Loading...
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