HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-01; Design Review Board; Resolution 2401
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 240
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 5400
SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 660 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE IN SUBAREA 1 OF THE
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
CASE NAME: BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO STORE
CASE NO: RP 95-02KDP 95-02
APN: 203-304-26
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 1st day of November, 1995
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request for a
Negative
Declaration; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing and upon considering all testimony and
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design
Review Board as follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
Review Board hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according
to the one page notice and the EIA Part I1 Form attached hereto and
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Negative Declaration (RP 95-02), the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to approving
the project. Based on the EIA Part-I1 and comments thereon, the Design
Review Board finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have
a significant effect on the environment and thereby approves the Negative
Declaration. ....
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
_-
DRB Resolution No. 240
Page 2
.... ....
2. The Design Review Board finds that the Negative Declaration (RP 95-02)
reflects the independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the City of
Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of November, 1995 by
the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Vice-Chairperson Welshons, Board Members : Compas,
Marquez & Savary.
Board Member Vessey.
None.
None.
KIM WELSHONS, VICJKHAEF'ERSON
DESIGN RE= BOARD
ATTEST:
A
EVAN E. BECKER
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
EXHIBIT 6
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION 660 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal
Development Permit to allow the construction of a 5,400
square foot video store with concomitant 18 parking
spaces, landscaping, driveways, and trash enclosure on a
site presently used as a modeling agency and nail salon.
The medical office is to be relocated on the lot
_- __ immediately adjacent to the north, while the converted
house and garage will be demolished.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental reLiew 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 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 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 Brian Hunter in the Planning
Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4357.
DATED:
c
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
MICHAEL J. HOLZmLER
CASE NO: RP 95-0UCDP 95-02 Planning Director
CASE NAME BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
BHkr
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1 161 @
ENYIRONMEW" C IMPACT ASSESSME NT FORh PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. pP95-0 2 I CDP 95-02
DATE: SEPTEMBER 12.1995
SACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Blockbuster Video
2. APPLICANT: Blockbuster Video
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4805 Mwhv Canyon Road. San Dieeo. Ca.
92 1 23. (6 19) 279-500 1
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMI'ITED: June 22.1995
5. PROIECT DESCRIPTION: Maior Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the
demolition of a vernacular stvle house and pane presently used as a modeling agency and nail salon to
allow the construction of a 5400 sauare foot retail establishment with attendant 18 Darkinn %aces (10
standard. 7 comDact. 1 phvsicallv challenged) and ksh enclosure on a 15.500 sctuare foot site located at
660 Carlsbad Village Drive (APNs 203-304-2436. and 28).
'JMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
he summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
ie impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
corporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Land Use and Planning TransportationlCiulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
- Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources
- Air Quality - Noise - Recreation
- X Mandatory Findings of Significance
1
DETERMINATION. -
(To'be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Ixl
I fmd 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. 0-
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. El
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one 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, if the
effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially si@icant unless mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION -is requird, but- it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.' 0.
1 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 sidcant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATlVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR 1 h4ITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 0
q./lC*4s
P1 annet Signature Date
Planning Directozigna@e Date
2
ENVIROkMENTAL IMPAm
STA- 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 signifkant effect on the environment. The Environmental
impact Assessment appks in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impcted by the proposad project and provides the City with information
!o use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, x 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
supported if the referenced information sourax 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 geneial standards.
an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately - !
I
"Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not i
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 Signtficant 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 signifkant 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 glJ potentially signifkant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and @) 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, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior
Compliance).
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.
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.
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 ElR pursuant to applicable standards and
the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
3
i
* -
' An EIR must be prepared if "P ntially significant Impact" is checked .d 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 signifcant, or, (4) through the EIA-Rut 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. Farticular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would othewise be determined significant.
-
4 Rev. 1/30/95
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source #(s): 1)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( 1
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( 1
Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? ( 1
Disrupt or divide the physical anangement
of an established community (including a low-
) income or minority community)? (
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
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)? ( 1
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (
UI. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( )
b) Seismicgroundshaking?( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? ( )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( )
9 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? ( )
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( )
X -
X -
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
6
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) Change 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 - X an existing or projected air quality violation? (#1) -
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) - -
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( ) - -
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) - -
7
Issues (rad suppating lnfomutial saucer):
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or MIC congestion? (please
see site plan )
Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( )
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearbyuses?( )
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (please review site plan )
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ( )
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( )
Rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts? ( )
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,andbirds?( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
t=4?( 1
8
c) Locally designated communit es
(e.g. oak forest, cuastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? ( )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors? ( )
VUI. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation
.*--
plans?( I ..
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
Result in the loss of availability of a lcnown
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State? ( )
N. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? ( )
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? ( 1
Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? ( )
9
e) Increase fue hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? ( )
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? ( 1 -
b) Police protection? ( 1
c) Schools? (
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ( 1
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:
* a) Power or natural gas? ( )
b) Communications system? ( 1
10
r
Sinifii hes (rrd suppanin# Inf~tial sauces):
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ( ) - x.
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( 1
e) Storm water drainage? ( 1
f) Solid waste disposal? ( 1
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( )
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( )
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? ( 1
c) Create light or glare? ( 1
XN. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( 1
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( 1
c) Affecthistoricalresources?( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( 1
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? ( 1
11
r
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
( 1 - -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( 1 - -
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 wild life 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) - X -
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
12
- XW. IkRLIER 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 identrfy the following
on attached sheets:
Earlier analyses used. Identfi earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review. See source documents nos. 1 through 3.
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. See discussion under Air Quality, Circulation, and Mandatory Finding of
Significance.
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.
.- - - - -- - - - - - - -
13 Rev. 1/3opJ
DI!kUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTP" EVALUATION
Environmental Setting and Ro _W Background
The project area is located within the Coastal Plain, has an average rainfall of approximately 13 inches, and
moderate temperatures. Geologically the site is located on Pleistocene marine and marine terrace deposits. The
land type is Terrace Escarpment, characterized by 4 to 10 inches of loamy or gravelly soil over soft marine
sandstone, shale, or gravelly sediments.
The 15JOO square foot site is located along the main east-west corridor in the Village Redevelopment Area
(Carlsbad Village Drive) approximately one half mile east of the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of 50 feet above
mean sea level. The site presently contains a medical ofice (approved for relocation per Redevelopment Permit
95-01) and a Vernacular style house and garage that has been converted to a modeling agency and nail salon
(which are to be demolished). The project site was included in the "Cultural Resource Survey, City of Carlsbad"
conducted by Roth and Associates, dated February 18, 1990, and no significant resources were identified.
-
The project consists of a Redevelopment and a Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a 5400
square foot video store with 18 parking spaces, driveways, trash enclosure, and landscaping. The site will be
accessed by vehicle from Madison Street and the alleyway between Madison Street and Roosevelt Street off of
Carlsbad Village Drive. Pedestrians have direct access to the site from Carlsbad Village Drive, as well as the
aforementioned parking areas. Additional public parking is available immediately to the west of the alley at the
comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt Street.
In addition to the technical analysis conducted as a part of this Redevelopment Permit, the City has certified a Final
Master Environmental Impact Report for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The certified Master Environmental
Impact Report is on file in the Planning Department. The Master Environmental Impact Report serves as the basis
of environmental review and impact mitigation for projects that are consistent with this plan, including projects
within the Redevelopment Area.
This Redevelopment Permit does not constitute the addition of a major new land use or a significant increase in
an existing land use, therefore, the following "environmental evaluation categories" either result in "no impact" or
are not applicable due to the nature of the project and there is not a discussion or evaluation in the text of this
Initial Study:
I.
II.
VII.
VIII.
Ix.
X.
XI.
LAND USE AND PLANNING: d) and e)
POPULATION AND HOUSING: a) through c)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: a) through e)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES: a) through c)
HAZARDS: a) through e)
NOISE a) and b)
PUBLIC SERVICES: a) through e)
14
Xk UTILITIES AND SERVICES or'STEMS: a) through g) '
XIII. AESTHETICS: a) through c)
XV. RECREATION: a) and b)
LAND USE AND PLANNING;
The retail use proposed is consistent with the General Plan and the Village Redevelopment Plan. The Village
Redevelopment Plan Area is the heart of Carlsbad, and was one of the first sections of the City to be settled in
the 1880's. The Redevelopment Plan for the Village Redevelopment Plan Area calls for the expansion of
mercantile activity. The project is located within Sub-Area 1 of the Redevelopment Plan. Sub-iirea 1 has
traditionally functioned s the central business district of Carlsbad. Its one and two story shops and offices met the
mercantile and service needs of Carlsbad for several decades. External factors, specifically the El Camino Real
Shopping Center and the reorientation of the major north/south thoroughfare from Carlsbad Boulevard to Interstate
5, have affected the economic viability of the downtown area. The project is further defined locationally by being
in the Village Centre Special Treatment Area which is intended to serve as the focal point for Sub-Area 1 and
become the major attracting force for the redevelopment project.
-
~ ._ - --__ -- c--__-.______ .. . - .___.___ - ___ AIR OUALITY:
The continued commercial use of this site was considered in the updated 1994 General Plan. 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 sigrufcant: 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 F'I Master EIR. These include: I) 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 "Initid Study" checklist is marked "Potentidy 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.
a CIRC!vLATION; r-
'he implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan
will result in inmd traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic;
however, 12 full and 2 psrtial 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 interseaians
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 Signifcant 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 9341, by City Council Resolution No.
94-246, included a "Statement Of Ovemding 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.
XlV. CULTURAL RESOURCES: See discussion under "Environmental Setting and Background".
XVI. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE: See discussion under "Air Quality" and "Circulation".
Source Documents: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department at 2075 Las palmas Drive.
1) Carlsbad General Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report, dated September 1994.
2) Village Design Manual, City of Carlshad, Revised April 1988.
3) Cultural Resource Survey, City of Carlsbad, Roth and Associates, February 18, 1990.
16 Rev. rn
- LIST MITIGATING MEASURES a~ -DPLICABLE)
N/As
ATTACH MTTIGATION MONITQ RING PROGRAM W APPLICABLE1
N/A
17
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.
bate Signature
18 Rev. 1/30195