HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 4369/I 0 e
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. 4369
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON CAR COUNTRY
DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: HOEHN MOTORS MERCEDES BENZ
CASE NO.: SDP 98-06/CDP 98-33
WHEREAS, Hoehn Group, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Hoehn Group, “Owner”, described as
Lot 8 and Lot 9 of Carlsbad Tract No. 87-3, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof No. 12242, filed in the office of County
Recorder of San Diego County, dated October 28,1988.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of Septembc
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tl
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
1 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
I
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration accl
Exhibit “ND” dated July 17, 1998, “PII” dated July 8, 1998 attached hereto and ma
hereof, based on the following findings:
...
...
.e 0
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
Findinzs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analJ
considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identifie
project and said comments thereon, prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVA
project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Con
finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effe
environment and hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Decla
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Negative Declaration I
prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Qua
the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the
Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the indl
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of September 199
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, S;
and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Nielsen and Monroy
ABSTAIN:
.. -* p3 >&.!
P47 +vap&&&a4* ;; ~
>, ~. .?.> $ F:>- z >: ; /.::.
<? < rp*;2 .=_ *,: )., "',: ,. ,_ .. .*a
BAILEY NOBV, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
I ATTEST: I
PC RES0 NO. 4369 -2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: West side of Car Country Drive between Cannon Road and Pasf
Del Norte, City of Carlsbad, CA
APN: 21 1-080-8 and 21 1-080-9
Project Description: Development of an approximately 49,573 square foot comrnerci
automobile dealership on a vacant and previously graded 5.84 acL
site (2 lots) located on Car Country Drive in Car Country Carlsbac
The proposed project includes automobile storage, display, sale:
and repair.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projec
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act an
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 tl-
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in tk
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannin,
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public ar
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of dat
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department s
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4455.
DATED: JULY 17,1998
CASE NO: SDP 98-06/CDP 98-33
CASE NAME: HOEHN MOTORS MERCEDES BEN2
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 17,1998
?
MICHAEL J. HWMIEER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-11 61 - FAX (760) 438-0894
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 98-0UCDP 98-3
DATE: JULY 8. 195
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: HOEHN MOTORS MERCEDES BENZ
2. APPLICANT: BOKAL & SNEED ARCHITECTS
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 244 NINTH STREET, DEL MAR, C,
920 14, (6 19) 48 1-8244
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 4/17/98
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development of an approximately 49,573 square foot commercii
automobile dealership on a vacant and previously graded 5.84 acre site (2 lots) located on Ca
Country Drive in Car Country Carlsbad. The uroposed uroiect includes automobile storage
display, sales. and reDair.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projecl
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.
c] Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
[7 Population and Housing [7 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
[7 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water Hazards
Air Quality Noise
Cultural Resources
Recreation
IXI Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0 DETERMINATION. 0
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tf
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tf
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatia
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but i
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlit
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatio
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.
c] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tf
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential1
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicabl
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, includin
revisions or ‘mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
/
*3.%m Plm
3-b ‘3 j I 77%
ler s igEature) Date
lhb +/I +/q 6;;
Planning Director’sb&natG Date ,
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS a
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City COI
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effecl
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the fc
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be i
by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding
to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a pr
approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “NO Impact” answers that are ad
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question.
Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answe
be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-
factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the I
impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general s’
and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorpor
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Lt
Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must desc
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than si1
level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an I
significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant e
the environment, but &.potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequate
earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Dec
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed proj
none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present an
mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporl
this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily reql
prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR 1
to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Ov
Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence
project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/9f
0 0
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing a:
there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, ar
mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this E
appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has n
discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the dt
does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significar
“Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made 1
to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to 1(
significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the
significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a m
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 oft
under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be 1
discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
1. 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)?
11.
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0’ 0 [x1
0 0 [XI
0 0’ [XI
0 0 [XI
0 17 [XI
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? 0 0 o w
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?( 0 0 0 [XI
0 O w
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)?
0 0 0 0 0 0
cl 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 ‘0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 [x1 17 txl 0 €3 0 [XI 0 w 0 txl
0 w 0 €3 o w
[XI 0 o (XI
0 [XI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
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?
water body?
water movements?
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
existing or projected air quality violation? (#I - [XI
MEIR)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
d) Create objectionable odors?
cause any change in climate? 0
VI. TRANSPORTATIONiCIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (eg. sharp
, curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
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 (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
uses?
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)?
cl 0
0
0 0 0
17
17
0 0
0
6
0 Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 17 El
0
0 0
0
Less Than No
Significant Irnpac Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI
cl KJ
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI
0 0
0 (XI 0 Ix1
0 [XI
[XI 0 0 Ixl
€3
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 (XI
0 !XI
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI
0 !XI
Rev. 03/28/9
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 0 Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 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? 0'0
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 o
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?
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? .
facilities?
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0 0 0 "0
0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0
0 0 o 0 0 0
0 0 o I7
7
Less Than No
Significant lmpac Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI o w
0 [XI
0 Ix1
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 El 0 IXI
0 [XI 0 ixI 0 [XI 0 Ix1 0 El
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [x]
0 El 0 [x1
Rev. 0312819
e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
aj 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?
cj 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)?
cj 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
0
0
0
[x1
0
8
0 Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant lmpac Impact
0 IXI 0 [XI
0 [x1 0 IXI 0 [XI
0 IXI 0 0 El 0 [XI
IXI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
e XVII . EARLIER ANALYSES . 0
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or othe~
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
declaration. Section 15063(~)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the follo
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are avail
review. (1994 General Plan Update Master Environmental Impact Report
on file at the City of Carlsbad Community Development Department, 21
Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009)
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above check1
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pur:
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by m:
measures based on the earlier analysis. (Air quality and cumulative traffidcirc
impacts - Findings of Overriding Consideration were adopted for both air
and cumulative circulation impacts as part of the Final MEIR)
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with M
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific co
for the project. N/A
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: e
The project site consists of two vacant and pre-graded commercially (C-2) designated lots t
approximately 5.8 acres in size. The site has been graded relatively level and all
improvements, including landscaping, sidewalk, curb, and gutter have been provided along Car
Drive. The project site does not contain surface water or native habitat and is located adj
existing commercial automobile dealerships directly North, South, and West of the site.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
There are no anticipated significant environmental impacts to the following categories of envirc
effects listed on the checklist: (1) land use and planning; (2) population and housing; (3)
problems; (4) biological and cultural resources; (5) energy and mineral resources; (6) hazards; (
(8) public services; (9) utilities and service systems; (10) aesthetics; and, (1 1) recreation, the
detailed environmental analysis and explanation is not provided in this Initial Study
determination is based on the existing environmental setting for the following reasons: (1) thl
site has- been disturbed by authorized grading; (2) the surrounding properties are develoF
dealerships and commercial land uses; (3) all the support utilities and service infrastructure 1
constructed; and, (4) the project is consistent with the approved Car Country Specific Plan (SP
applies to the area.
WATER:
The project site is currently vacant, therefore, the increase in impermeable surfaces fi
development of paved parking areas and buildings will increase the amount of pollutants in tl
runoff from the site. To offset this increase in urban pollutant runoff, the project is desi
incorporate oil/water separators at the catch basins and the curb inlets would have a “foss
petroleum-based contaminant filtration system to remove urban pollutants from the runoff. Tl
located in a non-useable groundwater basin so development will not have a significant in
groundwater in the area
AIR OUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updai
General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles 1
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organi
oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contril
air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air B;
“non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: tl
continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have CUI
significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a Vi
mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provis
roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures t
vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Manage
provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit sen
conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regiona
management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air
10 Rev. 0312XI9t
e e mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are inch
conditions of proj ect approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Po
Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparatil
EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01 , by City Council Resolu
94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “SI
Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plar
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality in
required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updat
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adec
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely imp
regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally inc
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even I
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail th
adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, n
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) me2
ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop ah
modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linka
commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopte
diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City street
impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and apl
General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the desigl
project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the f:
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the
Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the
Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Fina
EIR 93-01 , by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of 07
Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” appl
subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therc
further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
SOURCES:
1. Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 Update of the City of Carlsbad General P
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
11 Rev. 0312819t
0 0
* ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASUN
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
12 Rev. 03/28/96