Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 4193II 9 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ?? PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4193 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 DENSITY ALLOTMENTS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES FOR AVIARA PLANNING AREAS 18, 19 AND 20 LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AMBROSIA LANE, NORTH AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 19. CASE NAME: AVIARA PHASE I11 NORTH CASE NO.: MP 177(U)/GPA 97-06/LCPA 97-06 WHEREAS, Aviara Land Associates, “Developer”, has filed a application with the City of Carlsbad for a Master Plan Amendment, General Plan An- and Local Coastal Program Amendment regarding property owned by Aviara Land As “Owner”, described as Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Carlsbad Tract 92-03, Unit 1, according to Map No 13434, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on June 23,1997, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California; (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration on Oc 1997; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad certified EIR 93-01 on September 6,l WHEREAS, the addendum to EIR 93-01 as described in the attache( LL II 23 24 25 26 27 28 “EIR 93-01 addendum # 5’’ indicates that the EIR 93-01 project description is mer that the requested land use designation change will not alter impacts as described and r by EIR 93-01 caused by development of the subject site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of Novemb hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and )I P 9 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 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all t’ and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by : considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a relating to the Negative Declaration and the addendum to EIR 93-01. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Addendul Master EIR, according to Exhibit “EIR 93-01 ADDENDUM #5’ November 5, 1997, the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “N1 October 6,1997, and “PII” dated September 3,1997, attached hereto anc part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project ma 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 tc traffic generated by the proposed use. 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be sign impacted by the project. 5. The change in land use designation will not have any significant impacl environment. ... ~ ... ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 4193 -2- a 0 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the : 2 3 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of November 199 4 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners, Compas, Ht 5 Monroy, Noble, Savary and Welshons 6 7 NOES: None 8 ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 9 10 11 12 ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson 13 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 14 15 16 d."-: "" \ . .I .. ! 6- * .. > ~ 3,c;&&"J 1 . f ...e; - ATTEST: 17 MICHAEL J~OL&ILLER 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4193 -3- NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddressLocation: East of Ambrosia Lane, north and south of Poinsettia Lane Aviara Phase 111, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. Project Description: Request for a Master Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendm and Local Coastal Program Amendment to revise planning a boundaries, development standards and density allotments for 1 multi-family residential Planning Areas 18,19 and 20 in the Avir Master Plan. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projl pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act a the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on t environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in t Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planni Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public 2 invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of ds of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department (760) 438-1 161, extension 4499. DATED: OCTOBER 6,1997 CASE NO: MP 177(U)/GPA 97-06LCPA 97-06 CASE NAME: AVIARA PHASE I11 NORTH PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 6,1997 Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-11 61 - FAX (760) 438-089. e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: MP 177(U)/GPA 97-06LCPA 974 DATE: September 3. 1997 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Aviara Phase I11 North 2. APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NISMBER OF APPLICANT: 201 1 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 201 Carlsbad CA 92009 (760) 93 1- 1190 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: July 10,1997 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Master Plan Amendment, General Pls Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to revise planning area boundarie development standards and density allotments for Planning Areas 18, 19 and 20 in Pha. 111 of the Aviara Master Plan. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impac Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Transportatiodcirculation 0 Public Services Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems c] Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics c] Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 e DETERMINATION. 0 (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on t environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on t environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatit measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIJ DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 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 least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earli document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is require 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 tl environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential: significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicab standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, includir revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefor a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. A 44 lanner Signature 4/e/47- Planning Directow Sign&e Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the C conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a signific; effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followj pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negati Declaration, 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 2 adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informati sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that t potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt general standards and policies. e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatic of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and tl City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tl effect to a less than significant level. e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that : effect is significant. e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa~ effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicab standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigate Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upc the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to ( supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pric environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additiox environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily require to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier E11 pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement ( Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence ths the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, a those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In tl case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includil but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, su the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not redu the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is n possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tl form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determinc 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): 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 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? 0 b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an 0 undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 0 111. 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? 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or b) Exposure of people or property to water related c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of the rate and amount of surface runoff? 0 hazards such as flooding? 0 surface water quality (eg. temperature, dissolved 0 oxygen or turbidity)? 5 a Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 cl cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 Less Than No Significan Impac t Impact 0 IXI 0 w 0 w 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 !XI 0 w 0 [XI 0 Ix1 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 IxI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [x1 0 [XI 0 El 0 [XI Rev. 03/28/96 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 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? 0 0 0 0 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 existing or projected air quality violation? o cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? 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 transportation (eg bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 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 forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? pool)? 0 [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 e 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 [XI o w 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 124 0 [XI [XI 0 [XI 0 w 0 CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 !XI [XI [XI [XI w w 0 0 17 0 Rev. w El [XI w 03/28/96 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 0 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 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 0 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? o 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? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 0 0 XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? o 0 0 0 facilities? 0 7 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significan Impac t lmpact 0 w 0 w 0 (XI 0 El 0 [XI 0 Ix1 0 (XI 0- w 0 (XI 0 [x1 0 IXI 0 [x) 0 1x1 0 (XI O w 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 (XI 0 [XI Rev. 03/28/96 a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 0 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 e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the which 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? Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impac Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 CI 0 0 0 El 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 [x1 M E3 0 0 €4 0 0 [XI cl o w 0 0 El CI 0 El 0 0 IXI 0 0 El 0 cl El 0 cl €4 0 0 €3 8 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION The proposed land use change involves a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendme and Local Coastal Program Amendment that would change the planning area boundaric development standards and allowable densities for Planning Areas 18 and 20 and would a1 adjust the density for Planning Area 19. The three multi-family planning areas are located Phase I11 of Aviara, on the east side of Ambrosia Lane. Planning Areas 18 and 20 are locatt south of Poinsettia Lane, across Ambrosia Lane from the single family Planning Area 2 Planning Area 19 is located north of Poinsettia Lane, adjacent to the future community park. P areas are currently being graded in conformance with the Aviara Phase I11 Final Map (CT 92-0: Planning Areas 18 and 20 are designated for Residential Medium High Density uses (MH) the City's General Plan while Planning Area 19 is designated for Residential High Density us (RH). All Planning Areas are zoned Planned Community (P-C) which is implemented throul the Aviara Master Plan (MP 177). The proposed amendments would transfer approximately 70 units from Planning Area 19 . Planning Areas 18 and 20. Planning Areas 18 and 20 would also be merged and changed to 2 apartment site, with corresponding development standards based upon an RD-M (Residenti Density - Multiple) zoning designation. To maintain consistency with the General Plan ar Local Coastal Program, adjustments to the density allocations and development standards these documents must also be made. While the proposal involves a density transfer and General Plan land uses designatio amendment, the total amount of units between the three planning areas is actually being reduce by five (5) units. Therefore all impacts previously anticipated due to development of the thre multifamily residential sites will remain. Considering that the site is previously graded, n biological resources exist on site and the traffic generation would be greatly reduced, th proposed Aviara Phase I11 North amendments will not have a significant negative impact on tk environment. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: The requested land use change will not have a direct environmental effect. However, it j anticipated that there will be development subsequent to the land use change. There are n known conditions on site that would expose future development to geologic or hydrologi hazards of any sort. Grading for any future development must be in accordance with Cit 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 o the flow of existing waters will result due to the land use change. Future development will no create a significant change to air flow, movement, or temperature and may not consume grea quantities of natural resources, fuel or energy. Future development will be required to obtain ga and/or electric service from San Diego Gas and Electric and will be charged the appropriat' service fees. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update( 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mile: traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactivc 9 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are tl major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since tl San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considerc cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in tl 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 varie of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisior for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measure to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Trmspoflation Dema Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including ma; transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and : participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable ar appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into tl design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marke “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, tk preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by Cit Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for a quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequel projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, n further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at tk Planning Department. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT The site is currently in a disturbed state as a result of previous grading. There are no sensitiv species of plants or animals within the area of potential development of the site. There is also n evidence that there will be adverse impacts to the biological environment offsite as a result c development. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT: The proposed density transfer and development standard amendments will have no negativc impact on the availability of housing stock since the proposed number and types of multi-famil: units are not substantially changing. The land use change will not affect the amount of traffic generated by the eventual development of the site. All of the utility services required b development will be provided by standard methods. The amount of light and glare produced b: a residential project will likely be less than from a commercial development and no significan scenic views of or from the site should be affected. No recreational opportunities exist on sit1 however any residential development on the site must include private recreational amenities fo. residents. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update( 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequatt to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severel! impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Thest 10 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbs Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectiol 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, numerol mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include , measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions t develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalk: pedestrian linkages, and COmuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulatio strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate ( State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City I control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eithc 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 th failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefon the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project i consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because th recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, include a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement C Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’ Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatio~ impacts is required. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 0 EIR 93-01 ADDENDUM #5 NOVEMBER 5,1997 ADDENDUM TO MEIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION A request has been made to change the General Plan Land Use designations on three residential parcels measuring 9.3, 11.6 and 13.2 acres in area. The 9.3 acre site (Aviara Planning Area 19) would change fiom Residential High Density (RH) to Residential Medium High Density (RMH). The 1 1.6 and 13.2 acre sites (Planning Areas 18 and 20, respectively) would change from Residential Medium High Density (RMH) to Residential High Density (RH). The maximum allowable number of dwelling units is controlled by the Aviara Master Plan and would be reduced by a total of five (5) units. The effect of this proposal is a change to the EIR 93-01 project description to include the potential development of Planning Area 19 as RMH versus RH and the potential development of Planning Area 18 and 20 as RH versus RMH. CHANGE IN IMPACTS There will be no significant change in impacts. The proposed distribution of residential density does not substantially differ from the existing since the project sites are adjacent or in close proximity to each other. The total number of dwelling units will be lower with the proposed amendments, as contained in and controlled by the Aviara Master Plan. Therefore the development potential of the three sites will not be increased, and actually slightly decreased, by virtue of the land use designation change. NOTE: This addendum also corrects a typographical error on the Initial Study Checklist. Item V1.a. should have been checked as “Potentially Significant.” See Page 11 of the checklist for an explanation of the item.