HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 39591
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
28
0 e
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3959
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN EXPANSION OF AN
EXISTING TELEPHONE ELECTRONIC SWITCHING
FACILITY IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL ZONE.
CASE NAME: PACIFIC BELL EXPANSION
CASE NO.: CUP 154(C)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of August 1996,l
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by stai
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Pla:
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plm
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “
dated June 18, 1996, and “PII”, dated June 5, 1996, attached hereto and made 2
hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may h
significant impact on the environment.
2. The project is an expansion of an existing telephone electronic switching facilit
site of which was previously graded and developed with buildings, asphalt
landscaping. The surrounding land is developed with planned industrial uses,
significant adverse environmental impacts will result due to this project.
3. The applicable and appropriate General Plan MEIR mitigation condition!
Circulation and Air Quality have been included in the design of this project.
telephone electronic switching facility is served by existing fully improved st1
including sidewalks on a portion of the north side of Camino Vida Roble; has
designed with north facing translucent light-diffusing windows to improve bui
0 0
1
2
I energy efficiency; and, has been designed with solid grouted walls, insu
concrete roof tiles and layered insulation boards on the roof to reduce energy 1
to cool the building.
3
4
4. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration, dated June 18,
5
reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carls
5. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or PI
6
alternatives identified in the General Plan MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate tc
Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plsu * Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of August 1996, b
9 11 following vote, to wit:
10
11
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, Monroy, Nic
Noble, Savary and Welshons
l2 II NOES: None
13
14
15
16
17
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
1
18
l9 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
20
21 ATTEST:
22 bb / h
\"
23 MICHAEL J. HOLZMI~LER
24 11 Planning Director
25
26
27
28 PC RES0 NO. 3959 -2-
e
City Qf
0
Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: 2 175 Camino Vida Roble, in the Palomar Airport Business Park, in
Local Facilities Management Zone 5, City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California
Project Description: The proposed project is a request to expand an existing telephone
electronic switching facility on a 2.0 acre lot in the Palomar
Airport Business Park. The structure will be a two story 36 foot
high building. The building would be beige in color with maroon
trim. The building contains several large metal louvers that are
used as cooling vents that will be painted maroon. There will also
be a 30 foot high cooling stack for the switching facility. The lot is
currently fully improved with paving, screen fences and
landscaping. There is an existing vehicle storage facility on the
site that will be removed to accommodate the proposed expansion.
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
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 21 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Teresa Woods in the Planning Department at
(619) 438-1 161, extension 4447.
DATED: JUNE 18,1996
CASE NO: CUP 154(C)
CASE NAME: PACIFIC BELL EXPANSION
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 18,1996 &Ai@@. 6 MICHAEV. HOLZ
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. 0 Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894
a e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP 154(C)
DATE: June 5,1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: PACIFIC BELL EXPANSION
2. APPLICANT: PACIFIC BELL
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPICANT: 3848 7m AVENUE, €2M 126, SAN
DIEGO, CA 92102 (619’) 237-2407
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: DECEMBER 13,1995
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTON: A 17,487 square foot two story expansion to an existing 10,592
square foot pacific bell electronic switching facility.
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 IXI TransportatiodCirculation [7 Public Services
0 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water [7 Hazards
IXI Air Quality 0 Noise
0 Cultural Resources
0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
W 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.
0 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
Environmental Impact Report 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 EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Le b.he.- cp\\Q\qb
Planner Signature Date
6/&b
Planning DirectWs Sisature Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
a e
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.
e 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.
e “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.
e “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.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but & 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).
e 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.
e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 8
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.
e 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 I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source # 2)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #2)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #2)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #2)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Source
#2)
#2) g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #2)
h) Expansive soils? (Source #2)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #2)
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?
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?
5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI
0 0 w 0 [XI
0 0 IXI
0 El [x]
0 0 [x]
0 o w
El 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 [x] 0 [XI
[XI 0 [x] 0 [XI
0 [XI 0 IXI 0 IXI
0 cl IXI
0 0 IXI
0 o w
0 0 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0 0 0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
0
0' 0 0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
#I)
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
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source
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
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
proposal result in:
#1>
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
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
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
w
0 0 o
w
0
0 0
0
0
17
0 0
0 0
LessThan No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 [x]
0 €3
o w o w 0 IXI
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 IXI 0 [XI
0 w
0 0
0 €3
0 El 0 [XI o w 0 IXI
0 El
0 0 €3
0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
@
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? o n
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significatit
Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
proposal? o
inefficient manner? 0
resource that would be of future value to the region and 0
the residents of the State? (Source #2)
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?
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
0
0
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0
c) Schools? U n
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? U n
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 systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
facilities?
7
U 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
9 Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
LessThan No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 IXI 0 IXI
0 [XI
0 El
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI IXI 0
0 IXI 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI
cl IXI cl IXI 0 IXI
0 IXI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 (x]
Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
a cl o
0 o 0
0 0 0
El
[XI w
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?
0 0 0 0
cl 17 0 0
0 0 0 0
IXI 1xI
[XI IXI
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? 0 0 0
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
parks or other recreational facilities? 0 0 O w
0 0 0 Kl
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 0 0 IXJ
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? a 0 0 0
(“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.
0 0 0 IXI
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:
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fiom 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 fiom the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
I 0 e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a request to expand an existing telephone electronic switching facility on
a 2.0 acre lot in the Palomar Airport Business Park. The structure will be a two story 36 foot
high building. The building would be beige in color with maroon trim. The building contains
several large metal louvers that are used as cooling vents that will be painted maroon. There will
also be a 39 foot high cooling stack for the switching facility. The lot is currently fully improved
with paving, screen fences and landscaping. There is an existing vehicle storage facility on the
site that will be removed to accommodate the proposed expansion.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with the existing
uses of the area. The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted plans and
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. There are no agricultural
uses in the area and as such, the project will not affect any agricultural resources. The
project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the established community.
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project will not result in official regional or local population projections and will not
induce substantial growth in the area. The project is located within an existing industrial
park and as such will not result in the displacement of existing housing.
111. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
The project would not expose people to potential impacts involving fault rupture, seismic
ground failure, seiche, tsunami or other related seismic hazards. There are no identified
land slides on the site. As noted above the site is fully developed with buildings,
landscaping and paving. There are no anticipated geologic problems from expansive
soils or subsidence of land. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the site.
IV. WATER
The site is fully improved. There are no water resources located on the site. The
proposed addition will not significantly impact drainage on the site. The drainage on the
site will be required to comply with all City standards including the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
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.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
. 0 e
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. TRANSPORATION/CIRCULATION:
The telephone switching facility employees three to four persons at this location. No new
employees are anticipated for this facility. With 29 parking spaces proposed at the site,
there will be adequate parking for the four employees. This facility is not open to the
public. The traffic impacts from the telephone switching facility are negligible at less
than 25 trips per day. As such, the project will not result in any adverse impact on the
transportation system.
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.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
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 site is fully developed with buildings, landscaping and paved areas. There are no
sensitive resources identified on the site. No native vegetation is present on the site. The
site is surrounded by developed lands and would not impact wildlife dispersal or
migration corridors.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL, RESOURCES
The proposed project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans nor use
any non-renewable resource in a wasteful manner. There are no known mineral resources
on the site.
IX. HAZARDS
The proposed telephone electronic switching facility will not create risks of accidental
explosion or interfere with any emergency response plan. The proposed telephone
electronic switching facility should not create any health hazards. The project will
comply with all building code requirements and therefore, will not result in increased fire
hazards.
X. NOISE
The proposed electronic switching facility will not result in increased noise levels at the
site, except for temporary noise impacts associated with the new construction. The
project will be required to comply with the City’s noise ordinance with respect to
construction.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposed telephone electronic switiching facility will not result in significant impacts
to governmental services including fire, police, schools, or municipal infrastructure
requirements.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The proposed telephone switching facility will improve communication capacity for the
north San Diego County area, including Carlsbad. The proposal should not significantly
impact any utility and service system in Carlsbad.
XIII. AESTHETICS
The site is not located within any scenic corridors. The building will be setback from
Camino Vida Roble approximately 60 feet and will be screened from view with dense
landscaping. The proposed second story addition will be architecturally integrated with
the existing structure and will be enhanced with glass block and other architectural relief.
A contrasting maroon treatment will be added to areas to breakup the mass of the
building facade.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
There are no known cultural resource located on this previously developed site.
XV. RECREATION
The proposed telephone electronic switching facility will not increase the demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The industrial project will
not affect existing recreational opportunities.
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
See discussion under air quality and trafWcirculation above.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (Note: All of the source documents are on file in the Planning
Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161.)
1. Final Environmental Impact Report for City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-
Ol), City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994.
2. Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, City of Carlsbad, November 1992.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
& 0 0 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
14 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
15 Rev. 03/28/96