HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 4019rp
4.
4
1
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
a 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4019
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN 87,000 SQUARE FOOT
INTERSECTION OF PALOMAR OAKS WAY AND DRYDEN
PLACE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD/AIRPORT SELF STORAGE
CASE NO.: CUP 96-13
WHEREAS, Palomar LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified application w
SELF-STORAGE FACILITY LOCATED EAST OF THE
City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Palomar LLC, “Owner”, described as
Lot 42 of Carlsbad Tract No. 81-46 unit no. 2, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
Map thereof No. 11288, filed in the office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County, July 16,1985
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of December
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testj
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staf
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all f
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 Pla
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to E
“ND” dated October 30,1996, and “PII” dated October 28,1996, attached I
and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
...
...
c II e 0 c
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyze
considered Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified fc
project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project. Based
EIA Part-I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there
substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environme,
thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the indepc
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pls
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of December 1996,
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Monroy, Nielsen
Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Heineman, Noble and Savary
ABSTAIN: None
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperso4
ATTEST:
Planning Director
1
PC RES0 NO. 4019 -2-
r
.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: East of the intersection of Palomar Oaks way and Dryden Place
adjacent to McClellanPalomar Airport Road.
Project Description: A 87,000 square foot self-storage facility on 2.8 acres located west
of McClellan/Palomar Airport Road in local facilities management
zone 5.
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 twenty (20) days
of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning
Department at (619) 438-1 161, extension 4448.
DATED: OCTOBER 30,1996
CASE NO: CUP 96-13
CASE NAME: CARISBAD/AIRPORT SELF STORAGE
PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 30,1996
"
MICHAEL J.'T?OLm;ILLER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP 96-13
DATE: October 23,1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: CarlsbadlAirport Self Storage
2. APPLICANT: Palomar LLC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: PO Box 15 163, Las Vegas NV 892 14
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 23,1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An 87,000 square foot self storage facility on 2.8 previously graded
acres located west of McClelladPalomar Airport at the intersection of Palomar Oaks Way and
Dryden Place in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
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.
0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing Biological Resources c7 Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water Hazards Cultural Resources
Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0 DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 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 EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 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.
10/z@/q 0
Date 8 8
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 a
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 a
e 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
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l: pg. 7, 18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l: pg. 50)
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? (#2: pg. 5.13-3; #3: pg. 86)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l: pg. 7, 18; #3: pg. 90)
(#2: pg. 5.6-9, #3: pg. 90)
0
0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#2: pg. 5.5-2; #3: pg. 107)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l: pg. 7.0-5;
#3: pg. 107)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#2: pg. 5.6-10; #3: pg. 90)
o
0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#2: pg. 5.1-9; #3: pg. 80, 83)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#2: pg. 5.1-5, 5.1-9, 5.1-10,
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (# 1 : pg.
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#2: pg. 5.1-9,
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#2: pg. 5.1-4, 5.1-11; #3: pg.
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#2: pg.
5.1-12; #3: pg. 83)
5.1-9, 5.1-10, 5.1-12; #2: 5.1-9; #3: pg. 82)
5.10-3; #3: pg. 83)
82)
5.1-4; #3: pg. 77)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#2: pg. 5.1-1 1; #3: pg. 77)
h) Expansive soils? (#2: pg. 5.1-4; #3: pg. 82)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#2: pg. 5.1-4;
#3: pg. 77)
0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
rate and amount of surface runoff! (#3 : pg. 84)
such as flooding? (#2: pg. 5.2-6; #3: pg. 84)
0
0
5
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0 0 [XI
0 0 (XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 (XI
0 0 (XI
0 0 (XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 (XI 0 w
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
o w
0 cl [XI
0 0 [XI 0 0 (XI 0 0 [XI
0 o [XI
0 o w
Rev. 03/28/96
0 a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#3: pg. 84)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#3: pg. 84)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#3: pg. 84)
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? (#2: pg. 5.2-3; #3: pg. 89)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#2:
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#2: pg. 5.2-3; #3: pg.
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#2: pg.
pg. 5.2-3; #3: pg. 89)
89)
5.12 2-3; #3: pg. 89)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#2: pg. 5.2-
4; #3: pg. 71)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (See
Discussion)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (See Discussion)
d) Create objectionable odors? (See Discussion)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#3: pg.
3 1-39; See Discussion)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (See Discussion)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#3: pg. 31-39; See Discussion)
dj Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#2:
pg. 5.7-6; See Discussion)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#2:
pg. 5.7-6, See Discussion)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#2:
pg. 5.7-6; #3: pg. 31-39; See Discussion)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#2: pg. 5.7-12,
See Discussion)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(XI
0
0
(XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LessThan No
Significan Impact t Impact
o w
0 (XI o w o w
0 (XI o [XI
0 (XI
0 0
0 Ix1
0 (XI o w
0
0 [XI
0 (XI o w
0 o w w
0 (XI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#3: pg. 50-57)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#3:
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
d) Wetland habitat (eg marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#3: pg. 50-
pg. 50-57)
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#3: pg. 50-57)
(#3: pg. 50-57)
5 7)
0
0
0
0
0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#2:
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#2: pg. 5.13-1) 0
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and 0
the residents of the State? (#2: pg. 5.13-5, 5.13-6)
proposal?
pg. 5.13-1) o
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)? (#2: pg. 5.10.1-4, 5.10.1-5,
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#2: pg. 5.10.2-7)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#2: pg. 5.10.1-4,5.10.1-5,5.10.1-6)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#2: pg. 5.10.2-4, 5.10.2-5, 5.10.2-6,
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-6)
5.10.2-9)
grass, or trees? (#2: pg. 5.12.5-4)
0
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (See Discussion)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#2: pg. 73- o 0 76)
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? (#2: pg. 3.0-9; 5.12.5-1, 5.12.5-4)
b) Police protection? (#2: pg. 5.12.6-1, 5.12.6-2) o 0 0 C) Schools? (#2: pg. 5.12.7-1)
7
0
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0 0
0 0 0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
[XI
0 [XI
0 !XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 w
0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI 0 IXI 0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l:
e) Other governmental services? (#1: Land Use pg. 28,
Land Use pg. 28,29; #2: pg. 3.0-9) 0 0
29; #2: pg. 3.0-9) 0 0
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? (#2: pg. 3.0-9; 5.12.1-4)
b) Communications systems? (#2: pg. 3.0-9, 5.12.1-4)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#2: pg. 3.0-9, 5.12.3-3)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#2: pg. 5.12.3-1)
e) Storm water drainage? (#2: pg. 5.12.3-1)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#2: pg. 5.12.4-1)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#2: pg. 5.12.2-1,
5.12.2-3)
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
No
Impact
[XI
[XI
w
[XI €3 w w w w
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#2: pg.
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#2: pg.
c) Create light or glare? (#2: pg. 5.1 1- 1)
5.1 1-1)
5.1 1-1)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#2: pg. 5.8-1, 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#3: pg. 44)
c) Affect historical resources? (#3: pg. 44)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#3: pg. 44)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#3: pg. 44)
2, 5.8-8; #3: pg. 44)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#2: pg. 5.12.8-1,
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#2: pg.
5.12.8-5)
5.12.8-1, 5.12.8-5)
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
17
0
17
CI
cl CI 0
0
0
0
0 w
0 [XI o w
o w
O w 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 [XI
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? 0 0 0 [XI
(“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:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
e a
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The subject site is located within an existing industrial subdivision. Several lots have been
developed with industrial land uses. The application is for the development of an 87,000 square
foot self storage facility to be erected on a previously graded pad.
Due to the nature of this project and its location, the following EIA Part I1 Checklist categories
have been fully addressed within other documents which have been cited. No fwther discussion
is required.
+ Land Use and Planning + Population and Housing + Geologic Problems + Water + Energy and Mineral Resources + Noise
+ Hazards + Public Services + Utilities and Service Systems + Cultural Resources + Recreation
V. AIR QUALITY:
a. 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 n the emission of
carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended
particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well
as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment
basin,” any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: Therefore,
continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a
variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1. Provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with
2. Measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and
3. Provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit
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
development;
Transportation Demand Management;
services;
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
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.
b. There is no evidence that there are sensitive receptors (people susceptible to respiratory
distress) proposed as part of the project.
c. Experience has shown that typical industrial buildings in the City will not have an effect
on the movement of air or cause a change in climate.
d. The project description has not identified any use within the proposed building which
would create objectionable odors.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION:
a. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments
will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial
intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City
has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and
major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway
improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth
Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These
include:
1. Measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need;
2. Provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle
routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkage, and commuter rail systems; and
3. Participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of
regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City
streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control.
The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project
approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of
the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic,
therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact.” This
project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not
required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council
Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for
circulation impacts. The “Statement of Overriding Considerations” applies to all
11 Rev. 03/28/96
, 0 0
subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project,
therefore, no Wher environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
b. Palomar Airport Road has bike lanes and a bus route that are convenient to the project.
c. The proposed project complies with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land
Use Plan regarding location of buildings relative to air traffic. No conflict has been
identified.
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
See the discussion under Air Quality and Traffic/Circulation.
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES:
This project site is within a planned industrial park which was analyzed in an earlier
environmental review (EIR). The current project is consistent with the site development
as originally anticipated and analyzed in that EIR.
111. SOURCE DOCUMENTS
NOTE: All of the source documents are on file in the Planning Department located 2075
Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, Phone (61 9) 43 8-1 16 1 .)
1. City of Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, September
1994.
2. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Update (EIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994.
3. Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Business Center (EIR 8 1-06),
WESTEC Services, Inc, March 1982.
12 Rev. 03/28/96