HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 4204.*
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. 4204
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CONSTRUCT A FIVE
BUILDING 444,000 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL CAMPUS
LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL
BETWEEN FARADAY AVENUE AND THE CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OFFICES IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD COMMERCE PARK
CASE NO.: SDP 97-O8/SUP 97-05
WHEREAS, Franklin Croft LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified ap,
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Beckman Instruments, Inc., “
described as
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 13958, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of CA, as filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, September 18,1985 as file no.
85-344096.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of December 3
on the 17th day of December 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed b
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by SI
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered al:
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the 1
I I Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the 1
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to
-
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
e @
"ND" dated October 28,1997, and "PII" dated October 27, 1997, attachc
and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinw :
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy:
considered Negative Declaration SDP 97-O8/SUP 97-05, the environmental
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to appra
project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Con
finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effel
environment.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration SDP 97-0S/SUP 9
reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Car
3. The Planning Director has found that, based on the EIA Part 11, this Project was d
in the MEIR 93-01 as within its scope; AND there will be no additional significa
not analyzed therein; AND that no new or additional mitigation measures or altc
are required; AND that therefore this Project is within the scope of the prior EIR
new environmental document nor Public Resources Code 21 08 1 findings are reqt
4. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified ir
EIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Project have been incorporated into this I
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
. ..
I
PC RES0 NO. 4204 -2-
.-
-.
a 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of December 199
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioner’s Compas, Heinema
and Savary
NOES: Commissioner’s Monroy and Welshons
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HMZMIXLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4204 -3-
e
-.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: East Side of El Camino Real between Faraday Avenue a:
Carlsbad Municipal Water District Offices
Project Description: 444,000 square feet of office/manufacturing/warehousing within
five building campus with associated parking.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proje
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act a
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review,
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on tl
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in tl
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannil
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public it
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of da;
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning Department i
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4457.
DATED: OCTOBER 28,1997
CASE NO: SDP 97-08/SUP 97-05
CASE NAME: Carlsbad Commerce Park
PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 28,1997
@qi4!i1x
/t pfgector AE . HOLZMI 7 KR
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 * (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (GI 9) ,438-089.
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 97-O8/SUP 97-0
DATE: October 27.199
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Commerce Park
2. APPLICANT: Franklin Croft Group
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4510 Executive Drive Suite 125 Sa
DiePo California 92121-3023 (619) 4574501
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 5,1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a five buildin
444,000 sauare foot industrial park
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impac
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning X TransportatiodCirculation [7 Public Services
c] Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources c] Utilities & Service Systems
c] Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water [7 Hazards [7 Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation
[7 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
._ 0 DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
H I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on th
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatio
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but E
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlie
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatio
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR i
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
[7 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential1
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant t
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIF
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projecl
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
h - p. z7 4 ?>
Planner Signature Date (
101 z+/w
Planning Directws Siguture Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cit
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significar
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followin
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and huma
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information t
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negatik
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is .required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that ar
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ead
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatio
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. 1
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, c
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that th
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopte
general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatio:
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and th
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce th
effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significan
effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze(
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicabll
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigate(
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up01
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to o
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prio
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additiona
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily require1
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIF
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement o
Overriding Considerations’’ has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tha
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
-. e 0
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing a
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, an
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporatec
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includir
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h;
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, an
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tha
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact hs
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduc
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is nc
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, c
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significar
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tk
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentio
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determine
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
-< e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
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)?
0 0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? o
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? 0
0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
0 0 0 0 o 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff!
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
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
0 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
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI w
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
w
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI !XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
0 [XI
O w
0 [XI
0 El
Rev. 03/28/96
-. e 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
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0 0 0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
d) Create objectionable odors?
existing or projected air quality violation? 0 o
0 0 0 0
0 0
cause any change in climate?
VI. TRANSPORTATIONiCIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? n n
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves 'or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
U U 0 0
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
uses?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
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
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
pool)?
0
0 0 0
0
o
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
0 IXI
0 IXI
o w w 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI
0 IXI
0 IXI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI w
0 w
0 IXI
IXI 0 IXI
IXI
0 B
Rev. 03/28/96
~ _* 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). -, Potentially
Significant
Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
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
o
inefficient manner? 0
mineral resource that would be of future value to 0
the region and the residents of the State?
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
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) , Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
0 0 0 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?
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?
0 cl 0
0 0 0 0
7
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 cl
0 0 0 0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 [XI 0 [XI
0 IXI
cl w
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI
[XI
[XI 0 [XI 0 [XI
[XI
0 [XI 0 [XI cl [XI
0 [XI cl [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
-, 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
,-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
potential impact area?
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
0 0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 w 0 [XI 0 [XI
IXI 0 !XI 0 w 0 [XI
0 ixI
0 El
0 [XI
0 [XI
I7 w
0 [XI
8 Rev. 03128196
*., e 0 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ.
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negati1
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify tl
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availab
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checkli
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursum
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatio
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated c
refined fiom the earlier document and the extent to which they address sit(
specific conditions for the project.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The proposed project is a site development plan and a special use permit for a five buildin
444,000 square foot industrial campus type development adjacent to the eastern edge of Ir
Camino Real and southerly edge of Faraday Avenue on property zoned M-Q with a General Pla
designation of PI. The 25.82 acre gently sloping to the east, vacant fallow site proposes
balanced grading of 58,000 cubic yards which essentially just levels it off. The 35 foot ta:
maximum tilt up concrete structures accented by blue green glass are comparable to developmer
across El Carnino Real within the Carlsbad Research Center. As the project is in tok
compatibility with the General Plan there are no impacts as regards Energy and Miner2
Resources, Noise, Public Services, and Utilities and Services Systems.
POPULATION AND HOUSING:
The proposed land use for the site is consistent with the existing General Plan and Zoning and a
such its development has been considered within the Housing Element as a direct or indirec
inducer of growth. As the site is vacant no displacement of housing occurs.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS:
The Engineering Department of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed a preliminary soils report fo
the site and indicated that their are no significant potential impacts as regards fault rupture:
seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, seiche, tsunami, volcanic hazards, landslides, mudflow:
subsidence, expansive soils, or erosion.
WATER
The project has been designed and conditioned to not allow offsite impacts due to the change i
impermeable surfaces this project will produce. Development of this project must be in accor
with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Standards. No beach c
9 Rev. 03/28/96
. .’ e a water body exists on or near the project site therefore no impacts to surface waters of the flow ( ’.
1. existing waters will result due to the land use proposed.
AIR QUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle milt
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reacti1
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are tlr
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since tlr.
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considere
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in th
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 variet
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisior
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measurc
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Deman
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including ma!
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and t
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an’
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into th
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project j
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marke
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, th
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by Cit
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for ai
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequer
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, n
fiu-ther environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at thc
Planning Department.
The site design is sufficiently open that no alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperaturi
is foreseeable.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatec
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequatl
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severe1
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Thes
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbal
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersection!
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, numerou;
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 tc
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulatiol
10 Rev. 03/28/96
- ”1
L ., 0 0
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate c
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eithc
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 th
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, thereforc
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project :
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because tk
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, include
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement C
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatia
impacts is required.
A traffic study reviewing the project’s conformance with the General Plan EIR and the Loc,
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 has been completed which indicates that this project’
projected traffic is within the parameters established within those documents. The police and fir
departments have reviewed the plans and conditioned them adequately to provide emergenc
access. The project has been conditioned to file a deed restriction which limits the uses to th
parking available to meet the City of Carlsbad parking standards for those uses.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A biological and jurisdictional constraint report indicates that there is no potential for any plant
or wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered to occur on the property. There are no
biological constraints associated with the site.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Site survey and testing indicate there are no significant archaeological cultural resources on site.
HAZARDS
The project is located outside of the airport runway protection zone and the flight activity area.
AESTHETICS
The project has been designed in accord with the El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards which is the aesthete regulator of the area.
RECREATIONAL
The demand for recreational facilities is mitigated via the requirement of the Zone 5 LOG
Facilities Management Plan for a $.40 per square foot non residential park fee.
‘J .- State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City t
11 Rev. 03/28/96