HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-41; Serenata; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (2)I
.
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
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: SERENATA - AVIARA PLANNING AREA 17
Project Location: West of Ambrosia Lane, between Cormorant Avenue and
Calliandra Place, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
Project Description: Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to
construct 39 single family homes on pregraded lots within
Aviara Planning Area 17
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 20 days of
date of publication.
DATED: *MARCH 17, 1998
CASE NO: SDP 97-21KDP 97-41
CASE NAME: SERENATA - AVIARA PA 17
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 17, 1998
MICHAEL J. HaZMI&t!ER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 l (760) 438-1161 l FAX (760) 438-0894 @
. .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 97-2 1 /CDP 97-4 1
DATE: March 11, 1998
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Serenata - Aviara Planning Area 17
2. APPLICANT: The Brehm Communities
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2835 Camino de1 Rio South, Suite 220,
San Diego. CA 92108 (6 19) 293-7090
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: September 30, 1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Develoument Plan and Coastal Development Permit to
construct 39 singe1 family homes on uregraded lots within Avaira Planning Area 17, located west
of Ambrosia Lane, between Cormorant Avenue and Calliandra Place, Citv of Carlsbad, Countv
of San Diego.
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
0 Population and Housing
q Geological Problems
cl Water
0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
cl Hazards Cl Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality cl Noise cl Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
,
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
El
cl
cl
cl
lxl
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 a Negative
Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIRs and Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior
Compliance has been prepared.
34z-%
Date
,
Planning Director’%%ignat&fe
~I&@
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
,-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GWIDELINES, 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.
l 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. ’
l “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 @J 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).
0 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. 03/28/96
0 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
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
b)
4
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2, pgs 4-1 -
4-26, #3, pgs 1 I-12)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (#l, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2, pgs 4-l -
4-26, #3, pgs 1 I-12)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (#l, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2, pgs 4-l - 4-
26, #3, pgs 11-12)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (#l, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18;
#2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26, #3, pg 11)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#I, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2,
pgs 4-1 - 4-26, #3, pgs 13-14)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6; #2,
pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3, pg 13)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (#I, pgs 5.5-I - 5.5-6; #2, pgs 4-1 -
4-26; #3, pg 13) c) Displace ‘existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l, pgs 5.5-I - 5.5-6; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26;
#3, pg 13-14)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
4
b)
c>
4
e)
f)
Fault rupture? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-
150-4-156;#3,pg7)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15;
.#2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #3, pg 7)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(#l, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #3,
Pg 7) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l, pgs 5. l- 1
- 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #3, pg 7)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l, pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15;
#2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #3, pgs 7-8)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l,
pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #3, pgs
7-8)
Potentially Significant Impact
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
El
Less Than
Signitican
t Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
No Impact
Ix]
El
lxl
El
5 Rev. 03128196
.
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
8)
h)
i)
Subsidence of the land? (#l, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15;
#2, pgs,4-150 - 4-156; #3, pgs 7-8)
Expansive soils? (#l, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-
150 - 4-156; #3, pg 7)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l , pgs 5. l-
1 - 5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #3, pgs 7-8)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
4
b)
c>
4
e)
f,
9)
h)
9
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l, pgs
5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #2, pgs 4-l 10 -4-l 18; #3, pg 8)
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1;
#2, pgs 4-110 -4-l 18; #3, pg 8)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #2,
pgs 4-l 10 - 4-l 18; #3, pg 9)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-l 10
-4-l 18; #3, pg 9)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #2, pgs
4-110 - 4-l 18; #3, pg 8)
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? (#1, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #2, pgs 4-110 -
4-l 18; #3, pg 9)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-l 18; #3,
pg 8) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l, pgs 5.2-l -
5.2-l 1; #2, pgs 4-l 10 -4-l 18; #3, pg 9)
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (#1, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #2, pgs 4-l 10 -
4-l 18; #3, pg 8)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (#l, pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-
12; #2,pgs4-llO-4-118;#3,pg8)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l, pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-
12;#2,pgs4-llO-4-118;#3,pg8)
Potentially
Significant
impact
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Ix1
(XI
gl
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
El
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
cl
cl
cl
Cl
•J
cl
cl *
cl
cl
•J
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
NO
impact
l-xl
lxl
IXI
lxl
El
[xl
El
Ix1
El
lxl
El
IXI
cl
cl
El
izl
6 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VI. TRANSPORTATlON/ClRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a>
b)
cl
4
e)
f)
g>
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#I, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-
22; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pgs 14-15)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (#I, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80;
#3, pg 15) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pg
14) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#I, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3,
pgs 14-15)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (#l, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-
63 - 4-80; #3, pg 14)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l, pgs
5.7-l - 5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pg 14)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a>
b)
cl
4
e)
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (#l, pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24;
#2, pgs 4-l 19 - 4-149; #3, pgs 10-l 1)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l, pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-l 19 - 4-149; #3,
pgs 10-11)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#I, pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-
24;#2,pgs4-119-4-149;#3,pgslO-11)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (#l, pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-l 19 - 4-
149; #3, pgs 10-l 1)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l, pgs
5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-l 19 - 4-149; #3, pg 11)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l, pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109;
#3, Pg 9) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
ineffIcient manner? (#I, pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5;
#2, pgs 4-94 - 4-l 09; #3, pg 9)
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
5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 9)
lxl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
sl
q cl
cl
cl
q
cl
cl
q
cl
cl
q
q
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0’
cl
cl
q
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
lxl
[x1
lxl
[XI
!xl
IXI
ia
El
1x1
lxl
lxl
lxl
Ix1
IXI
7 Rev. 03128196
Potentially Significant
impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significan t Impact
NO Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
4
b)
c>
4
e>
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (# 1, pgs
5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-3; #2, pgs.4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg
13) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#I, pgs
5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-3; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg
15) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-3; #2,
pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 12-13)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#I, pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-3; #2,
pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 12-13)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-3; #2,
pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 13)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l, pgs 5.9-l -
5.9-15; #2, pgs 4-81 - 4-84; #3, pg 12-13)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l, pgs
5.9-l - 5.9-15; #2, pgs 4-81 - 4-84; #3, pg 12-13)
Xl. 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? (#I, pgs 5.12.5-I -5.12.5-6; #2,
pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pg 12) .
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
XII. UTILITIES AiD SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a)
b)
cl
4
e)
fl
Power or natural gas?
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
8
Potentially
Significant
Impact
cl
cl
q
cl
cl
q
q
cl
q cl cl cl
cl cl cl
cl cl cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
q
cl
cl
cl
cl
17
q
cl q cl cl
cl q q
cl cl cl
Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact
cl El
cl lxl
cl Ix]
cl El
Cl IXI
q /xl
q lxl
cl lxl
cl IXJ cl El cl lxl cl IXI
cl IXI cl lx cl lxl
cl IXI cl lxl cl IXI
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIII.
XIV.
xv.
XVI.
XVII.
n-r*
g) Local or regional water supplies?
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light pr glare?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a>
b)
c>
4
e>
Disturb paleontological resources?
Disturb archaeological resources?
Affect historical resources?
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES .
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl 0 cl IXI
cl cl Cl
cl cl q cl
cl
cl
0
cl
q
cl
q 0 cl
q cl cl cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
q cl cl
cl •J q cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
IXI El Ix]
El IXI [XI [XI
IXI
Ix1
txl
IXI
IXI
Ix]
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
9 Rev. 03128196
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
4 Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03128196
-.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AIR QUALITY:
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-O 1, 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.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic 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 minimize 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
11 Rev. 03128196
.-
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. 03128196
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE‘1
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
Rev. 03128196
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
14 Rev. 03128196