HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 44441
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
e 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4444
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAFUSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO AMEND
THE ZONE 8 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN.
CASE NAME: KELLY RANCH
CASE NO. : LFMP 87-08 (A)
WHEREAS, Kelly Land Company, “Developer”, has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by the
Kelly Land Company, City of Carlsbad, and Kirgis 1996 Trust, “Owner”, and
WHEREAS, the project is an amendment to the Zone 8 Local 1
Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the amendment constitutes updated facilities requirements a
of the approval Kelly Ranch Village “E’; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of Decembc
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 ts
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a
relating to the Negative Declaration.
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 Negative Dc
according to Exhibit “ND” dated November 20, 1998, and “PII” dated N
16,1998, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
~ ‘”
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
e 0
Findines:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and c(
the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this pr
any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the projec
on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds tha
no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environ
thereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of December 195
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, P
Nielsen, and Savary
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Planning Director
I I
PC RES0 NO. 4444 -2-
of
0
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Local Facilities Management Zone 8
Project Description: Update of the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proje
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ar,
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 th
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in th
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 a~
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of dai
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Chnster Westman in the Planning Departmer
at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4448.
DATED: NOVEMBER 20,1998
CASE NO: LFMP 87-08(A)
CASE NAME: ZONE 8 AMENDMENT “A” AND FINANCE PLAN
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 20,1998
MICHAEL J. HOEMILL=
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-11 61 0 FAX (760) 438-089.
~~ ~~~
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: LFMP 87-08b
DATE: November 16. 19!
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Zone 8 Amendment “A” and Finance Plan
2. APPLICANT: Kelly Land Company
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 201 1 Palomar Airport Road Suite 21
Carlsbad California 92009
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 20.1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment of the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan
reduce buildout assumptions and to modify facilities impacts accordingly.
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 Impa
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning W TransportatiodCirculation Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
rn Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0
DETERMINATION.
0
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
B I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tl
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 the mitigatic
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and i
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 EIR
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on 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 EIR pursuant
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EI:
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
/I/l?/W
Planning DirectoH Sign&re Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Ci
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followir
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), NegatiT
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that a
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic
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.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that tl
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt(
general standards and policies.
“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 t:
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce f
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
effect is significant.
a Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa
effect on the environment, but & potentially significant effects (a) have been analyz
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applical
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigat
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up’
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pri
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additior
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
.When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requir
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier E
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tl
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing 2
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, ar
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate(
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includir
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, ar
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 reduc
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is nl
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
0
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): (EIR 83-04megative Declaration
issued April 29,1988)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (EIR 83-04lNegative Declaration
issued April 29,1988)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (EIR 83-04Megative Declaration issued
April 29,1988)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (EIR 83-04lNegative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (EIR 83-04megative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
0
0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (EIR 83-04lNegative 0
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (EIR 83-04lNegative Declaration
issued April 29,1988)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (EIR 83-04lNegative Declaration issued
April 29,1988)
0
0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (EIR 83-04lNegative Declaration
issued April 29,1988)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (EIR 83-04lNegative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(EIR 83-04lNegative Declaration issued April
29,1988)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (EIR 83-
04/Negative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (EIR 83-04megative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (EIR
83-04lNegative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
g) Subsidence of the land? (EIR 83-04lNegative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 w
w
0 O w
0 0 El
cl w
0 o w
0 [XI
0 o w
0 o w
0
0
0
0
0
o [XI o w
0 [XI o w
0 [XI
0 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
h) Expansive soils? (EIR 83-04Negative Declaration
issued April 29,1988)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (EIR 83-
04Negative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
17
0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (EIR 83-
04Negative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (EIR 83-04Negative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (EIR 83-04Negative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (EIR 83-04Negative Declaration
issued April 29,1988)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (EIR 83-04Negative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
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? (EIR 83-04megative Declaration
issued April 29,1988)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(EIR 83-04Negative Declaration issued April
29,1988)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (EIR 83-
04/Negative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (EIR 83-04Negative Declaration issued
April 29,1988)
0
0
0
0
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? (EIR
83-04Negative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (EIR 83-
04Negative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (EIR 83-04Negative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
d) Create objectionable odors? (EIR 83-04Negative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
0
0
0
0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
6
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
0 w
o w
o w
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 Kl
0 El
0 IXI
o w
o w
0 Kl
0 w
0 [xi
0 IXI
0 €x
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (EIR
83-04iNegative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (EIR 83-04megative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (EIR 83-04iNegative Declaration issued
April 29,1988)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(EIR 83-04iNegative Declaration issued April
29,1988)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(EIR 83-04iNegative Declaration issued April
29,1988)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (EIR 83-04iNegative Declaration
issued April 29,1988)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (EIR 83-
04iNegative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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? (EIR 83-04iNegative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(EIR 83-04iNegative Declaration issued April
29,1988)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (EIR 83-04iNegative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (EIR 83-04iNegative Declaration issued
April 29,1988)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (EIR 83-
04Negative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
0 [XI
0 (x]
o w
o [XI
o [XI
o w
o w
0 0 [XI
0 0 Kl
0 o w
0 o w
0 0 [XI
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(EIR 83-04iNegative Declaration issued April
29,1988)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (EIR 83-04iNegative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
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? (EIR 83-
04iNegative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
0 0 0
0 17 0
0 0 0
[XI
[XI
(x]
7 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
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)? (EIR
83-04Negative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (EIR 83-
04megative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (EIR 83-04Negative Declaration
issued April 29,1988)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (EIR 83-04megative Declaration
issued April 29,1988)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (EIR 83-04iNegative Declaration
issued April 29,1988)
0
cl
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (EIR 83-
04megative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (EIR
83-04Negative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
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? (EIR 83-04iNegative Declaration
issued April 29,1988)
b) Police protection? (EIR 83-04iNegative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
c) Schools? (EIR 83-04iNegative Declaration issued
April 29,1988)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(EIR 83-04iNegative Declaration issued April
29,1988)
e) Other governmental services? (EIR 83-
04megative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
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? (EIR 83-04megative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
b) Communications systems? (EIR 83-04megative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (EIR 83-04iNegative Declaration issued
April 29,1988)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (EIR 83-04Negative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
0
0
0
0
8
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 [XI
0 nH
0 0 IXI
0 0 [XI
0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
[XI
[XI
IXI
IXI
w
0 o rn
0 0 [XI
0 Ix
0 0 D(
Rev. 03128196
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
e) Storm water drainage? (EIR 83-04iNegative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
f) Solid waste disposal? (EIR 83-04Negative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (EIR 83-
04iNegative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
o
0
0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (EIR
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (EIR
c) Create light or glare? (EIR 83-04iNegative
83-04iNegative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
83-04iNegative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
cl
0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (EIR 83-
04Negative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (EIR 83-
04iNegative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
c) Affect historical resources? (EIR 83-04Negative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(EIR 83-04iNegative Declaration issued April
29,1988)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (EIR 83-04iNegative
Declaration issued April 29,1988)
0
0
0
0
0
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (EIR 83-
04/Negative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (EIR
83-04Negative Declaration issued April 29,1988)
0
0
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?
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
El
0
0
No
Impac
Kl
[XI w
w
El
El
El
[x]
Kl
[XI
El
[XI
w
[XI
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
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
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 Ixl
0 0 IXI
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES .
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negati
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify tl
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availat:
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checkl.
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursua
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed 1
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigatic
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address si1
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AIR QUALITY:
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 milt
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactik
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are tk
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since tk
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considere
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in tk
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 variei
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) measurt
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation DemaI
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 iu
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 markc
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, tl
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-0 1, by Ci
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for 2
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subseque
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, I
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at tl
Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updat
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequ;
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be seven
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Thr
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsl:
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectic
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, numerc
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
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewal
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulati
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate
11 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eith
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approva
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of t!
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefo~
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because t:
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, includl
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement (
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plar
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatil
impacts is required.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
8 e
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
13 Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES ,
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AT
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
14 Rev. 03/28/96