Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-24; City Council; 14241 Exhibit 5; Aviara Lot 308 Azure Cove Annexation-4 - EXHIBIT 5 arle City of CARLSBAD Planning Departmeuc A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. 7 0 Application complete date: March 2 1, 1997 P.C. AGENDA OF: May 21,1997 Project Planner: Michael Grim Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham SUBJECT: MP 177WGPA 96-06lLCPA 96-13iZC 97-03 - AVIARA LOT 308fAZURE COVE ANNEXATION - Request for a General Plan Amendment to change the designation of a 1.2 acre parcel in the Aviara Master Plan (Lot 308) from Open Space (OS) to Residential Low Medium (RLM), a Master Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to establish permitted land uses and development standards for this redesignated residential area within the Aviara Master Plan and to annex the Azure Cove development into the Aviara Master Plan as a new planning area, and a Zone Change from Single Family Residential (R-1-7500-Q) and Open Space (O-S) to Planned Community (P-C) to maintain zoning consistency with Azure Cove and the Aviara Master Plan. The project is located south of Aviara Parkway, between Batiquitos Drive and Aviara Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 19. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4096, 4097, 4098 and 4117, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Master Plan Amendment MP 177(S), General Plan Amendment GPA 96-06, Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 96-l 3 and Zone Change ZC 97-03, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION This proposal involves a General Plan Amendment to redesignate a 1.2 acre parcel (Lot 308) located adjacent to the Aviara Golf Course from OS to RLM and a Master Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to establish permitted land uses and development standards for this parcel and to annex Azure Cove, formally known as Brocatto, into the Aviara Master Plan. The project also involves a Zone Change to Planned Community for the Azure Cove development to establish consistency with the Aviara Master Plan. As part of the General Plan Amendment, 14.4 acres of Planning Area 25 is proposed for redesignation from RLM to OS as mitigation for the loss of 1.2 acres of open space from Lot 308. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Aviara Land Associates and Brookfield Carlsbad are requesting a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Change. The General Plan Amendment entails two components, including: 1) changing the land use designation from OS to RLM on a 1.2 acre parcel (Lot 308) which is located within Planning Area 13, adjacent to MP 177(S)/GPA 96-06/LCi _ _ 16-13/ZC 97-03 - AVIARA LOT 308/AZLd COVE ANNEXATION MAY 21,1997 the Aviara Golf Course, and 2) changing the designation from RLM to OS on a 14.4 acre parcel (Lot 36) located within Planning Area 25 of Aviara. The Master Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment also entail two components, including: 1) establishment of permitted uses and development standards for the proposed residential Lot 308 (included as part of Planning Area 13), and 2) annexing the Azure Cove development, formally known as Brocatto, into Aviara as a new planning area, namely Planning Area 33. The Zone Change involves the redesignation of the Azure Cove development from R-1-7500-Q and O-S to P-C. The Planned Community Zone is the standard zoning designation for all master plans in the City. As shown on the attached location map, Lot 308 is located southwest of Planning Area 15, a multifamily development known as Sea Country Homes, immediately adjacent to and east of the 5th fairway of the Aviara Golf Course. Lot 36 is located north of the developed portion of Planning Area 25, extending northward to the intersection of Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia Lane. The Azure Cove development is located between Aviara and Interstate 5, directly west of Aviara Planning Areas 29 and 30. Since the project can be divided into two distinct elements, those being Lot 308/Let 36 and Azure Cove, the following project description and background are also divided to facilitate explanation. Aviara Lot 308 (PA 13) and Lot 36 (PA 251 Aviara’s Lot 308 is an isolated, gently sloping, 1.2 acre site located in the north-south trending valley containing the 4th and 5th holes of the Four Seasons Aviara golf course. Uphill to the east lies the Sea Country Homes multifamily development (PA 15) and the Aviara Point custom home development (PA 13), and immediately to the west is the golf course. While Lot 308 has remained clear of habitat, the slopes between Lot 308 and the surrounding development contain native vegetation and are contained within lots covered by City open space easements. Lot 308 was created by the original subdivision (CT 85-35) for the Aviara Master Plan, then known as the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort. During the processing of the original master plan and tract map, Lot 308 was overlooked with regard to development standards and design criteria in the contents of the master plan because it existed as a separate lot, surrounded by open space (i.e. natural open space or golf course) and isolated from the developable portions of the surrounding residential planning areas. As a result, Lot 308 was inadvertently not assigned to any particular planning area nor were the permitted uses for the lot clearly described. The fact of the lot being surrounded by open space, its isolation from other residential lots, and the absence of a specific residential designation for this lot within the master plan, led to a redesignation of the lot to Open Space during the City’s General Plan Update in 1994. Aviara Land Associates now desires to sell the 1.2 acre lot as a developable, single family parcel, however several actions are required. Since the lot is now designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan, a General Plan Amendment is necessary to designate the parcel for single family residential uses (RLM). As discussed in the General Plan Analysis section below, to compensate for the loss of 1.2 acres of Open Space, 14.4 acres of RLM designated land located northwest of Planning Area 25 is proposed to be placed into General Plan Open Space. In addition to these General Plan changes, the Aviara Master Plan requires a minor revision to delete a descriptive statement regarding the exclusive location of Planning Area 13 lots on the MP 177(S)/GPA 96-06/LCk.. j6- 13/ZC 97-03 - AVIARA LOT 308/AZL& COVE ANNEXATION MAY 21, 1997 ridgetop and clarify the planning area map to clearly show Lot 308 as a residential lot within PA 13. The lot can be accessed and receive utility service through an easement traversing Planning Area 15 and, as with other lots in Aviara Point (PA 13), would require an administrative site development plan review and Planning Director approval of the architectural elevations and site plan prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. The exact alignment of utilities, such as sewer and water, will be confirmed during grading and/or building permit review, as required by condition number 4 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4096 for MP 177(S). Azure Cove Annexation The Azure Cove development is a 72 unit, single family subdivision covering approximately 23.10 net acres, surrounded by an additional 17.85 acres of open space. The site is zoned R-l - 7,500-Q and O-S and designated RLM and RM in the General Plan. The area is bounded by Interstate 5 to the west, Batiquitos Lagoon to the south and Aviara Planning Areas 29 and 30 to the east. In December 1990, the City Council approved the single family subdivision, then known as Brocatto, and its related EIR and Site Development Plan (CT 89-19/EIR 89-Ol/SDP 89-07). The project is currently under construction by Brookfield Carlsbad. Since the Azure Cove development is directly adjacent to the Aviara Master Plan and shares similar open space types and maintenance responsibilities, the common lands of Azure Cove (17.85 acres of coastal sage scrub and the Batiquitos Lagoon wetlands buffer) were annexed by the Aviara Master Homeowner’s Association in late 1996. Subsequent to this HOA annexation, it became apparent that there were other attributes of Aviara that would be advantageous to the Azure Cove development, such as customized fire suppression program and project marketing. Aviara’s fire suppression guidelines are more customized to the north Batiquitos Lagoon vegetation and topography than the city-wide regulations, and neighborhoods within Aviara are afforded a multi-level marketing benefit through the addition of Master Plan advertising. Therefore, Brookfield Carlsbad is requesting annexation into the Aviara Master Plan. The proposal is subject to the following regulations: A. General Plan; B. Aviara Master Plan (MP 177 and its amendments); and C. Local Coastal Program. IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables. -? - MP 177(S)/GPA 96-06/LCt.. ~6- 13/ZC 97-03 - AVIARA LOT 308/AzL~& COVE ANNEXATION MAY 21, 1997 A. General Plan The proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the proposed amendments are the Land Use, Circulation and Open Space Elements. Table 1 below indicates how the project complies with these particular elements of the General Plan. TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, PROPOSED USES AND COMPLIANCE OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS Land Use To preserve the City as a desirable Project proposes an increase Yes residential, beach and open space of 13.2 acres of General Plan oriented community. Open Space. Circulation Require new development to Lot 308 has an access and construct all facilities needed to utility easement across PA serve development concurrent or 15 and is conditioned to Yes prior to development. demonstrate adequate access and facilities prior to building permit issuance. Open Space To provide public access to all open Access trails are contained in space areas with limited exceptions. the newly designated General Plan Open Space adjacent to Yes PA 25. Revisions to the Official Open Space and Corkervation Map shall Quantity and quality of new open space is greater than Yes result in increased area and existing open space. environmental quality of habitat. In addition to the above conformities, the proposed land use changes are compatible with the surrounding uses in that the proposed residential use on Lot 308 does not impact the adjacent golf course use and the natural open space areas will be protected from residential impacts through implementation of the required Aviara fire suppression program. The newly acquired Open Space in Lot 36 is compatible with the adjacent residential uses in that it provides passive recreation through an open space trail and, as with Lot 308, the boundary area between the uses is subject the provisions of the Aviara fire suppression program. The proposed land use changes are also consistent with the P-C - Planned Community zoning in that they continue to provide a balanced mix of land uses within the Aviara Master Plan. - MP 177(S)/GPA 96-06/LCl. a ~6- 13/ZC 97-03 - AVIARA LOT 308/AZb& COVE ANNEXATION MAY 21,1997 B. Aviara Master Plan ’ One of the goals of the Aviara Master Plan is to preserve the community’s environmental resources and existing topographic character. The redesignation of Lots 308 and 36 meets this goal by preserving in General Plan Open Space a 14.4 acre area containing quality habitat, a portion of which is a very successful native revegetation area on the external slopes of Planning Area 25. The Azure Cove annexation portion meets this intent because over 40 percent of the project area has been set aside for native open space. One of the other goals of the Aviara Master Plan is to provide a well-balanced and functional mix of various land uses which will create a high quality environment. The proposed land use changes will increase the quantity and quality of open space within the master plan area and, since the Azure Cove development is already balanced between single family residential and open space, annexation into the master plan will support the goal of a well-balanced community. In addition to the open space requirements of the master plan, the Azure Cove annexation is consistent with the various provisions of the Aviara Master Plan in that the development standards, design guidelines, housing type and architecture, fencing, entry monumentation, North Batiquitos Lagoon Trail access and Site Development Plan approval process for home construction are all the same or very similar to the corresponding aspects within the master plan documents. The site is the only developable lands between Aviara and the Interstate 5 freeway and forms an appropriate western entry to the Aviara Master Plan community. Therefore, the proposed amendments are consistent with the Aviara Master Plan. C. Local Coastal Program The Aviara Master Plan is located within the Mello I, Mello II and East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segments of the Local Coastal Program, therefore, the proposal is subject to the Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances for those segments. The implementing ordinance for those portions of the Mello I, Mello II and East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segments within Aviara is the Aviara Master Plan. This section addresses only conformance with the Land Use Plan, since conformance with the implementing ordinance (the Aviara Master Plan) is addressed in section B above. The policies of the various Land Use Plans which apply to the proposed amendments involve the preservation of environmentally sensitive lands. An example of this goal of preservation can be found in the Mello I Land Use Plan which states, “all land uses and intensity of use shall be compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources.” The proposed exchange of open space would result in the protection of 14.4 acres of quality native habitat through a General Plan Open Space designation while losing 1.2 acres of a highly disturbed, gently, sloping area from General Plan Open Space. The eventual development on the 1.2 acre parcel would be one single family residence. Therefore, the proposed amendments are consistent with the sensitive coastal resource protection policies of the Local Coastal Program. MP 177(S)/GPA 96-06/LCi.. 96-13/ZC 97-03 - AVIARA LOT 308/AZbKE COVE ANNEXATION MAY 21,1997 V. ENVIRONMENTAL I&VIEW Earlier analysis has been conducted on three occasions. First was the Environmental Impact Report for Brocatto at Batiquitos Shores (EIR 89-01 for CT 89-19), certified on December 11, 1990. This document analyzed all of the potential impacts for the development and occupation of the 78 unit single family development now known as Azure Cove. Second was the Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort (EIR 83-02(A) for CT 85-35/MP 177, certified on December 8, 1987. This document analyzed all of the potential impacts for the development and occupation of the over 2,000 unit residential master plan (now known as Aviara) with its associated 18-hole golf course, resort hotel, sports club and neighborhood commercial site. Third was the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), which reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City’s General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts. There will be no additional significant effects due to this proposal that were not analyzed in the Environmental Impact Reports and no new mitigation measures or alternatives are required. The project is, therefore, within the scope of the prior EIRs and no new environmental document nor Public Resources Code 21081 findings are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the previous EIRs which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project. A Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance was issued and duly noticed on April 5, 1997, and no comments were received. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4096 Planning Commission Resolution No. 4097 Planning Commission Resolution No. 4098 Planning Commission Resolution No. 4 117 Location Map Background Data Sheet Disclosure Statements Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance dated April 5, 1997 Environmental Impact Assessment Part II dated April 2, 1997. 53 DISCLOSUFESTATE34~~ . (Please Pm) 21e Mowing information must be disclosed: 1. 2. 3. 4. Aodicant List the names and addresses of ail persons having a financial interest in the application. Aviara Land Associates Limited PartnershiD 2011 Palomar Airuort Road Suite 206 Carlsbad. CA 92009 Owner List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Aviara.Land Asso&ates Limited PartnershiD 2011 Palomar Airport Road If any person identified pursuant to (1) of (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in th8 corporation or owning any pannership interest in th8 partnership. If any person identined pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names ant addresses of any person serving as officer or director of m8 non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiar; of me trust. 2075 Las Palmas Onve 0 Carlsaad. California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-l 161 Disctosur 8 Statement -. Page 2 : -. Have you had &ore than $253 wortfi of business transacted with Commisslons, C K m&tees and Council’within the past twelve mcr,tis? YE% No 4 If yes, please indicate person(s) - - any member of City s:af;l, 3car:s 1 I I =smon I, d&w4 u: ‘Any vdv:dual. firm. couumush~o. jotm vMtLsro. ua0CktI0~. aocul duE. truund orgMuauon. Coroormlon. l w,. PAI. . sf. ~ndiuto. UIU ~4 any 007~ couny. cy ~4 Couy. q mmlU@e. bumcl OI 00~ 30MXJ l ubOwWOn. or my OfWr ,-robs JI 1 ! :~momulon acnng u a uncf’ i Owner: Aviara Land Associates Limited Partoership, a Delaware limited partnership Date: Applicant: Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership BY: Aviara Iand-Ci+mpany, a Delaware General Partner By: Date: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANTS STATEMENTOFDISCLOSURE OR CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE (Please Print) The following information must be disclosed: 1. ADDlicant List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. BROOKFIELD CARLSBAD INC. 12865 Pointe De1 Mar, Ste. 200 . De1 Mar, CA 92014 2. Owner List the names and addressees of all person having any ownership interest in the property involved. BROOKFIELD CARSLBAD INC. 12865 Pointe De1 Mar, Ste. 200 De1 Mar, CA, 92014 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names I and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. , 4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. DISCLOS.FRM 2196 PAGE 1 of 2 5d 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-1576 l (619) 438-l 161 fib Disclosure Statement VW Page 2 5. Have you had more than $250.00 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s) X Person is defined as “Any individual, fii, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.’ . (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary) BROOKFIELD CARLSBAD INC. f?hdf~ Signature of Ow&date E. Dale Gleed - Vice President Print or type name of owner DISCLOS.FFwI 2/96 PAGE 1 of2 57 BROOKFIELD CARLSBAD INC. h r\Afi L--. Signature of applicant/date Elizabeth Zepeda - Secretary Print or type name of applicant BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: MP 177(S)/GPA 96-06/LCPA 96-l 3 CASE NAME: AVIARA LOT 308/AZURE COVE ANNEXATION APPLICANT: AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Master Plan Amendment. General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal ProPram Amendment to clarifv onen space boundaries and development standards for an isolated single family residential lot in Aviara Planning Area 13 and annexation of the Azure Cove development into the Aviara Master Plan as a new planning area. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 308 of Carlsbad Tract 85-35, Unit E, according to Man No. 12413, filed June 29.1989 in the Office of the Countv Recorder, County of San Dieao: Lot 36 of Carlsbad Tract 90-37. according to Map No. 13 188. filed in the Office of the County Recorder, Countv of San Diego; and All of Carlsbad Tract No 89-19, according; to Man No. 12902. filed December 11. 1991 in the Office of the Countv Recorder, Countv of San Dieno, State of California APN: various Acres: 55.0 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: RLM/RM/OS Density Allowed: 0.0-3.2 du/ac Density Proposed: N/A Existing Zone: P-C/R- 1-O Proposed Zone: N/A Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements) Zoning Land Use Site P-C/R-l-Q Vacant & Single family North P-C Open space South O-S Open space East P-C Residential West P-C I-5 freeway PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): N/A Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT cl Negative Declaration, issued cl Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated El Other, Notice of Prior Environmental ComDliance d-8 Please Take Notice: The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed. Project Title: Aviara Lot 308/Azure Cove Annexation Project Location: South of Aviara Parkway, east of Kestral Drive, in the Aviara Master Plan, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. Project Description: Clarification of open space boundaries and development standards for an isolated residential lot in Aviara Planning Area 13 and annexation of the Azure Cove development into the Aviara Master Plan as a new planning area. Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of publication. DATED: APRIL 5, 1997 CASE NO: MP 177(S)/GPA 96-06/LCPA 96-l 3 CASE NAME: AVIARA LOT 308/AZURE COVE ANNEXATION PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 5, 1997 MICHAEL J. HO@MlL&R Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 l (619) 438-11610 FAX (619) 438-0894 @ ENVJRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: MP 177(S)/GPA 96-06/LCPA 96- 13 DATE: APRIL 2.1997 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: AVIARA LOT 308/AZURE COVE ANNEXATION 2. APPLICANT: AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD, SUITE 206. CARLSBAD CA 92008 (760) 93 1-l 190 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: DECEMBER 11.1996 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Clarification of ooen snace boundaries and development standards for an isolated residential lot in Aviara Planning Area 13 and the annexation of the Azure Cove development into the Aviara Master Plan as a new Dlanning area. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services q Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems III Water 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics III Hazards El Cultural Resources [7 Air Quality cl Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03l28l96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by tbe Lead Agency) cl cl 0 cl lx I find that .the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in earlier EIRs and pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to those earlier EIRs including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date Planning Director’s Signature Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 Ibl ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. a A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to. or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. 0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). l When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. 0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03128196 La l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. a An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked. and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards. and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 lP Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. 4 b) c> d) e> Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l, pgs 5-71 - 5-85; #2, pgs 4-l - 4-26; #3, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l, pgs 5-71 - 5-85; #2, pgs 4-l - 4-26; #3, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l, pgs 5-7 1 - 5-85; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#1, pgs 5-71 - 5-85; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (# 1, pgs 5-7 1 - 5-85; #2, pgs 4- 1 - 4-26; #3, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#I, pgs 5-71 - 5-85; #2, pgs 4- 1 - 4-26; #3, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (# 1, pgs 5-71 - 5- 85; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l, pgs 5-71 - 5-85; #2, pgs 4-l - 4-26; #3, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or a) b) cl d) e) f) la expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? (#I, pgs 5-3 - 5-13; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4- 156; #3, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Seismic ground shaking? (# 1, pgs 5-3 - 5- 13; #2, pgs 4- 150 -4-156; #3, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l, pgs 5-3 - 5-13; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156 ; #3, pgs 5.1-I - 5.1- 15) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#I, pgs 5-3 - 5- 13; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #3, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) Landslides or mudflows? (#l, pgs 5-3 - 5-13; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #3, pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (# 1, pgs 5- 3 - 5-13; #2, pgs4-150 - 4-156; #3,pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Subsidence of the land? (#I, pgs 5-3 - 5-13; #2, pgs 4- 150 - 4-156; #3, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Potentially Significant Impact cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl Cl 0 0 cl cl cl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated III 0 cl 0 cl cl cl cl 0 cl cl cl q cl cl Less Than Significan t Impact cl III cl cl III 0 cl cl 0 cl cl cl cl cl cl No Impact Ix1 IXI Ix1 IXI IXI lxl Ix1 lxl Ix1 IXI lx El IB lxl ’ IXI 5 Rev. 03128196 ii4 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). h) 0 Expansive soils? (#I, pgs 5-3 - 5-13; #2, pgs 4-l 50 - _- 4-156; #3, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l, pgs 5-3 - 5- 13; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #3, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) b) cl 4 e) 8) h) 9 Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#I, pgs 5-19 - 5- 27; #2, pgs 4-l 10 -4-l 18; #3, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (# 1, pgs 5- 19 - 5-27; #2, pgs 4- 110 - 4-l 18; #3, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#I, pgs 5- 19 - 5-27; #2, pgs 4- IlO-4-118;#3,pgs5.2-l-5.2-11) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#1, pgs 5-19 - 5-27; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #3, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#I, pgs 5-19 - 5-27; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4- 118; #3, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1) 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? (#I, pgs 5-19 - 5-27; #2, pgs 4-l 10 - 4-l 18; #3, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#I, pgs 5-19 - 5-27; #2, pgs 4-l 10 - 4-l 18; #3, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#I, pgs 5-19 - 5-27; #2, pgs 4-l 10 - 4-118; #3, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l, pgs 5-19 - 5-27; #2, pgs 4-l 10 - 4-l 18; #3, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2- 11) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l, pgs 5- 14 - 5-18; #2, pgs 4-84 - 4-93; #3, pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l, pgs 5-14 - 5-18; #2, pgs 4-110 -4-l 18; #3, pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature+ or cause any change in climate? (#I, pgs 5-14 - 5-18; #2, pgs 4- 110 -4-l 18; #3, pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#I, pgs 5-14 - 5-l 8; #2, pgs 4-l 10 -4-l 18; #3, pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12) Potentially Significant Impact q cl ‘0 cl q cl Cl 0 cl cl q Cl cl Cl Cl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 Cl cl 0 cl Cl Cl 0 0 cl cl Cl Cl cl Less Than Significan t impact cl 0 Cl cl cl 0 cl cl 0 cl q El q cl cl No Impact lzl El Ix1 El Ix1 El Ix1 lxl El (XI I8 El ix1 lxl IXI 6 Rev. 03l28f96 lb-- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the a) b) cl 4 e) 0 Is) proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traflic congestion? (#l, pgs 5-86 - 5-107; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7- 22) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l, pgs 5-86 - 5-107; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l, pgs 5-86 - 5-107; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pgs 5.7- 1 - 5.7-22) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l, pgs 5-86 - 5-107; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l, pgs 5-86 - 5-107; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l, pgs 5-86 - 5-107; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l, pgs 5-86 - 5-107; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result b) c> 4 e) VIII. 4 b) in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#I, pgs 5-28 - 5-60; #2, pgs 4-l 19 - 4-149; #3,5.4-l - 5.4-24) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#I, pgs 5-28 - 5-60; #2, pgs 4-l 19 - 4-149; #3, 5.4-l - 5.4- 24) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#I, pgs 5-28 - 5-60; #2, pgs 4-l 19 - 4-149; #3,5.4-l - 5.4-24) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#I, pgs 5-28 - 5-60; #2, pgs 4-l 19 - 4-149; #3, 5.4-l - 5.4-24) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#I, pgs 5-28 - 5-60; #2, pgs 4-l 19 - 4-149; #3,5.4-l - 5.4-24) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l, pgs 5-l 14 - 5-l 99; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4- 109; #3, pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#I, pgs 5-l 14 - 5-199; #2, pgs 4- 94 -4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5) Potentially Significant htlpact 0 0 cl cl cl Cl cl q El q cl cl cl cl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Cl El cl cl cl cl cl 0 0 cl cl cl 0 cl Less Than Significan t Impact cl 0 cl cl cl cl 0 cl cl cl cl cl cl cl No Impact IXI IB Ix) [XI [XI Ix1 El El IXI Ix1 lx EJ Ix1 IZJ 7 Rev. 03/28/96 /G Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? (#l, pgs 5-l 14 - 5-199; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5) 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, pg. 5-132; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-3) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l, pgs 5-108 - 5-l 13; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-3) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#1, pg. 5-132 #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-3) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#I, pg. 5-132 #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-3) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#1, pgs 5-28 - 5-60 #2, pgs 4-94 - 4- 109; #3, pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-3) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#I, pgs 5-61 - 5-70; #2, pgs 4-81 - 4-84; #3, pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l, pgs 5- 6 1 - 5-70; #2, pgs 4-8 1 - 4-84; #3, pgs 5.9- 1 - 5.9-l 5) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect 4 b) c) 4 e) upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? (#l, pgs 5- 108 - 5-l 13; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6) Police protection? (# 1, pgs 5- 108 - 5-l 13; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6) Schools? (# 1, pgs 5- 108 - 5- 113; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4- 109; #3, pgs 5.12.7-1 - 5.12.7-5) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l, pgs 5-108 - 5-l 13; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.8-7) Other governmental services? (#I, pgs 5-108 - 5-l 13; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.8-7) 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-l 14 - 5-l 19; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109;#3, 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5) b) Communications systems? (#I, pgs 5- 114 - 5- 119; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.8-7) Potentially Significant Impact cl El cl cl cl cl cl El cl cl cl cl 0 cl cl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Cl cl cl Cl cl cl cl cl cl Cl cl 0 cl cl q Less Than No Signitican Impact t impact cl [XI cl cl cl cl cl Cl cl cl cl cl cl 0 El EJ El .: Ix] (XI [XI lxl lzl cl El cl El 8 Rev. 03/28/96 17 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) d) e) f-l g) XIII. a> b) c) XIV. a) b) c) 4 e) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#1, pgs 5-l 14 - 5-l 19; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l, pgs 5-l 14 - 5-l 19; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.2-I : 5.12.3-7) Storm water drainage? (#1, pgs 5-l 14 - 5-l 19; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.2-I - 5.12.3-7) Solid waste disposal? (#l, pgs 5-l 14 - 5-l 19; #2, pgs 4- 94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.4-l - 5.12.4-3) Local or regional. water supplies? (#l, pgs 5-l 14 - 5- 119; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.2-I - 5.12.3-7) AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l, pgs 5- 120 - 5-129; #2, pgs 4-35 - 4-62; #3, pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.1 l- 5) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (# 1, pgs 5-120 - 5-129; #2, pgs 4-35 - 4-62; #3, pgs 5.11-l - 5.1 l-5) Create light or glare? (#I, pgs 5-120 - 5-129; #2, pgs 4- 35 - 4-62; #3, pgs 5.10.3-I - 5.10.3-2) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? (#l, pgs 5-130 - 5- 131; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#I, pgs 5-130 - 5- 131; #2, pgs4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) Affect historical resources? (#l, pgs 5-130 - 5-13 1; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (# 1, pgs 5- 130 - 5-131; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8- 10) Restrict existing religious or. sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l, pgs 5-130 - 5-13 1; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l, pg. 5-132; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l, pg. 5- 132; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 5.12.8-I - 5.12.8-7) Potentially Significant impact cl cl cl 0 cl III cl cl cl Cl cl cl cl cl cl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated cl cl 0 cl 0 cl cl cl cl cl cl cl El 0 cl Less Than Significan t Impact 0 cl cl cl cl d cl 0 cl q cl •J cl cl I7 No Impact Ix1 Ix1 El Ix1 Ix1 Ix] lx El lzl IXI /xl IXJ lzl (XI IXI 9 Rev. 03/28/96 4J h Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Potentially LessThan No Significant Signiticant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the cl cl 0 Ix] 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? 0 cl cl lxl (“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, cl cl cl IXI either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis has been conducted on three occasions. First was the Environmental Impact Report for Brocatto at Batiquitos Shores (EIR 89-01 for CT 89-l 9), certified on December 11, 1990. This document analyzed all of the potential impacts for the development and occupation of the 78 unit single family development formerly known as Brocatto (now known as Azure Cove). Second was the Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort (EIR 83-02(A) for CT 8535/MP 177), certified on December 8, 1987. This document analyzed all of the potential impacts for the development and occupation of the over 2,000 unit residential master plan (now known as Aviara) with its associated 18 hole golf course, 550 room hotel, sports club and neighborhood commercial site. Third was the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), which reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City’s General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts. Without exception, the proposed actions have no additional impacts not previously analyzed in the earlier environmental review and no additional review or mitigation measures are necessary. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 49 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION The first component of this proposal involves a clarification of open space boundaries and development standards for an isolated, 1.2 acre lot in Planning Area 13. The lot was identified for development in the original master plan and has been kept clear of vegetation, however the exact development standards were not addressed. During the processing of the General Plan Update in 1994, the site was erroneously designated with as open space. The first component of this proposal reinstates the ability for the lot to develop in accordance with the original intent of the master plan (MP 177). In addition, an area totaling 14.4 acres that was previously designated for low to medium density residential development, that contains both natural and revegetated native habitat, is being designated as open space. The second component deals with the annexation of an adjacent, 78 unit single family development into the Aviara Master Plan (MP 177) as a new planning area. All existing development standards, open space requirements and design criteria contained in the original development, and reviewed by the EIR for Brocatto (EIR 89-01) remain the same with this annexation. AIR OUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased tratZc volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minim& the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need, 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks. pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 ‘71