The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-03-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 38871 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. 3887 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PRIOR COMPLIANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF EIGHT (8) MOBILE CLASSROOMS. CASE NAME: ST. PATRICK'S SCHOOL CLASSROOM CASE NO: CUP 204(C) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of Februar and the 6th day of March, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed b: consider said request, on property owned by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Sal (Owner), and described as: ADDITIONS That portion of Tract 236 in Thum Lands in City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, according to Map 1681 filed December 14, 1915. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te! and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by st considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the PI I Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the P. Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration accorc Exhibit "ND", dated November 3,1995, and "PII", dated October 16,19! the Addendum dated January 23, 1996, attached hereto and made hereof, based on the following findings: I I 1 Findings: ~ 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project mi ~ a significant impact on the environment. 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 0 0 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental a 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be signi impacted by this project. 5. Planning Commission finds that: a. the project is a subsequent project (slight expansion of an existing within the scope of MEIR 93-01 as described in CEQA Guidelines 15168(c)(2) and (e); b. the project is consistent with the C-T-Q Zoning District and the Con( Use Regulations; c. there was an EIR (MEIR 93-01) certified in connection with the prior c General Plan Update; d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not anal4 significant in the prior EIR; and e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or a Supplemental EIF CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 exist. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... PC RES0 NO. 3887 -2- 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 I 0 a PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Erwin, Monroy, 1 Noble, Savary, and Welshons NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None fh!! &?&+./@ WILLIAM COMPAS, Cha6person CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 3887 -3- 0 a - NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: On the west side of Pi0 Pic0 Drive between Tamarack Avenue and Magnolia PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The installation of eight modular classroom units over a period of several years on a site currently developed with a school and church campus 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 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackbum in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1 161, extension 4471, DATED: NOVEMBER 3, 1995 v CASE NO: CUP m(c) Planning Director CASE NAME: ST. PATRICK'S SCHOOL CLASSROOM ADDITION PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 1995 MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER EB: kr 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 0 (619) 438-1 161 0 0 January 23, 1996 ADDENDUM TO EL4 PART I1 DATED OCTOBER 16,1995: The Planning Department has determined that the subject project (the addition of modula~ classroom units to the existing church/school campus) will require approval of a Site Development Plan (SDP) in addition to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requested in the original project application. Staff has reviewed the potential environmental impacts resulting from this additional requirement and has concluded that the original environmental impac analysis (the EIA Part 11) is still adequate. The findings necessary to approve an SDP arc essentially the same as those required to approve a CUP. The project description is stil correct and complete. The only change is the procedural requirement for the additional permit approval (the SDP). Therefore, although the SDP requirement was not identified in the original project description, staff has reconsidered the EIA Part I1 in light of this requirement and has determined that the EIA Part I1 is still an adequate and complete analysis of the proposed project. No revision or amendment to the Negative Declaration issued on November 3, 1995. e e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CUP 204 DATE: October 1 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: St. PatricKs School Classroom Addition 2. APPLICANT Doug Fess (for Don Edson Architects) 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5752 Oberlin Dr., Suite 104. San Die 92121, (619) 452-1860 4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: June 8.1995 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of eight modular classroom units over a period of seve on a site containing an existing school and church campus SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involvin one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless M 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. 3/28/95 0 . DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). e On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATI DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a sigmficant effect on he envkoment, there will be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have k 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 potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicz legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as descril on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATI( 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 N' be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequat in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) h; been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIG including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Not of Prior Compliance has been prepared. - - /s. /?4S Date lo/ I ./qg Date I 2 Rev. 3/28/95 0 * . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Envi Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Envb 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 in to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Dt or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except liNo Impact” answers that are adequate supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impac answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simr does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained wh there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as gene] standards. e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential imp is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policic * “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigatic measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significa Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigatic 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 significant. e Based on an “EU-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on t: environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1 or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided 1 mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions ( mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstancl requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures requirt by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepa an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicab standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has bet made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the projec or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 3/28/95 e 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 appropria “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigatc Negative Declaration may be prepared. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limite to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed ( 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 significant; (2) a “Statement of Overridin Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) propose mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EU-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 for DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to di mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 3/28/95 a a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS LessTban Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 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 Information Sources): d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic 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 5.1-11) h) Expansive soils? (1:Pg 5.1-12) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1:Pg 5.1 1- 1, 11-4) IV. 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? (l:Pg 5.2-8) 6 a Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 3/28/95 e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 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/CIRCULATION. 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 uses? (1:Pg 5.7-10 through 5.7-15) - - - d) Insufficient parking capacity on-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 0 Issues (and Supporting Information 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) - d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1 :Pg 5.4-21) - e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1:Pg 5.4-21) - 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) - Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated - - - - - - - - - Less Than Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - 8 Rev. 3/28/95 e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact X. 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 5.10.2-4 through 2-8) - - - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hamd? (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 5.12.5-4) - - - 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 a 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact XII. UTILITlES 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 5.12.1-4,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 5.1 1-1,11-4; 1:Pg 5.7-15) - b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1:Pg 5.11-1,ll-4) - c) Create light or glare? (1:Pg 5.10.3-1) - XIV. 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 unless Mitigation Incorporated - - - - - - - - - - - _. - - LessThan Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 Rev. 3/28/95 0 a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant 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? - Potentially Significant UllleSS Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 Rev. 3/28/95 a a . XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA proce more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration, 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 reviev b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, 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, the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and . to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 12 Rev. 3/28/95 @ 0 ~ DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project is the installation of a total of eight modular classroom units over a period c years on a site currently developed with a school and church campus. The site is in an urbani: Another school is located immediately adjacent to the subject development, II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: A. Non-Relevant Items I. Land Use And Planning b) The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations on the site. 1 no other environmental documents (except CEQA) which are applicable to the projecl e) There is no established or planned residential community on or adjacent to the subject L site is in a fully urbanized area. 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 approva the project be approved. XU. 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 Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of r and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in t as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basj additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to 1 as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air qualit; region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mi1 measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadw 13 Rev. 3/28/95 0 e intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trip; the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to e alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to prosnote enqy building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adop applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporate( design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impa project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required bec certification of Final Master ETR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a Watt Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’ to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, t no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Department. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-tra which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas a intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at 1 To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous rn measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the p of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportat: as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traf a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdj the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures ha7 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 fa. intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the Gener; therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIE by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for cir impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects coveret General Plan’s Master Em, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circ impacts is required. IU. SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (Note: all of the source documents are on file 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 WEIR City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994. 14 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 * LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF 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 MEASURES AND CONCUR WTH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 16 Rev. 3/28/95