HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 41054 .<
La
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
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4105
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A BEACH ACCESS STAIRWAY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD, BETWEEN CEREZO DRIVE AND SHORE
DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 22.
CASE NAME: JENSEN STAIRWAY
CASE NO.: SUP 96-07/CDP 96-05/HDP 97-03
WHEREAS, Jon Jensen, Developer”, has filed a verified application wit
City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Jon Jensen, “Owner”, described as
A portion of lot “H” of Rancho Agua Hedionda, Map 823 in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of May 1997,l
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staf
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all f
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Pla
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Pk
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative according to Exhibit “ND”
April 5, 1997, and “PII” dated April 2, 1997, attached hereto and made
hereof, based on the following findings:
Findin9;s:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may 1
significant impact on the environment.
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
0 0
2. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be signific
impacted by this project.
3. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzec
considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified fc
project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project. Based on thc
Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there
substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environmen
thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration.
4. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the indepe
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pla
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of May 1997, I
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Hein
Monroy, Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
/""'"
?" ".,* /J i //A
PJ
/"/ ,,&,LA<
: fn '~L"-Ya2wG;" "
A -.>
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
.. ..
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4105 -2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: West side of' Carlsbad Boulevard, between Manzano Drive and
Cerezo Drive, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
Project Description:. Construction of a public beach access stairway from the top of a
coastal bluff to the beach, traversing a privately owned residential
parcel.
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 Mike Grim in the Planning Department at
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4499.
DATED: APRIL 5,1997
CASE NO: SUP 96-07/HDP 97-03/CDP 96-06
CASE NAME: JENSEN STAIRWAY
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 5,1997
0,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carisbad, CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (GI 9) 438-0894
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SUP 96-07iHDP 97-03KDP 96-06
DATE: APRIL 2,1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: JENSEN STAIRWAY
2. APPLICANT: JON JENSEN
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 45 1 S ESCONDIDO BL, ESCONDIDO,
CA 92026
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: SEPTEMBER 25,1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a uublic beach access stairway from the top of a
coastal bluff to the beach. traversing a urivatelv owned residential Darcel.
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.
Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards
Air Quality Noise
Cultural Resources
[7 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0 DETERMINATION. - 0
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
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.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
B 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 Negative
Declaration 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 and pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to those earlier including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
/
q-247
Date u
f%/2/4 q-"
Planning Dire&?; Signdidre Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
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.
0. 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.
0 “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.
e “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.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
e 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).
e 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.
e 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
0 0
a 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 EIA-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 EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
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
landuses? (#I,, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l, pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area’
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l, pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 5.5-6)
housing? (#l, PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#I, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1, pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1 , pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 -
o 0 0
0 o 0
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
5.1-15) 0
5.1-15) 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff!
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-14)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
o
0
body? (#l, PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
5
0
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
OB
0151
urn
OB
ON
OB
OB
LIB
urn urn OB
OBI
OB urn
UIXI OB OH
UB
UBI
OB
urn
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l,
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l, pgs
pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
1 1)
5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected a& quality violation? (#l, pgs 5.3-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l, pgs 5.3-1
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l, pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#I, pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l, pgs
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#I,
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l,
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l,
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l, pgs 5.7-1 -
proposal result in:
5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
(#l, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
5.7-22)
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? (#l, pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l,
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l, pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#l, pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
6
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless t Impact
OH
0 UBI
OH
0 LIE4
0 urn
0 uta
0 OH n[XI
OH
0
0
0
17
0
OH
OH
uta
UH
OH urn
OH
UIXI
0 OH nta
0 OH
Rev. 03/28/96
0 a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l, pgs 5.4-
1 - 5.4-24) 0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l,
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resomce that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5)
proposal?
pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5) o
inefficient manner? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5) 0
E. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, 0
chemicals orradiation)? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 0
hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) 0
health hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) 0
grass, or trees? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3)
5.10.1-3)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, 0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l, pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l, pgs 15) 0
5.9-1 - 5.9-15) 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? (#l, pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l, pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) 0 0 C) Schools? (#l, PgS 5.12.7-1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l,
e) Other governmental services? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0
5.12.8-7) 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? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5)
b) Communications systems? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
0 0
facilities? (#1, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incoruorated 0
0
0
El
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0
0
171
17
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
No Impact
IXI
[XI
IXI !a
[XI
[XI
IXI
IXI
IXI
[XI
IXI
IXI la
[XI IXI
El
El [XI [XI
7 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l, pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 0 0
5.12.3-7)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare? 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l, pgs 5-130 - 5-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l, pgs 5-130 - 5-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
131; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, PgS 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 0
131; #2, PgS 4-157 - 4-167; #3, PgS 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 0 0
0
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l, pgs 0 0
potential impact area? (#l, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 0 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l, pgs 5.12.8-1 - 0 0
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 0
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? 0 0
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, 0 0
either directly or indirectly?
8
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
n[xI nIxI om OM
OIXI n[xI n[xI
om n[xI
OB OH
om
u[xI
0.m
om
UBI
om
Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis has been conducted through the Master Environmental Impact Report for the
1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), which reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of
the City’s General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts. Since the project
involves only the placement of a beach access stairway, the potential impacts in the areas of land
use and planning, population and housing, transportation and circulation, biological resources,
energy and mineral resources, hazards, public services, utilities and service systems and cultural
resources have also already been discussed and addressed in the Master Environmental Impact
Report. Therefore, with regard to these potential impacts, there will be no additional significant
effects due to this development that were not analyzed in the MEIR and no new or additional
mitigation measures or alternatives are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in
the previous MEIR which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY
The proposed beach access stairway and the project site have undergone several geotechnical
investigations. The geotechnical reports for the project were conducted by Geotechnical
Incorporated, dated September 3, 1996; ICG Incorporated, dated November 6, 1989; and
Converse Consultants, dated September 20, 1984. All reports were subjected to a peer review
and approved by LawKrandall, Incorporated in an April 15, 1997 correspondence (all on file
with the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department). The reports found that, as designed, no
significant geologic or hydrologic impacts will occur due to the construction and use of the
proposed beach access stairway.
AESTHETICS
The proposed beach access will be visible from the beach and ocean as it will be constructed on
the coastal bluff. The project has been designed to reduce visual impacts on the bluff by
recessing into the bluff and providing landscaping. The recessing of the stairway into the bluff
will reduce visual impacts by minimizing the amount of the structure that is visible from the
beach and ocean. The provision of landscaping will soften the potentially stark stairway and
blend the structure into the existing sporadic vegetative cover of the coastal bluff. Therefore, no
significant visual impacts will result from the proposed project.
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”. Ths 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
10 Rev. 03/28/96
b e e
a hrther environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
i Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 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 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,
pedestian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
11 Rev. 03/28/96