The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-11-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 38381 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 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3838 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A THROUGH FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH OF HAYMAR DRIVE. CASE NAME: KOOTERS BARBECUE CASE NO: CUP 95-10 WHEREAS, Fancher Development Services has filed a verified appl with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; an WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Con( CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DRIVE- Use Permit as provided by Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the PI Commission did, on the 15th day of November, 1995, hold a duly noticed public he2 consider said application on property described as: Parcels 1 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 4838, being a portion of Lots 4 and 5 of Fractional Section 32, Township 11 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, recorded June 18,1976. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tes and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considc factors relating to CUP 95-10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Com DENIES Conditional Use Permit, CUP 95-10, based on the following fi 1 .... .... I 1 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 28 I 0 0 Findings: 1. The requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the corn is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the gene1 but IS detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the which the proposed use is to be located because the drive-through facility w( comply with Engineering policies requiring minimum queuing distance ani block required parking spaces belonging to all occupants of the center in cc 2. The site €or the intended use is NOT adequate in size and shape to accomma use because the site with the existing building cannot accommodate the p drive-through lane without violating the City’s Engineering policy requir provision of adequate queuing distance and access to parking spaces anc aisles. 3. All of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features nece adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighb WILL NOT be provided and maintained because the project would not adequate internal circulation and the minimum queuing distance necessary drive-through and would not maintain the accessibility of all existing parking 4. The street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle al generated by the proposed use because the surrounding streets were desi] accommodate the traffic generated by the shopping center when at full occu .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ~ PC RES0 NO. 3838 -2- 0 0 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 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of Nu 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, MonroT and Savary NOES: Commissioner Erwin ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen ABSTAZN: None ATTEST: KIM M~ELSHONS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSIC 8 Planning Director/ PC RES0 NO. 3838 -3- II NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South side of Haymar Drive East of Good Guys. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a drive-through lane on an existing 6,000 square foot building in an existing shopping center. 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 Planning Department within 20 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1 161, extension 4471. DATED: OCTOBER 13, 1995 CASE NO: CUP 95-10 Planning Director CASE NAME: KOOTERSBARBECUE PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1995 EB: kr 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CUP 95- DATE: October BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Kooter‘s Barbecue 2. APPLICANT: Fancher DeveloDment Services 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT 1342 Bell Avenue, Suite 3K. Tustin, C (714) 258-1808 4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: July 21. 1995 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a drive-through lane on an existing 6,000 sauare foot bu a restaurant use SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involvG one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless fi Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Land Use and Planning - X Transportation/Circulation - Public Services - Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service - Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics - Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources - X Air Quality - Noise - Recreation - Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 312819 0 m . DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGAW DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have bc 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least c potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applical legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as descrit on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATX 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 Nc be a significant effect in this case because all potentially sipficant effects (a) have been analyzed adequatc in an earlier EIR I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) h; been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / "IGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIC including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Not of Prior Compliance has been prepared. )D-)D/ 95 Date s IOIr0 1.i 5- Planning DirectoMgnatdd Date 2 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Envh Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Envh Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with inf to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Dec or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequate1 supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “NO Impaci answer is adequately supported if the referenced information soufces show that the impact simp1 does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained whe there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as geners Standards. e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impac is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policie! e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigatio~ measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact’’ to a “Less Than Significan Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigatio~ measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. e “Potentially Significant Impact’’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect i significant. b Based on an “EIA-Part IT’, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on th~ environment, but glJ 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 01 mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions 01 mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstance! requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures requirec by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additiona environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). e When “Potentially Significant Impact’’ is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepart an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicablt standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has beer made pursuant to that earlier Em. 0 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. 3/28/95 0 0 -. If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if the] are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigatic measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the approprial “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigate Negative Declaration may be prepared. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Signifcant Impact” is checked, and including but not limite to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially sigmfkant effect has not been discussed 4 mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree 1 mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than si@lcant; (2) a “Statement of Ovenidh Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier Em, (3) propost mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or, (4) through the EIA-Pa II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, ( determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect 1 below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fo~ DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to d mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 3/28/91 0 0 Issues (and supporting "mation sources): Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impect I I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1:Pg 5.6-9, 5.6-10) - - - b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? - - - c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1:Pg 5.6-9, 5.6-10) - - - d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1:Pg 5.13-6) - - - e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? - - - II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1:Pg 5.5-3) - - - b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1:Pg 5.5-3) - - - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1 :Pg 5.5-3) - - - III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1:Pg 5.1-12) - - - b) Seismic ground shaking? (1:Pg 5.1-12) - - - c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1:Pg 5.1-12) - - - 5 Rev. 3/28/95 0 . Issues (and supporting Infcamatia sources): dl Seiche, tsunami, or voIcanic hazard? (1:Pg 5.10.1- 4) e) Landslides or mudflows? (1:Pg 5.1-12) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1:Pg 5.1-13) g) Subsidence of the land? (1:Pg 5.1- 1 1) h) Expansive soils? (1:Pg 51-12) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1:Pg 5.1 1- 1, 11-4) N. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1:Pg 5.2-8) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1:Pg 5.10.1-4) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (1:Pg 5.2-8) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1:Pg 5.10.1-4) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1:Pg 5.2-8) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1 :Pg 5.2-8) 6 0 Potentially Significant Potentially UIlleSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 Issues (and supporting Infonnatian sources): Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS LessTban significant Mitigation Significaut Impact Incorpated Impact Ii h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1:Pg 5.2-8) - - - i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (1 :Pg 5.2-8) - - - V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? - X - - b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1:Pg 5.3- 4, 3-7) - - - c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (1:Pg 5.3-4, 3-7) - - - d) Create objectionable odors? (1:Pg 5.3-4, 3-7) - - - VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCLJLATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? - X - - b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (1:Pg 5.7-10 through 5.7- 15) - - - c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby UXS? (1:Pg 5.7-10 through 5.7-15) - - - d) Insufficient parking capacity 0;-site or off-site? (1:Pg 5.7-10 through 5.7-15) - - - e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1:Pg 5.7-10 through 5.7-15) - - - f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1:Pg 5.7-10 through 5.7-15) - - - 7 Rev. 3/28/95 0 a Issues (and supporting Infarmation sources): Potentially Significant Impact g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1:Pg 5.7- 10 through 5.7-15) - 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 :Pg 5.4-21) - b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1 :Pg 5.4-2 1) - c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1:Pg 5.4-21) - Potentially Significant Unless Less% Mitigation Significant Incorporated hpct - - - - - - - - d) Wetland habitat (e-g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1:Pg 5.4-21) - - - e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1:Pg 5.4-2 1) - - - VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1:Pg 5.12.1-5) - - - b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (1:Pg 5.13-6) - - - 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? (1:Pg 5.13-6) - - - 8 Rev. 3/28/95 0 * Issues (and supporting Information sources): Potentially Silcant Potenrially Unless LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Inaxpmated Impact h E. 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:Pg 5.10.2-4 through 2-8) - - - b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1:Pg 5.10.24 through 2-8) - - - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1:Pg 5.10.2-4 through 2-8) - - - d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (1:Pg 5.10.2-4 through 2-8) - - - e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (1:Pg 5.12.54) - - - X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1:Pg 5.9-9,9- 12) - - - b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1:Pg 5.9-9,9-12) - - - 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:Pg 5.12.5-4) - - - b) Police protection? (1:Pg 5.12.6-2) - - - C) Schools? (1:Pg 5.12.7-4) - - - d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _. - - e) Other governmental services? (1:Pg 5.3-3) - - - 9 Rev. 3/28/95 0 a Issues (and Supporting Infamatian sourceS): Potentially Significant Impact 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? (1:Pg 5.12.14,l-5) - b) Communications systems? - c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1:Pg 5.12.2-5) - d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1:Pg 5.12.3-3) - e) Storm water drainage? (1:Pg 5.2-8) - f) Solid waste disposal? (1:Pg 5.12.4-2) - g) Local or regional water supplies? (1:Pg 5.12.2-5) - XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1:Pg 5.11-1,114; 1:Pg 5.7-15) - b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1:Pg 5.11-1,114) - c) Create light or glare? (1:Pg 5.10.3-1) - XN. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1:Pg 5.8-7) - b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1:Pg 5.8-7) - c) Affect historical resources? (1:Pg 5.8-7) - d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1 :Pg 5.8-7) - Potentially Significant UdeSS Mitigation Inanprated - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LessThan Significant Impact 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 Rev. 3/28/9! e 0 Issues (and supporting Infmnatim sources): Potentially Potentially UdeSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant SigDifii Impact Incorporated Impact e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1:Pg 5.8-7) - - - XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1:Pg 5.12.8- 6) - - - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1:Pg 5.12.8-6) - - - XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? - - - 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 substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - - 11 Rev. 3/28/91 a @ XW. 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 b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were review. 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. 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. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation a 12 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project is the construction of a drive-through lane on an existing 6,000 quare foot bl a shopping center.' The use of the building would then be restaurant rather than the current r( Although the restaurant use is more intense than the previous retail use, the City currently allows I uses in shopping centers. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: A. Non-Relevant Iter& I. Land Use And Planning b) The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations on the site. The other environmental documents (except CEQA) which are applicable to the project site. e) There is no established or planned residential community on or adjacent to the subject site. is fully developed with commercial uses. IV. Water e) There are no water bodies on or adjacent to the site. XI. Public Services d) All necessary public services are available or will be provided as a condition of approval SI project be approved. XII.' Utilities And Services Systems b) All necessary utilities and services systems are available. B. Environmental Impact Discussion V. AIR QUALITY The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 Gen( will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequenl in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and SUI suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as ir Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emis considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the General Plan will have cumulative signifkant 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 f11 measures are recommended in the Final Master Em. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and int 13 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 7 improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips thr( implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage a] modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy eficient buildin1 design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applic appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of tl or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located withi attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. “hi is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the cer of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of 0 Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all su projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further envirc review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUATION The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 Gen will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build01 however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over M City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major inte; along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of inte 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 E measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measires to ensure the pro’ circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) partici: regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Ink State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to conb applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively signifhnt because of the failure of inter at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparati EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolu 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Stater Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, il this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. III. SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (Note: all of the source documents are on frle in the Planning Department at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161.) 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEII City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994. 14 Rev. 3128195 e e ' LIST MITIGATING MEASURES W APPLICABLE) N/A ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) N/A 15 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASUR: AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF WSE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 16 Rev. 3/28/95