HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 4136. e I,
r‘
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4136
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE
DEVELOPMENT OF 17 TIMESHAREI’HOTEL UNITS
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ISLAND WAY
AND SURFSIDE LANE lN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 22.
CASE NAME: SEAPONTE RESORT EXPAWION
CASE NO.: CT 97-06/CP 97-O4/CUP 93-04(E)/
CDP 97-07/SDP 94-04(B)
WHEREAS, Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc., “:Developer”, has filed a ver
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carlsbad Seapointe Rt
11, L. P., “Owner”, described as
That portion of Lot 2, Section 20, Township 12 South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to the Official Plat thereof, bounded on the west by the easterly
line of the land described in Deed to the State of California
recorded October 4, 1951, in Book 4253, Page 578 of Official
Records as Document No. 121143, bounded on the east by the
westerly line of that parcel of land conveyed in Deed to
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, recorded
January 29, 1946 as Document No. 9749, in Book 2031, Page
277 of Official Records; bounded on the south by the northerly
line of La Costa Downs, Unit No. 1 according to Map thereof
No. 2013, and bounded on the north by the north line of the
south 60 acres of Lots 1,2 and 3 and the southeast quarter of
the southeast quarter of Section 20 and Lot 4 and the
southwest quarter of southwest quarter of Section 21,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, excepting from said Lots 1 and 2, and portions
thereof, now or here before lying below the mean high tide line
of the Pacific Ocean
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of December l!
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
c
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
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testir
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff:
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fa1
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plan
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plan
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative according to Exhibit "ND" d
June 3, 1997, and "PII" dated May 29, 1997, attached hereto and made a
hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed
considered Negative Declaration dated, June 3,1997 , the environmental impacts the
identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to approving the pro.
Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds
there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on
environment and thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration dated June 3, l!
reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbt
3. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures identifiec
the MEIR 93-01 and EIR 93-01 addendum #1 which are appropriate to this Pro
have been incorporated into this Project.
4. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project E
have a significant impact on the environment.
5. The site has been previously disturbed and contains no native vegetation.
6. There are no sensitive resources located on the site so as to be significantly impac
by this project.
PC RES0 NO. 4136 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 e
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plar
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of December 1997, b
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Monroy, Noble and Sava
NOES: Chairperson Neilsen and Commissioner Welshons
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
"-.' 8.q , '.i 1
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PC RES0 NO. 4136 -3-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: Northeast corner of Island Way and Surfside Lane in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
Project Description: A request to add 17 timesharehotel units within two buildings to
an existing timesharehotel facility.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department
at (760) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 4448.
DATED: JUNE 3,1997
CASE NO: CT 97-06/CP 97-04/SDP 94-04(B)/CUP 93-04(E)/CDP 97-07
CASE NAME: SEAPOINTE RESORT EXPANSION
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 3,1997
i!h
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894
e a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
L
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 97-06, CP 97-04. SDP 94-04(B), CUP 93-04(E), CDP 97-07
DATE: May 29, 1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Seapointe Resort Expansion
2. APPLICANT: Grand Pacific Resorts c/o Timothy Stripe and David Brown
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 200,
Carlsbad, California 92008; (619) 431-8500
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 22,1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request to add 17 timesharehotel units within two buildings to an
existing timesharehotel facilitv.
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 Transportation/Circulation [7 Public Services
Population and Housing B Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water 0 Hazards Cultural Resources
rn Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
e a
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
L
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.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[7 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 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 an earlier Negative Declaration
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
CAL tie? .\%7 Planner Signature Date u
b 5'2?97
Date I
2 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmentammpact 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.
0 “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 &l 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).
0 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
e 0
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 m%asures 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
0 a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
L
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 fiom 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
0 0 IXI
0 0 [x]
0 0 [XI 0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
population projections? 0 0 0 [XI
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0 0 [XI
or extension of major infiastructure)?
housing? 0 0 o w c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking? o n
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
U 0 0 n
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
U
conditions fiom excavation, grading, or fill?
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 [x] 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 Ixl o w o w
0 IXI 0 [x] 0 w
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?
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 [x]
0 0 IXI
0 0 0 IXI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
c
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 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 cause
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
existing or projected air quality violation? 0
0 0
0
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 (eg marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
0
o
0
0
0
0 0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
o
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
Less Than Significan
t Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
NO Impact
Ixl
Ixl
[XI w w
Ixl w w
El
w w
Ixl w
[XI w w
w
w
(XI
Ixl @
6 Rev. 03/28/96
e,
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact -
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
proposal? o
inefficient manner? 0
resource that would be of future value to the region and 0
the residents of the State?
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?
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?
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0
cl
cl
0
0
0
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
0 0 0 0
facilities? 0
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies? 0 0
0 0 0 cl
7
LessThan No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 (XI 0 (XI
0 IXI
0 Ix1
0 IxI
0 [x]
0 w
0 w
0 IXI 0 Ixl
0 (XI 0 [XI 0 (XI
[XI 0 IXI
0 [x1 0 [xi Ixl
0 w
cl El 0 El
(XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
L
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?
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 Bl
cl cl 0 w .o 0 IXI
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c> Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
0 Bl 0 0 0 [x1 0 0 El
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 0 0 w
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
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?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 w
0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 [x]
0 0 BJ
0 0 BJ
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT:
There are no known conditions on the site that would expose development to geologic hazards of
any sort. Grading proposed will be in accordance with standard grading principals and practice
which include erosion control and compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) standards.
Although the site is near the Pacific Ocean, it is not contiguous and development of the property
will not directly effect beach sand or modify a channel of free flowing waters.
Development will not create a change to air flow, movement, or temperature and may not
consume great quantities of natural resources, fuel or energy. Development will be required to
obtain gas and/or electric service fiom San Diego Gas and Electric and will be charged the
appropriate service fees.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT:
The site is currently in a disturbed state as a result of previous grading and agriculture. There are
no known 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:
All of the utility services required by development will be provided by standard methods.
Development would introduce new levels of noise and light into the area. However, those levels
are typically not considered significant. A California State campground is located across the
street and may be impacted during the evening hours by ambient light. Mitigation for the
potential impact could be shielding and landscaping.
-
Although the sight is visible from Carlsbad Boulevard, construction of a building within the
height limits will not be an adverse visual impact because views of the site are from a distance to
the east and predominantly fiom a higher elevation. The combination of height and distance
allow the residents to the east of Interstate 5 horizon view of the Pacific Ocean.
Analysis of the proposed project indicates that there will not be any adverse effects to the
environment. Phasing or redesign will not contribute to a reduction of impacts when no
significant impacts have been identified.
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 sulk, 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
9 Rev. 03/28/96
a 0 0
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 thebpact 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 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, and subsequently EIR 93-01 addendum #1, 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.
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,
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
certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, and
subsequently EIR 93-01 addendum #1, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 a
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.
L
11 Rev. 03/28/96