Loading...
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