HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 98-31; La Vercia Condominiums; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (8)r-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART H
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CDP 98-31
DATE: July 28.1998
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: LA VERCIA CONDOMINIUMS
2. APPLICANT: BAKER AND FARAJZADEH PARTNERSHIP
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P O Box 22652. San Diego. CA 92192
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: June 23. 1992
3.
4.
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: a 5-unit in-fill condominium development ;
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.
| | Land Use and Planning
| | Population and Housing
| | Geological Problems
PI Water
Air Quality
[^1 Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services
| | Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems
| | Energy & Mineral Resources | [ Aesthetics
[ | Hazards [ | Cultural Resources
I I Noise I I Recreation
| | Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
r
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
| | 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.
IX] 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 environmental documents
(MEIR 93-01 and Negative Declaration for CT 91-07/CP 91-04) pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier environmental
review (MEIR 93-01 and Negative Declaration for CT 91-07/CP 91-04), including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature Date
fr- 7-
Planning Director's Signature Date
Rev. 03/28/96
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 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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all 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).
• 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.
• 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.
Rev. 03/28/96
r
• 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.
• 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.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2:Pgs 6-9)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2:Pgs 6-9)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2:Pgs 6-9)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2:Pgs
6-9)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6; #2:Pgs 6-
9)
b) Induce substantial growth hi an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
5.5-6; #2:Pgs 6-9)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6; #2:Pgs 6-9)
D
D
D
D
D
D
III. 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; #2:Pgs 6-9)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;
#2:Pgs 6-9)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l-5.1.15;#2:Pgs6-9)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15; #2:Pgs 6-9)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;
#2:Pgs6-9)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1-5.1-15; #2:Pgs 6-9)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2:Pgsg)
h)
i)
6-9)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2:Pgs 6-9)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15;#2:Pgs6-9)
D
D
D
n
D
D
D
D
D
n
D
n
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
ll;#2:Pgs6-9)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #2:Pgs 6-9)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #2:Pgs 6-
9)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water hi any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #2:Pgs 6-9)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #2:Pgs 6-9)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #2:Pgs 6-9)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #2:Pgs 6-9)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
ll;#2:Pgs6-9)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l-5..2-ll;#2:Pgs6-9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
n
n
n
n
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporatedn
n
n
n
n
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
n
n
D
n
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
l-5.3-12;#2:Pgs6-9)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
- 5.3-12; #2:Pgs 6-9)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12; #2:Pgs
6-9)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12;
#2:Pgs 6-9)
D
D
D
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2:Pgs 6-9)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2:Pgs
6-9)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2:Pgs 6-9)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2:Pgs 6-9)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2:Pgs 6-9)
D
n
n
n
a
a
a
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2:Pgs 6-9)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22; #2:Pgs 6-9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
O
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
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; #2:Pgs 6-9)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2:Pgs 6-9)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24;
#2:Pgs 6-9)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2:Pgs 6-9)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
- 5.4-24; #2:Pgs 6-9)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9; #2:Pgs
6-9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
l-5.13-9;#2:Pgs6-9)
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 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1-5.13-9; #2:Pgs 6-9)
D D
D
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 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5;
#2:Pgs 6-9)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5;#2:Pgs6-9)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2:Pgs 6-9)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2:Pgs 6-
9)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5; #2:Pgs 6-9)
D
D
D
n
D
D
D
a
a
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
15;#2:Pgs6-9)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15; #2:Pgs 6-9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
n
No
Impact
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; #2:Pgs 6-
9)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4; #2:Pgs
6-9)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5; #2:Pgs 6-9)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (;
#2:Pgs 6-9)
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7; #2:Pgs 6-9)
D
D
D
D
D
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 &
5.13-l-5.13-9;#2:Pgs6-9)
b) Communications systems? (; #2:Pgs 6-9)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7; #2:Pgs 6-9)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7;
#2:Pgs 6-9)
e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8; #2:Pgs 6-9)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3;
#2:Pgs 6-9)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7; #2:Pgs 6-9)
D
D
D
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l-5.11-5;#2:Pgs6-9)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 -5.11-5;#2:Pgs6-9)
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5; #2:Pgs
6-9)
D
D
D
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10; #2:Pgs 6-9)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10; #2:Pgs 6-9)
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10;
#2:Pgs 6-9)
D D
D D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-1-5.8-10; #2:Pgs 6-9)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2:Pgs 6-
9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7; #2:Pgs 6-9)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
ana
ana
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
r
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
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
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.
c) 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. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project application is for a Coastal Development Permit for a 5-unit condominium
development on a .41-acre in-fill site. The project site is in the Mello II segment of the Local
Coastal Program. The site is a long, narrow lot containing no sensitive resources. The previous
environmental review concluded that there would be no potentially significant impacts resulting
from the proposed project. The current review reaches the same conclusion as there have been
no changes in the site or the applicable regulations which result in the identification of
potentially significant issues not previously identified.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Environmental Impact Discussion
5. 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 93-01, 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
r
6. Transportation/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 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
P o
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 438-1161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Negative Declaration for CT 91-07/CP 91-04. dated June 23, 1992, City of Carlsbad
Planning Department.
13 Rev. 03/28/96