The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 97-24; May Subdivision; Tentative Map (CT) (5)% City of Carlsbad Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: Project Description: Southwest corner of Park Drive and Monroe Avenue in the northwest quadrant. Zone change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to rezone an infill parcel from a split R-l-7500 and R-1-15000 zoning to R-l-10000 and tentative map, coastal development permit, and minor site development plan to subdivide and grade the 4.67 acre parcel into 14 standard (10,000 square foot minimum) single family lots with detached 603 square foot second dwelling units on two lots to satisfy inclusionary housing requirements. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents 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 issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4477. DATED: CASE NO: MAY 22, 1998 CT 97-24/LCPA 97-12/ZC 97-08/CDP 97-58 CASE NAME: MAY SUBDIVISION PUBLISH DATE: MAY 22, 1998 MICHAEL J. HOLZMIIXER Planning Director 2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT97-24/LCPA 97-12/ZC 97-08/CDP 97-58 DATE: May 11. 1998 BACKGROUND CASE NAME May Subdivision 2. 3. 4. 5. APPLICANT: James and Patricia May ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3926 Park Drive. Carlsbad. CA 92008 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 23. 1997 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Zone change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to rezone an infill parcel from a split R-l-7500 and R-l-15000 zoning to R-l-10000 and tentative map, coastal development permit and minor site development plan to subdivide the 4.67 acre parcel into 14 standard (10,000 square foot minimum) single family lots with detached 603 square foot second dwelling units on two lots to satisfy inclusionary housing requirements. 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. X| Land Use and Planning | | Population and Housing | | Geological Problems Water Air Quality £<] Transportation/Circulation | [ Public Services [~| Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems | | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics f>^ Hazards | | Cultural Resources [~[ Noise | | Recreation [~~| Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 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. | | 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 an earlier pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature U 77 Date Planning Direc 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 • 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). LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (Source #1 b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Source c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source #1) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (Source #1) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (Source #1)) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D D POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Source #1) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Source #1) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source #1) D D D D D D III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (Sources #1,4) b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #4) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source #4) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #3) e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #3) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Source #4) g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #4) h) Expansive soils? (Source #4) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source # 4) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source #5) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source #2, 5) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #2) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Source #2) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Source #2) 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? (Source #2) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Source #2) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #2) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source #2) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D n nn V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source #2) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source #2) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? () d) Create objectionable odors? () D D D D D D VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source #2) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source #1.) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #1) D D D D D D D D D n 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? (Source #1,2) D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source #1,2) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #1,2) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Source #1,2) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source #1,2) Potentially Significant Impact D D a Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated a a Less Than Significant Impact a a a a No Impact VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Source #1,2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Source #1,2) 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? (Source #1,2) a a 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)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? () c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (Source #6) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? () D D D D D D D D D D X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #1,2) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source #1,2) D D D D D 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? (Source #1) b) Police protection? (Source #2) c) Schools? (Source #1) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Source #1) e) Other governmental services? (Source #2) D D D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? (Sources #1,2) b) Communications systems? () c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (Source #1,2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #1,2) e) Storm water drainage? (Source #1,2) f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #1,2) g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #1,2) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (Source #1) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (Source #2) c) Create light or glare? (Source #2) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? () b) Disturb archaeological resources? () c) Affect historical resources? (Source #2) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source #2) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (Source #2) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source #1) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D n nnna n a a Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Dn nnnn n n D Dnnn D n n Less Than No Significant Impact Impact n EI D Eln EI n EIn EIn EIn EI n EI n EI n EI n En EIn (Ein E D El n EI n 'EI 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? D n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D 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. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Environmental Analysis The infill parcel, located in LFM Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant, is designated for Residential Low Medium density allowing 0-4 dwelling units/acre and has a split zoning: R-l (7500) on the north half and R-l-15,000 on the southern half. The surrounding areas to the north and west are zoned R-l and developed with single family residences and existing infrastructure. The lots to the east and south are zoned R-l-15,000 and also developed with single family residences and existing infrastructure. The site consists of 4.67 acres which fall gently in a southwest direction with elevations ranging from 230 feet above mean seal level (amsl) in the northeast corner to 210 feel amsl in the southwest corner of the site. May Foilage Company, a wholesale plant company, operates on the site under approval of a conditional use permit. The property has been used for agricultural purposes since sometime prior to 1953, and over the past 40 years, it can be presumed that chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and rodenticides have been applied to the soils. The site is occupied by large green houses used to cultivate indoor plants, the company office, a garage, storage buildings, and a pesticide shed with a boiler and chemical tanks for distribution of fertilizer and pesticide solutions to the green houses via underground piping. The site is also occupied by the May single family residence and a garage. Runoff from the site which is increased due to coverage by green houses and paving is directed to Park Drive. All existing development would be demolished and/or removed to enable grading and the subdivision of the parcel into single family lots and a public culdesac street providing access from Park Drive.. la. Land Use - General Plan/Zoning The project is consistent with the underlying RLM General Plan designation allowing a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre, however, the project density of 3.4 dwelling units per acre (including two second dwelling units) exceeds the Growth Management Growth Control Point (GCP) of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan allows infill subdivisions in LFM Zone 1 to exceed the density range and/or GCP up to 25% above the maximum allocation (5 dwelling units per acre), in those cases where the underlying zone would permit a slightly higher yield, compatibility is ensured, and Growth Management findings can be made. The applicant is requesting a zone change from a split R-l and R-l-15,000 to R-l-10,000. The zone change would not enable a maximum density yield higher than existing zoning under the General Plan provision discussed above. Public facilities are adequate in LFM Zone 1 to accommodate the proposed units and there are excess dwelling units in the quadrant to ensure that the maximum number of dwelling units in the northwest quadrant would not be exceeded at buildout. The zone change would ensure compatibility by providing a transition zone between existing R-l zoning and smaller lots to the north and R-l-15,000 zoning and larger lots to the south. Ib. Land Use - Local Coastal Program The project is subject to and consistent with the General Plan RLM land use designation allowing 0-4 dwelling units per acre, however, the project consists of a zone change to change the zoning from its current split R-l and R-l-15,000 classification to R-l-10,000. Approval of a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) is required to ensure consistency between the LCP and the implementing zoning. The project includes a request for a LCPA to satisfy this 10 Rev. 03/28/96 requirement. V. 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. VI. 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. 03/28/96 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. VII. Biological Resources The project is an infill location surrounded by existing single family development. The site is currently occupied by the May Foilage Company, a wholesale plant company, consisting of large green houses and a single family dwelling. No sensitive native species exist on this previously graded and developed site. IXd. Hazards Based on an "Environmental Audit Report" conducted for the May Foilage Company by MV Environmental, Inc. dated August 19, 1994, findings that "some indications of potential hazards or conditions present evidence for further evaluation. These conditions should be further evaluated by performing site sampling and testing to help determine the presence of hazardous materials in near surface soils. This determination is presented to identify if organo-phosphate pesticides, ammonium, and/or nitrate fertilizers are present in the soil as a result of the observed and disclosed evidence of chemical storage areas, distribution points, and the number of years the site has been utilized for this type of land use." The recommended mitigation is a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and additional interviews with people knowledgeable of previous site activities to determine if any necessary corrective work is required.. SOURCE DOCUMENTS: - Note: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (760) 438-1161. 1. Carlsbad General Plan adopted September 6, 1994. 2. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update certified September 6, 1994. 3. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, Mello II Segment. 4. "Preliminary Soil & Geotechnical Investigation" dated July 20, 1994 performed by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. 5. "Hydraulic Analysis" Letter dated April 6, 1998. 6. "Phase I Environmental Audit Report - May Foilage Company" prepared by MV Environmental, Inc. dated August 19, 1994. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the findings of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with the recommendation of the "Environmental Audit Report" conducted by MV Environmental, Inc. dated August 19, 1994, shall be submitted to the Planning Department with a mitigation plan for any necessary corrective work. Evidence from the Department of County Health that the corrective work has been implemented in accordance with the mitigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to commencement of work. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 13 Rev. 03/28/96 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 S igoreigno t/ \ i ^, A li ' rvuu 14 Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL MITI^TION MONITORING AND REPORTIN^PROGRAM: Page 1 of 1 UJ "co CO LO -J_ O) Q_ Q O COo O) Ofsl CM<t—i O) D_ O CN N- 0) h-o D) ^~* E o 0 "D O C "o0 'o' Q. W *" "co o Q.Q. <^., O cb ,'.; w ^ UJ 0LU LU .2 m *~^ •— • S rn c i I 3 LU _j 0 d < £" § 5 -z.0 CO > __SUBDI^_ <; ^ LU p •- Q "S o 1f •) O ^ Q. Ooc 0 05 to0 ^CO0 E f~ o "(DD) E 5"c0 Ec O ^ <; 0 <( Q _ 2 _i ci- < 'iO > oUJ O =5^ cu £O CL 0or: Q. .£CL < 1- CO( — *-"<n0<4— «CO0 c §w CO0 E co •~ COen E oCO0 t_ •4-1w ~ 00 0 •a0 O) 'w •o CO T3CD (U "o. Eo0 <^ 00c COo 'ED) 'w .£ "o "0 CD •^ CO4— 'oCOa. E' "co "c0Eco ~ c0 T30 i^-'•+-* 0) !^ >^\ o E0CO -*?^c ^•G0 Q. CO0 SI-t->§ C/) "c0 E 2? rscr0 O)^c o 'Eo E (/>•>,-*— *b0 "Jo Tn; 1 T3 CD C0 E0a. E T3 CO £ 5 •o0 "o. Eo0 c00JO <f) CO-C 0 ^(OCO0 E co 1oD) E CO -t— • S" ^ooo CM Co 't50 CO 0•ooo (/)0ol» 0 0DH 0 5 13 ^OCO CO = in co o> o "O .{S (5 0) o5 E "5. E «- o *"* c c5 coOE ^ .44. .*_.O) CG CD Itc c" if O)c•c o>o o- o ^~Mitigation Measure^.., O) 'E CO Q. 0) -o TO -^(/) m a grading permit, the findings of a Phaisessment in accordance with the"Environmental Audit Report" conductsInc. dated A ugust 19, 1994, shall beng Department with a mitigation plan forork. Evidence from the Department ofcorrective work has been implementedtigation plan shall be submitted to therior to commencement of work.°<!S! u-21^o cu *^ (— ,*y ^ t . fi_ dj C •— Q) O *j^ CO i * C~co c// c r~ ., y j~i ._ p-; (/) ^J (n O ^""^ O •*"* ^ ^ O x^ "i~- W ^^ ~n ^— QLLLJ E^^io cO coS cu^ o c0) .CD CL CCD ra CD E (3) •5-dC <D•2 E ra I •^3 = T3 11° Ml ^ ra CLx T3C CDQ. Q. Q [£ Ira | '<noc '•BTO0)X•s co Explanatg di I, responsible for monitoring a particulai0•ocCD 2i_ O c E ra.E °- rod t3CD '8"Q. II CDQ. ^ CDD en Monitorin0) 3 C/>ra 1 cg raO) n 1 c | "oo (O!c </>"c "o.coc o to CD 1310raCD co IS.2> '§§iit encra c CL r* r-informatiiShown 01. £ T3 CO CO ra ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS Questionnaire Item No. I-a) Currently this property has two residential zones assigned to it. The west half is R-l-7500 and the east half is R-l-15000. We have requested a Rezone for the site to R-l-10,000 consistent with the developed properties to the north of the subject property. The existing zone west and south of this site is R-l-7500 while the property easterly of the site is R-l-15000. This site is a transition property between the R-l-7500 zone and the R-l-15000 zone in this area of the city. I-c) All of the properties surrounding this site have been previously developed with residential land uses. The subject site has been utilized as a residential lot with an agricultural greenhouse operation on a portion of it for years. This development, if approved, is very compatible with the adjacent residential land uses and lot sizes. I-d) There is a small agricultural operation on a portion of the site which will be removed with the development of the property. It is a flower/plant growing facility run by the owner of the property who also resides in the existing older single family home on the site. The removal of the small agricultural operation will have no significant impact upon the agricultural resources within the city. Il-b) This is an infill project which is surrounded by existing single family residential land uses and so no growth inducement will occur with the development of this site. Ill) Refer to Project Soils Report prepared by M.V. Engineering. IV-a) Site grading, erosion control measures and storm runoff retention facilities will be designed into the project to insure that the drainage patterns, rate, and amounts of runoff will not increase as a result of this development. Vl-a) This project will increase the vehicle trips generated from this site once it is developed. Currently, the existing residence generates about 10 trips per day and the greenhouse 1 operation generates about 104 trips per day, using 2 trips per 1000 square feet of greenhouse area. This equates to an existing A.D.T. of 114. Once developed as residential property, the estimate of A.D.T. is 140. Therefore our project would result in an A.D.T. increase of 26 trips per day which is an insignificant increase. No increased traffic congestion will occur as a result of this project. IX-a) This project, if approved, would actually stop the use of chemicals and fertilizers now utilized in the greenhouse operation and therefore reduce the potential risk to adjacent neighbors. Xll-a) This project will require the undergrounding of existing overhead power and phone services on Park Drive. Public utilities will be extended from Park Drive into the new onsite public street. These are very short extensions which will have very little, if any, impact upon the serving agency. All public utilities exist within the abutting public streets. CONCLUSION This project is an infill development which seeks to convert a 100% disturbed 4.67 acre parcel into a 14-lot residential subdivision consistent with adjacent land uses. Public services can be provided to this project without any significant impact to the serving agencies. No native habitat will be lost as a result of this development due to the existing disturbed nature of this site. Traffic will increase very slightly as a result of this development at insignificant levels. The onsite soils are adequate for the intensity of the proposed land use and no increase in site runoff will occur as a result of project design. The development seeks to create lots of similar sizes to those surrounding lots with similar sized homes. No growth inducement will be created by this development since it is an "infill" project. It is therefore my opinion that no significant impacts to the environment will occur with the development of this project as proposed. A. Laret R.C.E. 29375 CADATAVGENNOTESV182AEIS.INF City of Carlsbad Planning Department INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR FILLING OUT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Form - Part I will be used to determine what type of environmental documentation (i.e., Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration or Exemption) will be required to be prepared for your application, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 19 of Carlsbad's Municipal Code. The clarity and accuracy of the information you provide is critical for purposes of quickly determining the specific environmental effects of your project. Recent judicial decisions have held that a "naked checklist," that is checklist that is merely checked "yes" or "no," is insufficient to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality act. Each "yes" or "no" answer must be accompanied by a written explanation justifying the "yeslpr "no" _answ,er. This is especially important when a Negative Declaration is being sought. The more information provided in this form, the easier and quicker it will be for staff to complete the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II. 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: DATE RECEIVED: (To be completed by staff) BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: 2. APPLICANT:. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: j£t?&t/Gr3s~~ 7~O SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. | | Land Use and Planning j j Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services | | Population and Housing | | Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems | | Geological Problems | | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics | | Water | | Hazards | | Cultural Resources | | Air Quality | | Noise | | Recreation | | Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 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. 7 • "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 • 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): (Supplemental-documents may beirejerned to and attached) LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) c) d) e) (Source #(s): ( Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? ( ) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? ( ' ) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D Less Than Significan t Impact D D D No Impact II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? b) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? () f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ( h) Expansive soils? ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ) D D D (see D Da a aa aaa D a aaa a aa a a a aaa a a aa IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ($&£' LE?7feJ$> b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) 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? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 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? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ' ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? Potentially Significant Impact D n n n D g D n n D n n n n n n Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D n n n n nn n n n D D n n n n n Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact D H" n B- D B" D. B- D 0" D Q- D 0" D B- D B- D B- n 0" n o- D B- D 0" D & D 0^ n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may bereferred:to and attached) 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? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Potentially Significant Impact n n D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact D D D D VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) 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? ( ) D 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)? ( §"£?P £(£ffiSf£. b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing soufces of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, n grass, or trees? ()n D D D D D D D D D X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? nn nn n 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? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) c) Schools? ( ) D n nn nnn Rev. 03/28/96 issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas? ( <%&& {.&7J1&/La) b) c) d) e) f) g) Communications systems? ( ) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) Storm water drainage? ( ) Solid waste disposal? ( ) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? ( ) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) c) Affect historical resources? ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Potentially Significant Impact n n nnn nn n n nnn n n Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated n n n n n n n n n Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact n nnn n nn n n n n n n 0 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) 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? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact D D D D D D D D 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. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact" yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors. 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. 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 9 Rev. 03/28/96 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. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 10 Rev. 03/28/96