HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 4594s
I
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 *
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4594
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE OCCUPATION
OF AN EXISTING BUILDING BY VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS
OF THE CITY OF CAIUSBAD LOCATED AT 1635 FARADAY
AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5
CASE NAME: 1635 FARADAY AVENUE
CASE NO.: CUP 99-04
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, “Applicant”, has filed a verified applical
the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Faraday Business Plaza, L.L.C., “
described as
Lot 106 of the Carlsbad Research Center Unit No. 5 in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to map thereof No. 12815, filed in the office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction v
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of July, 199
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all t
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by !
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according ti
“ND” dated June 11, 1999, and “PII” dated June 7, 1999, attached hl
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
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 e
Findinm:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and co
the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this prc
any comments thereon prior to approving the project. Based on the EIA Pal
comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial (
the project will have a significant effect on the environment and thereby appr
Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the indt
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the :
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of July 1999
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heurel
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CAIUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~ MkJe
Planning Director
I
PC RES0 NO. 4594 -2-
* e e
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: 163 5 Faraday Avenue
Project Description: Occupancy of an existing building by various departments of th
City of Carlsbad.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projec
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act an
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 th
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in th
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannin
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public ar
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of dat
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Departmer
at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4448.
DATED: June 11, 1999
CASE NO: CUP 99-04
CASE NAME: 1635 Faraday Avenue
PUBLISH DATE: June 11 , 1999
s
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-08
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP 994
DATE: May 27, 191
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: 1635 Faraday Avenue
2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad C
92009 760-438-1 161
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 17,1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Occupancy of an existing building by various departments of f
City of Carlsbad.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projet
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Imp2
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning w TransportatiodCircuIation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
e
DETERMINATION.
0
W I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tl
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
13 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatic
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ;
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
c] I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earli
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR require
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 tl.
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier E11
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
\& k4 &/03/Cg
Kanner Signature Date
&fm 4 Date '
2 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Ci
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followir
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum;
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), NegatiT
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 a
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea(
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved.
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, 1
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that tl
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adoptc
general standards and policies.
a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatic
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and tl
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tl
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that i
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzc
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicab
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatc
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up(
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pri
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirl
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier El
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tk
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing s
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, ar
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate(
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, ar
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th:
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h;
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 n
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, 1
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tl
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determinc
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impac
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
Research Center EIR 80-03)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
Research Center EIR 80-03)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
Research Center EIR 80-03)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (Final Master EIR 93-01,
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (Final Master EIR 93-01,
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 El
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 E3
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Final Master EIR 93-01, 0 0 0 IXI
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an 0 0 0 E3
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
Research Center EIR 80-03)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
Research Center EIR 80-03)
0 0 0 [XI
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
Research Center EIR 80-03)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Final Master EIR 93-01,
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research
Center EIR 80-03)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Final Master
EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Final Master EIR 93-01,
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Final
Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR
80-03)
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 [XI
0 o w
0 0 [XI
0 o w
0 0 IXI
0 0 [XI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
g) Subsidence of the land? (Final Master EIR 93-01,
h) Expansive soils? (Final Master EIR 93-01,
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Final
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03) 0
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03) 0
Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 0
80-03)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Final
Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Final Master EIR 93-
0 1, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (Final Master EIR 93-01,
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
Research Center EIR 80-03)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (Final Master EIR 93-01,
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
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? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
Research Center EIR 80-03)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research
Center EIR 80-03)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Final Master EIR
93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
Research Center EIR 80-03)
80-03)
0
0
0
0
0
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? (Final 0
Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Final
80-03)
Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 0
80-03)
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant I
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
mpac
€3
[XI
[XI
w
[XI
w
[XI
€XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
IXI
IXI
6 Rev. 03128196
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (Final Master EIR 0
93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03) 0 d) Create objectionable odors? (Final Master EIR 93-
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Final
Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Final Master EIR 93-
0 1, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research
Center EIR 80-03)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research
Center EIR 80-03)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research
Center EIR 80-03)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
Research Center EIR 80-03)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Final
Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR
80-03)
80-03)
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? (Final Master EIR 93-
0 1, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research
Center EIR 80-03)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Final Master EIR 93-
01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
Research Center EIR 80-03)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Final
Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR
80-03)
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
w
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
7
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
0 IXI
0 [XI
o 0
o KI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research
Center EIR 80-03)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Final Master EIR 93-01,
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? (Final
Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR
80-03)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 w
0 o [XI
0 0 [XI
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)? (Final
Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Final Master
EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
Research Center EIR 80-03)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
Research Center EIR 80-03)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
Research Center EIR 80-03)
80-03)
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 CI
0
0 0
0 o
w
IXI
IXI
w
[XI
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Final Master
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Final
EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03) 0 0 0 [XI
Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 0 0 0 w
80-03)
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? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
b) Police protection? (Final Master EIR 93-01,
c) Schools? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
Research Center EIR 80-03) 0 0 0 [x]
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03) 0 0 0 [XI
Research Center EIR 80-03) 0 0 0 IXI
(Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research cl 0 1xI
Center EIR 80-03)
93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03) 0 0 o w e) Other governmental services? (Final Master EIR
8 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
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? (Final Master EIR 93-01,
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
b) Communications systems? (Final Master EIR 93-
01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad
Research Center EIR 80-03)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Final Master EIR 93-01,
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
e) Storm water drainage? (Final Master EIR 93-01,
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Final Master EIR 93-01,
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Final Master
EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (Final
Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
(Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research
Center EIR 80-03)
c) Create light or glare? (Final Master EIR 93-01,
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
80-03)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Final Master
EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Final Master
EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
c) Affect historical resources? (Final Master EIR 93-
01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(Final Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research
Center EIR 80-03)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (Final Master EIR 93-01,
Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (Final Master
EIR 93-0 1, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03)
0
0
0
0
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
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 w
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 Kl
0 [XI
o w
0 [XI
o w
o w
0 [XI
0 w
o w
0 [XI
0 [XI
9 Rev. 03128196
- e a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impac
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Final
Master EIR 93-01, Carlsbad Research Center EIR 0 cl o w
80-03)
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 IXI
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 o w
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 negati7
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify tl
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. The Carlsbad Research Center was reviewed f;
environmental impacts by an Environmental Impact Report EIR 80-03. An offil
use on the site was also assumed in the Final Master EIR for the City EIR 93-0
Both of these EIRs can be found on file in the Planning Department.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. All of the checklist items were reviewed in tl
prior documents. The project, Carlsbad Research Center, was constructed and :
required mitigation measures were implemented at that time.
10 Rev. 03128196
- e 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AIR OUALITY:
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 milc
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactil
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are tl
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since tl
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considerc
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in tl.
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 ma5
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and !
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into tk
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project
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
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at th
Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequat
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severel
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Thest
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbac
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersection
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management perfonnance 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 tl
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalk:
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulatio;
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate o
11 Rev. 03128196
I 0 0
.. State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City tl
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eithe
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, therefon
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project j
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because th
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 circulatio
impacts is required.
The project will have a minor increase in average daily traffic since both the Final Master EI:
93-01 and the Carlsbad Research Center EIR 80-03 assumed the site to be developed as standar
office which has an ADT of 20/1000 sq.ft. and the project will have a generation rate of 30/10C
sq.ft. However, the slight increase in anticipated ADT will not have a significant affect on tl-
adjacent Carlsbad Research Center roadways since they are all operating at levels well belo.
their capacity.
However, the City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. Tht
Report has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Paloma.
Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Thi!
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmenta
documentation. Pursuant to $1 5 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare i
“Subsequent” environmental document if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded intersectior
failure) indicates that a changed circumstance exists. Case law has interpreted this section o
the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequent EIR’ and to allow use of:
mitigated negative declaration if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identifiec
impacts to a level of insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, when implemented, will bring the peak hour
LOS into the acceptable range, The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual righ
turn lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has beel
conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection improvements, thereby guaranteein;
mitigation to a level of insignificance.
12 Rev. 03/28/96