The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-06-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 4113c 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 e PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4113 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AN ADDENDUM TO MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 93-01 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF AN 18.3 ACRE PARCEL FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY AND REVISE PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AVIARA PLANNING AREA 23 LOCATED NORTH OF AVIARA PARKWAY, WEST AND EAST OF BLACK RAIL COURT IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 19. CASE NAME: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 23 CASE NO. : MP 177(R)/GPA 96-02/LCPA 96-02 WHEREAS, Aviara Land Associates, “Developer”, has filed a ve application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Aviara Land Assoc “Owner”, described as: A portion of Section 22,26, 27,28, 33, and 34 in Township 12 South, Range 4 West, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad certified EIR 93-01 on September 6,1991 WHEREAS, the addendum to EIR 93-01 as described in the attached e “EIR 93-01 addendum #2” indicates that the EIR 93-01 project description is amended ar the requested land use change will not alter impacts as described and mitigated by EIR caused by development of the subject site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of June 1997, duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all test and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by stal 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 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fi relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Pla~ Commission as follqws: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Pla Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative accc to Exhibit "ND" dated May 3, 1997, and "PII" dated May 1, 1997, att hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may k significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis. 3. The streets have been or are secured to be improved to an adequate size to 1 traffic generated by the proposed use. 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be signifi impacted by the project. 5. The change in land use will not have any significant impact on the environmenl ... ... ... ... ... ~ ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 41 13 -2- 1 e 0 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pla I 2 3 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of June 1997, k 4 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Heineman, Monroy, 3 5 Savary and Welshons 6 7 NOES: None 8 10 9 ABSENT: Commissioner Compas ABSTAIN: None /<.*s=-,- -;."-9; ': ,," z *.<.*'. //>- AH' 11 /ys \, c // ( 12 ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson 13 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ATTEST: Planning Director 28 PC RES0 NO. 41 13 -3- 0 af 93-01 ADDENDUM #2 JUNE 4,1997 ADDENDUM TO MEIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION A request has been made to change the General Plan Land Use designation of an 18.3 acre parcel of land from Neighborhood Commercial to Residential Medium Density. The effect is a change to the EIR 93-01 project description to include the potential development of the 18.3 acre piece as Residential Medium Density versus Neighborhood Commercial. CHANGE IN IMPACTS There will be no significant change in impacts. The proposed land use, Residential Medium Density, will have the same or similar development standards as the original land use designation. The development potential of the site will not be increased nor will it be decreased by virtue of the land use change. The use of the property as a residential site will substantially lower the overall traffic generation. The expected number of average daily trips for the existing land use approvals (120,000 square feet of commercial square footage) would be approximately 8,400 ADT whereas the largest permitted residential project on the site (142 units) would generate approximately 1,136 ADT. The net effect will be a reduction in impacts because there will be less traffic on surrounding roads and intersections and an incremental decrease in the cumulative contribution to air quality. NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddressLocation: North side of Aviara Parkway, east and west of Black Rail Court, in Planning Area 23 of the Aviara Master Plan, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. Project Description: Master Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment and General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation and development standards from Neighborhood Commercial to Residential Medium Density. 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 fiom 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: MAY 3,1997 CASE NO: MP P 77(R)/GPA 96-02LCPA 96-02 CASE NAME: AVIARA PLANNING AREA 23 PUBLISH DATE: MAY 3,1997 MICHAEL J. HULZMELER Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: MP 177(R)/GPA 96-02LCPA 96-02 DATE: May 1, 1997 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Aviara Planning Area 23 2. APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 201 1 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206, Carlsbad CA 92009 (760) 93 1-1 190 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 27,1996 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on a 18.3 acre parcel (Planning Area 23) from Neighborhood Commercial to Residential Medium Density and a Master Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the allowed uses and development standards of Planning Area 23 from neighborhood commercial to multifamily residential, on property generally located north of Aviara Parkway, both east and west of Black Rail Court 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 0 Population and Housing Biological Resources 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 1 Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. e e .. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) [x] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 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. 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. 0 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 pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. flAA Planner Signature ~. Date <-/9,7 q 5/1 /q 7 Planning Director's Sign"afinre Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 0 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. 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. e “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 fiom “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. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. 0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but fl 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. 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. 03/28/96 0 e I. 0 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. 0 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 .a 0 I. 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): 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? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 CI 0 Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact CI Kl 0 [XI o w o w 0 IXI 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 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? 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 body? - 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 17 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 IXI w o w 0 w cl [XI 0 [XI CI [XI 0 w 0 w 0 w o w 0 [x] 0 w 0 [XI 0 IXI 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? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? existing or projected air quality violation? VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 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? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? proposal? 6 0 Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI o w cl [XI 0 [XI 0 w 0 [XI 0 [XI o w 0 Kl 0 [XI 0 w o w 0 [XI 0 w 0 El 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI Rev. 03/28/96 e. 0 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). ’* Potentially Significant Impact b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 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? 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 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)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 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? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? 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? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? facilities? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 7 Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact 0 IXI 0 €4 0 €4 w 0 IXI w 0 w o [XI 0 w o w IXI 0 IXI o [XI w 0 w 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 IXI w Rev. 03/28/96 -4 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). ‘. a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the would affect unique ethnic cultural values? potential impact area? XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. 0 Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact o w o w 0 [XI 0 w 0 (XI cl El 0 Ixi w 0 El w 0 w 0 Ixl w 8 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed land use change involves a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment that would change Aviara Planning Area 23 from a commercial site to a multifamily residential site. The site is located north of Aviara Parkway and is split into two sections by Black Rail Court. Partially developed with the Aviara Information Center, Planning Area 23 is mostly a vacant, previously graded area. Adjacent to the graded pad is an SDG&E easement that contains the master plan recreational vehicle storage area and natural open space. To the north of the site are the Zone 20 agricultural properties and to the east is a natural open space areas. West of the site is a small open space area and Aldea (Planning Area 16), a townhome condominium development and to the south is Marea (Planning Area 12), a clustered single family condominium development. Aviara Planning Area 23 is zoned Planned Comrnunity (P-C) and designated Neighborhood Commercial (N) in the City’s General Plan. Changing the development potential of Aviara Planning Area 23 from a 120,000 square foot commercial center to a 142 unit multifamily condominium project will result in a reduction in traffic generation by over 7,000 average daily trips. The existing commercial land use could potentially generate 8,400 average daily trips (based upon 70 trips per 1,000 square feet) whereas the proposed residential land use could generate up to 1,136 average daily trips (based upon 8 trips per condominium unit). Considering that the site is previously graded, no biological resources exist on site and the traffic generation would be greatly reduced, the proposed Aviara Planning Area 23 land use change will not have a significant negative impact on the environment. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: The requested land use change will not have a direct environmental effect. However, it is anticipated that there will be development subsequent to the land use change. There are no known conditions on site that would expose future development to geologic or hydrologic hazards of any sort. Grading for any future development must be in accordance with City Engineering Standards and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Standards. No beach or water body exist on or near the project site therefore no impacts to surface waters or the flow of existing waters will result due to the land use change. Future development will not create a significant change to air flow, movement, or temperature and may not consume great quantities of natural resources, fuel or energy. Future development will be required to obtain gas and/or electric service from San Diego Gas and Electric and will be charged the appropriate service fees. 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. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 . 0 0 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 93-0 1, 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. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT The site is currently in a disturbed state as a result of previous grading. There are no sensitive species of plants or animals within the area of potential development of the site. There is also no evidence that there will be adverse impacts to the biological environment offsite as a result of development. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT: The proposed land use change will have no negative impact on the availability of neighborhood commercial opportunities or housing stock since both land use opportunities are still abundant in the southwest quadrant. The land use change will substantially reduce the amount of traffic generated by the eventual development of the site. All of the utility services required by development will be provided by standard methods. The amount of light and glare produced by a residential project will likely be less than from a commercial development and no significant scenic views of or from the site should be affected. No recreational opportunities exist on site however the any residential development on the site must include private recreational amenities for residents. 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) 10 Rev. 03/28/96 . 0 e 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, I 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 further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. 11 Rev. 03/28/96