Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 4488’ +. f .. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4488 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND ALLOW THE SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND ASSOCIATED POOL WITH GRADING LOCATED AT 4125 SKYLINE DFUVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 12 CASE NAME: BELIVEAU RESIDENCE CASE NO.: CDP 98-71/HDP 98-17 WHEREAS, Andrew Wilt, “Developer”, has filed a verified application City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Richard and Linda Beliveau, ‘ described as Lot 83 of Carlsbad Highlands, Unit No. 2, as shown on Map No. 2825 on file with County Recorder of the County of San Diego (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction u project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of March, 19 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tc 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 I Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. I ,. . *. 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 I 0 0 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according “ND” dated December 28, 1998, and “PII” dated December 24, 1998 hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinps: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, anal considered the Negative Declaration, the Environmental Impacts therein ider this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project. Ba: EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that tl substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environ thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration. 2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the inc 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 3rd day of March 199 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heure Nielsen, Noble, Savary, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: .()-+&$/( f.&U;i & L MICHAEL . HOLZMIL R Planning director ~ PC RES0 NO. 4488 -2- . 4. ,. - NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: 4125 Skyline Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Project Description: Demolition of an existing two story, 2939 square foot single fan residence with a 537 square foot garage. Replace with a 4,l square foot two story single family residence with a 1,069 sqt foot garage. Grading amounts for this project include 75 CL yards of cut, 1600 cubic yards of fill to produce 10 foot fill slo] 1540 cubic yards of import are projected. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described pro. pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said reviev Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plam Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of c of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning Departmen (760) 438-1161, extension 4457. DATED: December 28,1998 CASE NO: CDP 98-71NDP 98-17 CASE NAME: Beliveau Residence PUBLISH DATE: . December 28, 1998 Planning Director 2075 La Palrnas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-OE .. . ,. e e ENVIRONMENTAL NPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: HDP 98-17/CDP 98-7 DATE: Feb. 2, 19s BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Beliveau Residence 2. APPLICANT: Andrew Wilt 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 829 B Second Street, Encinitas, C (760)942 1062 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 10-01-98 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Demolish existing two story 2,939 suuare foot single famil residence with 537 sauare feet of garage. Replace with new two story 4,091 sauare foot sing1 familv residence with 1,069 square foot garage and associated mading to allow a pool adiacent t the house in the back yard. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projeci involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impac Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning m TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics water 17 Hazards Cultural Resources [XI Air Quality 0 Noise [7 Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03128196 . t' 0 0 I* DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) [XI I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on th environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - u I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tk environment, there will not be a significant effect in ths case because the mitigatio measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, A WGATIV! DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 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 earlic document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatio measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negativ Declaration is 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 th, environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentia11 significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Negative Declaratiol pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to tha earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impose1 upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 3- 4.-L * 2 z99.q Planner Signature Date 1 Planning Director's Signature Date 2 Rev. 03128196 . . ’. 0 0 . *. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cii conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significm effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followin pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and huma 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), Negativ 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 ar adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatio 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, c it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that th potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adoptel general standards and policies. e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatio of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and th City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce th effect to a less than significant level. e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a effect is significant. e Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significan effect on the environment, but a potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze( adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicabll standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatec Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upor the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to 01 supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prio~ environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additiona’ environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirec 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 0: 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 e . *. If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing a EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, an those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In thj case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includin but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect hd not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, an the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tha significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact ha 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 nc possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, c determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significar effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of th form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentio, should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determinec significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 . .; .. 0 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): (#l:Pages 5.6-1-5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (see Ia.) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (see Ia.) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (see Ia.) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (see Ia.) 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact OH UN OH OH OH 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1-5.5-6) 0 0 OH b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an 0 OH undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (see IIa.) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (see IIa) 0 0 ow 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15) b) Seismic ground shaking? (see IIIa) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (see IIIa) e) Landslides or mudflows? (see IIIa) 0 0 0 0 0 n n (see IIIa) 0 0 f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (see rl E IIIa) OH OH ow OB UIXI om g) Subsidence of the land? (see IIIa) h) Expansive soils? (see IIIa) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (see IIIa) 0 0 OH 0 0 OH 0 0 OH OH IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l:Pgs5.2- 0 hazards such as flooding? (see Iva) 0 0 OH surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved 0 0 OH oxygen or turbidity)? (see IVa) 1-5.2-1 1) b) Exposure of people or property to water related c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of 5 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Less Than Significan t Impact NO Impact .. *. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (see IVa) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (see IVa) 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? (see IVa) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (see IVa) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (see IVa) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (see IVa) 0 0 [XI H 0 El 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 0 I7 0 [XI Kl V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? BX (#l:Pgs5.3-1-5.3-12) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (see Va) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or d) Create objectionable odors? (see Va) 0 I7 cause any change in climate? (see Va) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 Kl 0 0 IXI 0 [XI [XI Ixl [XI [XI VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUION. 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)? (see VIa) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (see VIa) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (see VIa) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (see VIa) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (see VIa) (#l:pgs 5.7-1-5.7-22) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (see VIa) ci31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI 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? (#l,pgs 5.4-1-5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (see VIIa) 0 c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (see Wa) 6 0 0 0 El IXI IXI [x] 0 Rev. 03, ‘28196 .c .. 0 0 .* Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (see pool)? (see VIIa) 0 0 OH VIIa) 0 0 UH 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? (see VIIIa) 0 0 OKl c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to 0 Elm the region and the residents of the State? (see VIIIa) (#l:pgS 5.12.1-5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1-5.13-9) 0 0 UKl 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)? (#l:pgs b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (see IXa) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (see IXa) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (see IXa) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (see IXa) 5.10.1-1-5.10.1-5) 0 OH 0 0 UH 0 0 OH OH 0 OKl X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:pgs 5.9-1- b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (see 5.9-15 0 0 UH x4 0 0 OH 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? (#l,pgs.5.12.5-1-5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l,pgs5.12.6-1-5.12.6-4) c) Schools? (#l,pgs 5.12.7-1-5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? (see Xid) 0 0 om 0 0 OH 0 0 OH 0 0 OH (#l,pgs5.12.1-1-5.12.8-7) 0 0 OH 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1-5.12.1-5 8~5.13-1-5.13-9) 0 0 ON 7 Rev. 03/28/96 .L .r 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1- c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l: Pgs 5.12..3-1-5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#I: Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pg.5.12.4-1-5.12.4-3 ) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l, Pg. 5.12.2- 5.12.8-7) 0 facilities? (#l: Pgs 5.12.2-1-5.12.3-7) 0 0 1-5.12.3-7) 17 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? (see XI11 a) (#l:Pg~.5.11-1-5.11-5) (see XIIIa) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#1:5.8-1-5.8- 10) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (see XIVa) c) Affect historical resources? (see Xrva) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ehc cultural values? (see XIVa) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (see ma) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (see 5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7) XVa) 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 prehstory? a Potentially Less Than No Significant Significan Impact Mitigation Unless t Impact Incorporated 0 nKl UIXI OB 0 OH 0 0151 0 OH I7 cl 0 0 17 0 0 0 o I7 I7 17 17 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 I7 I7151 OB OB 0151 ow I7151 OB 0151 0151 17El LIB 8 Rev. 03/28/96 If e 0 .” Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? 0 0 om (“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? I7 El OIXI 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 negativ declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)@). In this case a discussion should identify th following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availabl for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checkli, were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursua] to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigatia Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated ( refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitc specific conditions for the project. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 i .* e 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project is located at 4125 Skyline three lots south of Tamarack Avenue. The site designated RLM which allows for the development of a single family dwelling, which is simil to the existing development on and adjacent to the property. The applicant proposes to demoli: an existing two story 2,939 square foot single family residence with a 537 square foot garai and replace it with a new two story 4,091 square foot single family residence with a 1,069 squa~ foot garage. Associated grading to allow a pool adjacent to the structure will construct a ten foc fill slope in the rear and six foot retaining walls on the side. Housing - While the project reflects the continued gentrification of the Carlsbad area, ti existing home is presently already within ths high income classification, therefore no affordab housing extant is being displaced. Water - The project would result in a minor increasxe in runoff, however, the onsite drainage wi be discharged and dissipated consistent with City Standards to avvoid adverse impacts due t surface runoff. AIR OUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatec 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mile traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactivl organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are thl major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since thi San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considerec cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in thl 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 varietj 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) measure! to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demanc Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mas: transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5: participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an( appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into tht 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, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequenl 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: 10 Rev. 03/28/96 a b* C’ e 0 The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequx to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severe1 impacted by regional through-traffic over whch the City has no jurisdictional control. The: Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectiol. are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerot 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 t develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalk, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulatio strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate c State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City 1 control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eithe been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval, Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of th failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefort the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project i consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because th recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, include a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement C Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’; Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatio~ impacts is required. Biological Resources - The site has been previously disturbed by the construction of a singlc family home and associated landscaping. Aesthetics - The project is located at Skyline Drive near its intersection with Tamarack Avenue There are no public views of the coast or lagoons from this location. generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Caslsb: 11 Rev. 03/28/96 i r- ” I a 0 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 12 Rev. 03/28/96 *5 .- r e 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AN CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 13 Rev. 03/28/96