HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 4725e 0
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4725
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW
FACILITY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD BETWEEN YARROW DRIVE AND EL
CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD SELF-STORAGE
CASE NO.: CUP 99-08DIP 99-02
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Self-storage, LLC, “Developer”/”Owner”, has filed
DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMERCIAL SELF-STORAGE
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lot 11 of Carlsbad Tract 79-14
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction w
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of March, 2000, hc
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimo
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, a
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factc
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plannj
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannl
Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit “N
dated January 19,2000, and “PII” dated December 18,1999, attached hereto 2
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
0 0
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
Findinm:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration C1
99-OWPIP 99-02, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project a
any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance w
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelir
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City
Carlsbad; and
D. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evider
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planni
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of March, 2000, by 1
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMIYLER
Planning Director
11 PC RES0 NO. 4725 -2-
0 0
__ City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: South side of Palomar Airport Road between Yarrow Drive and El
Camino Real, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
Project Description: A 142,000 square foot self-storage facility.
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, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated 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 20
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4471.
DATED: JANUARY 21,2000
CASE NO: CUP 99-08PIP 99-02
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD SELF-STORAGE
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 21,2000 “ MICHAEL J. WLZMLER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP 99-08PIP 99-02
DATE: December 18, 1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Self-storape
2. APPLICANT: Carlsbad Self-storage, LLC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P 0 Box 8661, Rancho Santa Fe. CA
92067. (619) 756-3740
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Auril21,1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 142.000 square foot self-storage facilitv.
SUMMARY OF ENVIROMENTAL 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.
I7 Land Use and Planning [XI TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing [7 Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
Air Quality [XI Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128196
e
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
- u I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[XI 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.
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 is 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 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 pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier , including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
)- 13- U0
Date
1 /1,/00
Date ’
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
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.
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.
a “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.
a “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.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &I 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).
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.
a 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. 03128196
0 0
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. 03128196
0 0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
OB
ON
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
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
landuses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0
0
0
0
0
0 OH
UH
0
0
om
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area I7
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0
5.5-6)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
o 0
5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 0
5.1-15) 0 0
o 0
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 0
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15) 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- 0
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
1 1) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
5
ow ow 0
0 ow
0 0 0
OH ow ow
0 OH
OH ow
0 ow nlzl nlzl
0 ow
0 OH
0 OH
Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
1 1)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated 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? (#l:Pgs 5.3- w 0
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12) 0 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 0 0 0 0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
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
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
proposal result in:
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
[XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
in impacts to:
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 0
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 0
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 0
6
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
ow
OH ow
ow ow ow
no
ow ow ow
00 ow
ow urn ow
OH
0151
OH
OH ow
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs 5.4- 1
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
0
0
0 1 - 5.13-9)
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) 0
1 - 5.9-15) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0
7
0 Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
OB
OH
ow
UKI
OH
OB
OB
OH
OB
LIB
OIXI mu
0 0 0 0
IXI H
[XI El IXI
OB
Rev. 03128196
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
b)
c)
d)
e)
f,
SI
Communications systems? ( )
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
5l 5l
!a la !XI !a
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0 0 om
0 0 OH
0 0 LIE3
0 0 om
UIXI
0 0 OH 0 0 Ella
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
10)
10)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 0 0 om
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 0 0 om
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 0 OK!
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?
0 ON
8 Rev, 03128196
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
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
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
DEI
0 OH
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
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
0 e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road between Yarrow Drive and
El Camino Real. The southern edge of the property is at Corte del Cedro. The site is a triangular
parcel which has been previously mass graded. A paved access road runs along the western edge
of the site. Topographically, the site consists of a graded pad with rising slopes along the
northern, eastern and western sides. Elevations on the site range from approximately 300’ above
mean sea level (MSL) at the northwest corner of the property to approximately 250 feet MSL
along the eastern edge of the site. The slope along the western side rises approximately 30 feet at
Palomar Airport Road (to the north) and drops to approximately 25 feet at Corte del Cedro (the
southern edge of the property). The slope along the eastern side drop down from the existing pad
grade by about 20 feet. The majority of the site is sparsely covered by vegetation consisting of
weeds and grasses. There are some landscaped areas along the perimeter of the site.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 142,000 square-foot self-storage facility on the site.
The project will consist of four 3-story buildings. Portions of some of the buildings will be
partially submerged (i.e., basements). Building A will contain a manager’s unit and a caretaker’s
unit which will be occupied full-time.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
I. Land Use and Planning
The proposed project will not conflict with the General Plan designation (Planned Industrial) and
zoning (Planned Industrial) of the site. The proposed self-storage use is a use allowed on the site
subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The use also will not conflict with any
environmental plans/policies. The site is not subject to any special environmental
plans/regulations. The use will not be incompatible with existing surrounding uses. Surrounding
uses generally consist of other similar industrial uses and some industrial office uses.
Immediately adjacent to the proposed use is a County animal shelter use. The proposed use will
be compatible with all of these uses. The site contains no agricultural uses and no important
farm lands. Therefore, there will be no impact to agricultural uses. Finally, the proposed use
will not disrupt any established community since the project site is an in-fill site within an
established industrial development.
11. Population and Housing
The proposed project will not induce growth directly or indirectly. The proposed use is a self-
storage facility which will serve existing residents of the surrounding industrial developments
and residential developments. The proposed project will not displace existing housing. The site
is an undeveloped industrial in-fill lot.
111. Geologic Problems
The project site does not contain any know faults or other geologic hazards. The site does
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
contain some expansive soils. However, a geotechnical study prepared for the project and site by
Leighton and Associates concluded that the project site is suitable for the proposed development
subject to the recommendations contained in the study. Therefore, the project will not result in
potentially significant geologic impacts. The site contains no unique geologic or physical
features.
IV. Water
There are no water bodies on or near the project site. Therefore, there will be no impacts to the
amount of surface water or changes in currents, turbidity, groundwater flow, etc. The
improvement of the site will result in an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces and thus
in the amount of runoff. However, the project will be required to comply with all applicable
NPDES requirements in this regard. Thus there will be no potentially significant impacts to
water .
VII. Biological Resources
The project site is a previously graded in-fill site within a fully developed industrial office park.
The site contains no sensitive resources. Therefore, the project will have no potentially
significant impact on biological resources.
VIII. Enerm - and Mineral Resources
The proposed project will not conflict with any energy plans and will not use non-renewable
resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. The site contains no known mineral resources
which would be of future value. Therefore, the project will have no potentially significant
impact on biological resources.
IX. Hazards
The proposed project is a self-storage project. However, the project will be conditioned to
prohibit the storage of any hazardous materials on the site. Fire hazard will not increase as a
result of the proposed project. The site is an in-fill site generally surrounded by development.
Therefore, the project will not result in potentially significant hazard impacts.
X. Noise
The proposed use will not increase noise levels significantly. The project site is located within
the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area and within the 65 to 70 dBA CNEL noise
contours. Thus, the site will be subject to noise from the neighboring flight activities. The only
residential use associated with the proposed project (a resident-manager’s unit) will require noise
mitigation to reduce interior noise impacts to acceptable levels. The noise study prepared for the
project site concludes that the interior noise levels at the resident-manager unit can be reduced to
a maximum of 53 dBA CNEL with the windows closed. A mitigation measure has been
prepared which would require noise mitigation through noise buffering construction materials.
XI. Public Services
The project site is in a developed area which is adequately served by fire, police, and other public
services. The proposed project will not result in significant new demands on those services. The
project will be conditioned to comply with the City’s Growth Management regulations, which
11 Rev. 03128196
a 0
require that all necessary services be provided concurrent with development. Therefore, there
will be no potentially significant impact to public services.
XII. Utilities and Services Systems
The project site is in a developed area, and requires no new systems or substantial alterations to
existing systems for power, water treatment or distribution, sewer, waste disposal, or other
services. The project will be conditioned to comply with the City’s Growth Management
regulations, which require that all necessary improvements be provided concurrent with
development. Therefore, there will be no potentially significant impact to public utilities or
services systems.
XIII. Aesthetics
The project will not have a negative aesthetic on any scenic roadway as the project has been
designed to adhere to all required setbacks, building height limitations, and other development
criteria. The building will be set back at least 50’ from Palomar Airport Road. The building will
also comply with the City’s 35’ building height limitation. In addition, the architecture has been
reviewed for compatibility with surrounding structures. Therefore, there will be no potentially
significant aesthetic impacts. There are no sensitive sites surrounding the use. Therefore, there
will also be no potentially significant impacts from light or glare.
XIV. Cultural Resources
The project site is a previously graded in-fill site which contains no known cultural resources
(paleontological, archaeological, or cultural). The site is not associated with any religious or
sacred uses. Therefore, there will be no potentially significant impact to cultural resources.
XV. Recreational
The project site is currently undeveloped, and therefore, does not provide any recreational uses.
The site is zoned for the anticipated industrial use, and therefore, would not be planned to
accommodate any recreational uses in the future. The proposed use will not generate the need
for any recreational uses. Therefore, there will be no potentially significant impact on
recreational facilities or opportunities.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
V. Air Quality
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of 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 build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, 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 projects covered
by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This
document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. Transportation/Circulation
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
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 build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
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 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.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out 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 projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning
Department .
13 Rev. 03128196
0 0
In addition, the City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report.
The Report has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar
Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. A
mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn
lanes (northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound). This project has agreed to a
condition to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements” thereby
guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE]
Attached
16 Rev. 03128196
0 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 7 / 23/2& y it, /b&
17 Rev. 03128196
0 0
c\I
a a
?
k a
a3 ? a a n 3 0
bj CL W m 2 3 z
W 2 LL
\
LLI c3
K a
?J P
LL -1 W m n 2 Y
a lY
0
w 2
z
I- o W
a
2 a
0;
n
6
..
W
W z 2 z 0 != n z 0 0
ti I- s
-I
> a
0 K a a a
$?%A
.E+ E
0 04 'n 0
mro
.e m a, E$ $
520
$ €5
LC+
uo a, .- ,
3Q
.G $ 3 +
.- s .z 20
.v, m a, mF 5 f E LE2 p c '5
-0- $$2 Ebm
azg
mz E E O^m
Q a, .e s ro 0 .P a, 0 ("5 e m S mz
ESb Uz.6 S€
b O2
m 0 73"
2a s
OU oajE .G 0 a,
3.ZZA
m.Pmq 2 gc-7 ;z sz
E 9% s sa, Qg
g.2 om
0.z m
Q+ .5 Q+ L
+x !z 000
'F; u x .-
om7
.- a, u
SQ 2 a,= 8.E
3 .- .E a3
a,-uc\I
0 Eo 'Zmoa,
.= m a,- €'om0 -ma0 3 Qm s€m$ a,IJ= 2 €323 'ssg
.sErnU gam
s s a,w a, g E.2 m-5 s E != CSa' '3 a, ([lw - ou Do - a'sa3
.- sa,
;g E;;; 0 .- .-
1 a,.p I-U,~
v) % $ a
S 0 zs .- -C.l
._ K ka) $E >u
E -
K
:E 3m zii 3
CO
mz s 0)
c a)
-C.l
.-
D
a,
.- 5;
15 2;
5
.- K &gp + sg .+..;e*- $ a,Cn3E
.-
c g .E
m .- b
.- 0 3 .= .=
2 a",Oza .s.v, m L a,
2 S fn m a I
S 0
m rn
.- .I- .- iz .I-
Er(3 OZS.EEC 0 L
a, mo a, s
Urn+= a,n,
EQao 00 >z b 5 2
123 .'.gab bn
= m Em$g$Ho a,_o m.g 2 hL.5
p1a,+oa, .- 2 a, su >+ s.5 moa, Ea5
m 0 m& U .- Ls.v, .- a,a,3" $E a,= 0 ms a,.? .- ,p,"" 2 L hi r: om$+o$~
$iiuyc .G u a, cas (I) m.& Qa,.? 33 m m m x
1I 0 s m.= E€&? '"+.E! - .sa0 &=m5 a, 3-0 SE 0 gz cur x8 m mq - a, 2 I- g.g Gb 9 ?E2 azpz a, 2.G GB zzg s2 *2 a, QZ E$, bgyo m
EEL? EE2.E 5.G
7 .L p
e$ziz%;b
c mKz aSN..(n .- 0
+ m a, cd
a,mm
gs Q0 m
II II -
i - z% pq 0 L a,U$ a, su m .E c 0s as.5 0gS-z oma, 2.e-
ell €7
3Wz5 rn52.6 c 0s m,O
u, + a E'"SE.E$a, +ca,L u S x".S $-E.= -cT= Q x- m, Es.g3mg2m
$&e o,o 3o um.G!E 3.z *5 + b x.= m 3 a, 3pz u) 0 y.2! (U L+ m3="f; g s 0.0 l= 2
0 '-2 m g $mg -&2ggfgEa, 2 En m.5 m j- m3+ oS~~"sr- O mp
m m 0 = 8,"p 3 a-5g t: s 3 0 =++ >r s m.- c
W, EomoQ3S$, Son
.g$ m S vj m 05 so Qb a, a, , C a, .E a, .E"..r a,€OS5 5% sgcza :$+ 2 0 >
Us x O Q" u-zs m .=.-u ozo 0 d m$u mg E 3" 2$psgo 3 €25 suz 2 z
U $5 QO m4.a os- g rn a, a,ay mu 2 -E f $2 Qm 0 .v, 3 g$2 oQ, 0 o-1a.5 >mcj Qz E em*- QrWcgu m a, .- 0 ou L € 2a,z?E~3cD>a,moosa,
0 rnz ms s L-. s$$.c r: 8.2 6 $6, OflQ
a,'C s % m > 3 -*
c m .-
2s
0 o=
- Q .-
m S
aoo 3a-z €95 2 2.~ m Q
c\i II
I1 I I1
I
L a,
0 s
d L
I UP =b
- a,g E
._ e2 =E a,
$2
a,
v) .= mm
n5
J= .IF
mcn
0
t
5 .E
Eu u) g2 0
.E Y 2-g ept;
e: v) 0-$
.= m L
.P-o v)
m-o 0
g g .E
cP II .- b
.- " 23L a, res =q 2 h2.g L
&E
E E 5.2 a,l L-
73- L c
E a, m .-
>E
- ?I
5 3 0
a m cn c ._ b .- c c E
L P
9 a,
a 8 0 Q v)
-
E! 5 c a, g2
zi ;q@ 2oim3 %.E E: g %n E = 5 'I. c
.c 0 e- z.2 c ::s .o 'P m=
5 II 5 - a, .?
B%O
=b - m-
c mn.E E
UCH
0
v) 3 z 2
S 0 .- .Id ZL!? ._ K !=a &€ >a,
E -
K
cs om
3m
0
ZE
az
.e E
.- Br cE
ca
$$
a S .- b$i .- c $ 2
L XL a, a,
>'E - f 2 >E, - %.-,,an ECUOS~
Lmma,h.
>r F DO a,
n ~,OZ,E-r, QQW oa, ;2o$+
5 6r c.51 n
a, xa, ?X . a, a, a, cs E
,ggEsE a, =c m€aE
m.5 a, E xm
2- m2S.E .- -5525 E z5.c g a,
$5 mu E ESOm72
3 Ps,o+m .EOmZ5s io,= D.G 0 -0,
g
a,oa,.gr, .g 0 0 0 m .r 0 c .E .G m LFE I me zy..- €0 m- 'z,
3 m c .L .- .5 m t .t a m6na, Zm=ons c
= uzu Q2 "2 0"a
O'ZEG ._ oa,mzc= $2+"0gN z CL.0 m- c 1m-a 22 C~K 6 yF.gna 2 mg m @r UpFta,, E .- csa .- 2 $25:
a, gz Ez g a m 0s- s a,t"o s=og()% o2zmpsLI 02; m'0
-=3coa, - QoT gz
>r m.- a)- > n='=Qt:
mrc
2 QgS.rZf 0-0 %'E.Ss.& J a,.=: LC
5 0-u 0-
0
03 an.- b~~~~a, I" 0.G L u)
a ma a, mz + ci
'x1 3 o ~$1 11 a.2 QO a m mt mw
0
5 5
u- L
u a,P Sb
0
- 5f
._ ea =E 2s
gz
3 2
Ed F
Egg
$+ u) 3 :e .r
cB 0 .- " 0-$ g+ a, c-O & $5 ;s p: v) g
a,
v) 'ij mm J= .P
(0
0
.- m c E20 zu 0 mu V)
c'oz
.-
I1 .- 5 rP
-ryP 8- L.E
8rr LE,
m E
- z
5
._ F
E
3 0 ._
a m
L
.I- .- 0
c
P
e
a
P s
L
- a,
v) c 0
m
0 c a, a 26
=z Ea,
L ._ - 5 0-
SZ&
z.G a, m s 6g.2
g 80 g
I 5 I'. c ; @-E2
C $2.8 .o .g 0, .r - .I- lo ma-.= 5 a,2 II 0 E
w+T