HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 99-02; Poinsettia Properties Planning Area 7; Tentative Map (CT) (34)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 99-02. CP 99-02. CDP 99-03
DATE: June 2. 1999
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Poinsettia Properties Planning Area7
APPLICANT: Poinsettia Investors. LLC
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2777 East Camelback Road. Ste. 150,
Phoenix. AZ 85016
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: January?. 1999
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approval of a tentative tract map, condominium permit and coastal
development permit to subdivide one parcel into 3 condominium lots for 117 single famib
homes, open space areas, private streets and a recreational vehicle storage area on 18.7 acres at
the northeast 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.
I I Land Use and Planning
[~~1 Population and Housing
O Geological Problems
D Water
E<3 Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy & Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities & Service Systems
Aesthetics
|~1 Hazards |~1 Cultural Resources
I | Noise I I Recreation
I | Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
l~1 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
PI 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.
|~1 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
l"~l 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.
1X1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier Program EIR (EIR 96-01) pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. No further CEQA compliance
was required for those activities having no effect beyond those previously analyzed in the
Program EIR. No new impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project and no new
mitigation measures are necessary, therefore, no further environmental review is required. The
Planning Director determined that the proposed project is pursuant to and in conformance with
Specific Plan 210 for which a Program EIR was prepared and certified, therefore, the project is
exempt under Section 65457 of the California Government Code and a Notice of Exemption will
be issued.
Planner Signature / Date
Planning Director's Signature (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, biological and human factors that might be impacted by
the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously
approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be
explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors
as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential
impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and
policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than
Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the
circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation
measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project,
then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to
prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the
project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if
there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those
mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the
appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not
limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been
discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does
not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement
of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier
EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4)
through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a
potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a
potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form
under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to
discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Source #(s): (#1, pg. 3-13, #2,
sections I.F.3 & I.F.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
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentiall
y
Significan
t Unless
Mitigation
Incorporat
ed
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
DD
Less
Than
Signific
ant
Impact
D
D
a
a
a
No
Impac
t
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
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? (#l,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)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#1,
pgs. 5.3-1-25; #1, pgs. 7-1-7)
Potentiall
y
Significa
nt Impact
D
D
D
Potentiall
y
Significan
t Unless
Mitigation
Incorporat
ed
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less
Than
Signific
ant
Impact
D
No
Impac
t
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#1, pgs. 5.6-
1 - 10)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (#1, pgs. 5.6-1 - 10)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#1, pgs. 5.6-
1-10)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (#1, pgs. 5.6-1 - 10)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1,
pgs. 5.6-1 -10)
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:
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)
Potentiall
y
Significa
nt Impact
D
D
G
Potentiall
y
Significan
t Unless
Mitigation
Incorporat
ed
D
D
D
Less
Than
Signific
ant
Impact
D
D
D
No
Impac
t
m
m
m
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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)
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)
Potentiall
y
Significa
nt Impact
D
D
D
D
D
Potentiall
y
Significan
t Unless
Mitigation
Incorporat
ed
D
Less
Than
Signific
ant
Impact
No
Impac
t
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potential! Potentiall Less
XIII. 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? (#l,pgs. 5.9-1 -3)
c) Create light or glare? (#1, pgs. 5.9-1 - 3)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#1, pgs.
5.7-1-3)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#1, pgs.
5.7-1 - 3)
c) Affect historical resources? (#1, pgs. 5.7-1 -
3)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (#1, pgs. 5.7-1 -3)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? (#1, pgs. 5.7-
1-3)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(#2, pgs. 5.12.8-1-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(#2, pgs. 5.12.8-1-7)
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)?
y
Significa
nt Impact
D
D
y
Significan
t Unless
Mitigation
Incorporat
ed
Than
Signific
ant
Impact
No
Impac
t
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
Potentiall
y
Significan
t Unless
Mitigation
Incorporat
ed
Less
Than
Signific
ant
Impact
No
Impac
t
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause the substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
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 consists of a request for a Tentative Map, Condominium Permit, and Coastal
Development Permit for Planning Area 7 of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. The proposed
tentative map will allow for the subdivision of a 17.8 acre parcel into 3 condominium lots which will
storage 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 7 is bounded on the north
by Lanikai Mobile Home park, on the south by Poinsettia Lane, on the east by the San Diego Northern
Railroad, and on the west by the Carlsbad Boulevard and the Pacific Ocean. The site is composed of
terrain that gently slopes from the north to the southwest with a long north/south knoll running down the
center of the property. In general, elevations range east-west from 61 to 64 feet along the north end of
the site with a high point along the central knoll of 70 feet; at the center of the site the east-west
elevations are 59 to 65 feet with a center high point of 71 feet; and at the south end of the site elevations
range east-west from 57 to 60 feet with the high point of the central knoll at about 64 feet. The site also
slopes up at the southeast corner of the site near the Poinsettia Lane bridge to meet the existing street
elevation at 76 feet above mean sea level. The vacant project site has been disturbed by agricultural
operations and contains ruderal vegetation limited to non-native grasses and small shrubs.
The project site will be accessed by a new signalized turn on Carlsbad Boulevard near the north end of
the site. A secondary "resident only" access point is located near the southeast corner of the site on
Poinsettia Lane. The site design features three rows of residences situated in a linear pattern primarily
along two streets. A large lineal open space area is featured in the center of the project site and runs the
length of the site. Over 50% of the residences back up to this 1.5 acre park feature which includes both
active and passive recreational opportunities. In order to establish pedestrian movement and interaction
between the residents, the residences have been designed with front porches which open up onto tree-
lines streets and along with pathways and rear yards which provide access to the open space areas. An 8
foot wide pedestrian trail will be provided within a 40 foot wide landscape buffer along Carlsbad
Boulevard and a new trail leading to the transit station will be located between the project site and
Lanikai Mobile Home Park to the north. All public improvements and required public facilities and
improvements have been incorporated into the project design.
Preparing the site for development will include 44,822 cubic yards of cut and fill earthwork and will
require 16,674 cubic yards of import. Pad elevations at the southwest corner of the site will be
approximately the same elevation as Carlsbad Boulevard and approximately three feet above Carlsbad
Boulevard at the northwest 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 new impacts created
by this subdivision beyond those discussed in EIR 96-10 except with regard to traffic. The City's annual
Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report indicates an unanticipated intersection level of service
failure at Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This
creates a changed circumstance necessitating a mitigation measure requiring the developer to pay his fair
share towards the short-term improvement to this intersection prior to the issuance of building permits.
With this mitigation measure in place, and for the reasons noted below, no further environmental
documentation is necessary; the project is considered exempt under Section 15182 of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
AIR QUALITY:
The implementation of projects that are consistent with and 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
12 Rev. 03/28/96
the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan , therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a
"Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding
Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including
this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
AESTHETICS
The certified Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan EIR determined that there would be no significant impact
to visual aesthetics from any project within the specific plan area. When the Local Coastal Plan
amendment for the specific plan was reviewed by the Coastal Commission, a modification was added to
require a viewshed analysis examining view impacts from Interstate 5. In analyzing the view impacts on
Parcel B, the applicant prepared a viewshed analysis for Parcels A and B located on the north 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.
As noted earlier, pad elevations at the northwest corner for the site have been maintained at 3 feet above
the elevation of Carlsbad Boulevard. This slight increase is necessary to maintain positive sewer and
drainage flow and is not expected to create any adverse visual impacts.
HAZARDS
A detailed soils analysis has been submitted and indicates that there are detectable amounts of pesticides
in the soils. There are three general procedures to mitigate the presence of pesticide-affected soils for
residential purposes. These include removal, deep burial, or dilution by mixing. Based on the laboratory
test results, the recommended soils remediation method is to dilute the soils by mixing. After the site
preparation procedures associated with the proposed improvements, the amount of pesticide residue
remaining in the near surface soil would be sufficiently low so that "no significant risk" to the health and
safety of workers or residents is present.
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 7, indicates that the subject site is impacted by
railway noise from operations on the San Diego Northern Railroad 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. For
Carlsbad Boulevard, traffic volumes for the year 2015 are projected to be 25,000 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 61 to 70 CNEL and at the second floor from 64 to 70 CNELs.
Construction of a combination noise barrier consisting of a one to two foot berm and 6 foot wall will
reduce noise at the ground level to at or below 60 CNEL which is at the acceptable City level.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
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.
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
14 Rev. 03/28/96