HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-16; Design Review Board; Resolution 2511
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 251
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW MIXED USE COMMERCIAL BUILDING INCLUDING
RETAIL, WORKSHOP SPACE AND FOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS
AT 507 PINE STREET IN LAND USE DISTRICT 5 OF THE
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
CASE NAME: SCHILLING MIXED USE PROJECT
APN: 204-08 1-0 1
CASE NO: RP 95-05
WHEREAS, John Schilling, “Developer” has filed a verified application with the
Housing and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by
John Schilling, “Owner”, described as Lots 17, 18 and 19 in Block 31, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 535, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1888 (“the property); and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 18th day of September, 1996 and
on the 16” day of October, 1996, held duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to
consider said request for a Negative Declaration; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing and upon considering all testimony and
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review
Board as follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design Review
Board hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to the one page notice and the EIA Part I1 Form attached hereto and
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
FINDINGS:
1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Negative Declaration (Rp 95-05), the environmental impacts therein
identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to approving the project.
Based on the EIA Part-I1 and comments thereon, the Design Review Board finds that
there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the
environment and thereby recommends approval of the Negative Declaration.
2. The Design Review Board finds that the Negative Declaration (RP 95-05) reflects the
independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of the initial study, EIA Part 11, and
Negative Declaration, which may be found at the City of Carlsbad Community
Development Building, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California in the custody of
the City Clerk, Director of Planning.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of October, 1996, by the
following vote to wit:
AYES: Design Review Board Members: Compas, Marquez, Savary & Scheer.
NOES: Chairperson Welshons.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
KIM \kELSHONS, Chairperson
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
EVAN E. BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
DRB RES0 NO. 25 1
PAGE 2
1 - t iq 1 SL
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: 507 Pine Street
Project Description: Two-story mixed use project with 4 1-bedroom
apartments, 1,537 square feet of retail space; 1,851
square feet of workshop space; enclosed parking for
four vehicles; open parking for nine vehicles; and
associated landscaping. Grading proposed totals 1 2
cubic yards of cut and 128 cubic yards of fill requiring
11 6 cubic yards of import.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above
described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City
of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the
project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for
the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning
Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009.
Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the
I Planning Department within 21 days of date of issuance. If you have any
questions, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning Department at (61 9) 438-1 161 ,
extension 4457.
DATED: AUGUST 2, 1996
CASE NO: RP 95-05
CASE NAME: PINE STREET PROJECT
PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 2, 1996
M.II1 Hti 111
Planning Director
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: RP 95-05
DATE: 7-29-96
BACKGROUND
1.
2. APPLICANT: John Schilling
3.
CASE NAME: Pine Street Proiect
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: PO box 4 17 Carlsbad CA 92008 (6 19)
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMI’rTED: 12-20-95
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Mixed use proiect which includes 4 residential units, 1537 square
feet of retail space and 185 1 square feet of workshop space at 507 Pine Street
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.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
[7 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
f- DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
X
cl
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
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. An
[-] is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier [[b pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier [m] , including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planning Director’s Signature Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMP^. ., rs
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 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but 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.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
,I r
e 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.
e 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 EV,-Part I1 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 EV*iLUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan No Significan Impact
t Impact
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (1,2)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (1,2)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (1)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (1)
(1)
0 0
0
0 ix1
0 €4
0
0
0
0
0 1x1
0 €4
0 0 0 IXI
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (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)? (2)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (2)
CI
0
0
0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (2)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (2)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (2)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (2)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (2)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (2)
g) Subsidence of the land? (2)
h) Expansive soils? (2)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (2)
0 0 0 0 0 0
I13 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (2)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (2)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (2)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (2)
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
5 Rev. 03/28/96
-
* Issues (and Supporting Informati jources).
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (2)
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? (2)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (2)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (2)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (2)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (2)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (2)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (2)
d) Create objectionable odors? (2)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (2)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (2)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(2)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (2)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (2)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (2)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (2)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (1)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1)
a)
(1)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
cl
0 0 0
. ten ti ally Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0 0 IXI
0 0 €3
0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 [XI
0 IXI 0 IXI
0 IXI
0 €3 0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI 0 IXI 0 [XI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI 0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96 6
-
atentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
0 0
0 0
-
* Issues (and Supporting Informat. Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
Use non-renewable resources in a wastehl and
inefficient manner? (2)
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)
IXI
IXI
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)? (1,2)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (1,2)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (1,2)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( 1,2)
IXI 0 0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
IXI
(x1
Ixl
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (2)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (2) 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI 0
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? (2)
b) Police protection? (2)
c) Schools? (2)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (2)
e) Other governmental services? (2)
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
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)
b) Communications systems? (2)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (2)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (2)
e) Storm water drainage? (2)
f) Solid waste disposal? (2)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (2)
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
(x1 IXI IXI
IXI IXI IXI IXI
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
7 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Informat. Sources).
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (1,2)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (1,2)
Create light or glare? (1,2)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (2)
Disturb archaeological resources? (2)
Affect historical resources? (1,2)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (1,2)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1,2)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
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)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
- otentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 0
0 0 a 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Village Master Plan and Design Manual, effective date January 12, 1996.
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
This document is
available for review at the Housing and Redevelopment Office, 2965 Roosevelt, Suite B, Carlsbad, CA
92008.
2. Final Master EIR for The City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (EIR 93-01), March, 1994. This
document is available for review at the City of Carlsbad, Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive,
Carlsbad CA 92009.
8 Rev. 03/28/96
-
_1
Earlier analyses ma, 2 used where, pursuant to the tiering, pldgram EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
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 fiom the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRL MENTAL EVALUATION
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The project is a mixed use 4 unit residential over 1537 square foot retail and 1851 square foot
workshop with four garages and associated open parking and landscaping at 507 Pine Street.
The General Plan is V for Village Redevelopment and the Zoning is VR for Village
Redevelopment. The project is in complete accord with the surrounding land uses of residential,
commercial, and light industrial. There is no farmland in the immediate vicinity. The lot is
presently vacant.
POPULATION AND HOUSING:
Properties within the vicinity of the project with residential development have been developed
within the RMH General Plan residential density ranges of up to 15 dwelling units per acre. The
project is proposing 14.8 dwelling units per acre. The site is presently vacant so no existing
housing will be displaced.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS:
The General Plan indicates no unusual problems with this Pleistocene Beach Terrace.
WATER
The site is presently vacant. The development of the .27 acre infill site will take advantage of the
completely developed infrastructure so that there will be no impact.
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 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.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
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 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no Mer environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
There are no biological resources present on site.
NOISE
The project is within the noise impact area from the railroad corridor. The building department
will ensure that construction meets the interior noise requirements for dwelling units per the
plancheck process. There are no adopted outdoor standards for apartment projects as there is no
required open space.
11 Rev. 03/28/96