EIR (EIR 96-10) prepared for the Poinsettia
Properties Specific Plan, certified in January 1998. The Program EIR addressed subsequent
discretionary approvals of the specific plan, including actions such as site development plans and
coastal development permits. 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 would be required for those activities having no
effect beyond those previously analyzed in the Program EIR. As noted above, the proposed
project is consistent with the land uses, design guidelines and facility improvements required in
the specific plan. No new impacts are anticipated and no new mitigation measures are necessary,
therefore, no further environmental review is required. Through an Initial Study, the Planning
Director determined that the proposed residential project is pursuant to and in conformance with
Specific Plan 210 for which a Program EIR was prepared, therefore, the project is exempt under
Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Adrienne Landers
Principal Planner