HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 48271
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. 4827
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CONSTRUCT A 9,000
SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF PI0 PICO DRIVE AND
SOUTH OF LAS FLORES DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: PI0 PICO OFFICE BUILDING
CASE NO.: SDP 00-07
WHEREAS, Conway and Associates, Inc., “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Conway and Associates,
Inc. and Cardiff Design Center, Inc., “Owner,” described as
That portion of lot 4 in section 31, township 11 south, range 4
west, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the
official plat thereof.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of September, 2000,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
W
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
“ND” dated July 26, 2000, and “PII” dated June 25, 2000, attached hereto and
made a part hereof, baaed 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
- -
FindinEs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration for the Pio
Pica Office Building - SDP 00-07 and the environmental impacts therein
identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the
project; and
The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of September, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Segall, Baker,
L’Heureux, Trigas and Heineman
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner Nielsen
L-LL@k&- &
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperk
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4827 -2.
City of Cahsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: West of Pio Pica and south of Las Flores Drive
Project Description: 9,000 square foot office building on a vacant one half acre lot.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on tile in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. 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 Christer Westman in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4614.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
JULY 26,200O
SDP 00-07
PI0 PICO OFFICE BUILDING
JULY 26,200O
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: SDP 00-07
DATE: June 25.2000
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
CASE NAME: Pio Pica Office Building
APPLICANT: Conway and Associates. Inc.
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Cardiff Design Center Suite D 135
Livernool Drive Cardiff-by-the-Sea CA 92007
4.
5.
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Auril2 1.2000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 9,000 square foot office building on three floors including a one
bedroom auartment on one half acre.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
q Land Use and Planning !xl Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
q Population and Housing q Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
q Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
0 Water q Hazards q Cultural Resources
q Air Quality 0 Noise q Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev.03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
!a
q
q
0
cl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
F /9,2 000
Date
Rev. 03128196
-
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 identities 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
soumes 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.
“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.
“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 II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but a 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 Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence
that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev.03/28/96
. 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.
. An EIR m 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 II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev.03/28196
-.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
4
b)
4
4
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#I :Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
Cl
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastmcture)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l
5.5-6)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
C)
4
e)
t)
g)
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Faultrupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1.15)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 5.1-15)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
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-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5..2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1)
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El q
q
El
H q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El q
q
B
q
El
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
B q
0
B
B q
III
q
q
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Ei
5
5
El
Ia
5
5
5
5
5 Rev. 03128196
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Ullkss Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
NO Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
9)
h)
0
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5..2-11)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations OI
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5.2-l 1)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
=I
b)
C)
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 5.3-12)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
Alter air movement, moisture, 01 temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
4
9
Cl
4
e)
cl
d
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
cures or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne 01 air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l
5.7.22)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Potentially
Significant
1IlpXt
q
q
q
q
q
q
!zl
q
Cl
0
IXI
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than Signiticanl
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
NO Impact
IXI
El
Ezl
IXI
El
[XI
q
El
IXI
LITI
q
El
txl
IXI
tzl
IXI
El
lxl
[XI
6 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
4
4
e)
VIII.
=I
b)
4
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l 5.12.1-5 &5.13-l 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable reswrces in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
reso”rce that would be of future value to the region and
theresidents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-l - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
4
V
3
4
e)
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-l 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing s”“rces of potential
healthhazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9.
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9.
1 5.9-15)
Xl. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
4
b)
Cl
4
e)
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-l - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
Other governnxntal services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I -
5.12.8-7)
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El
B q
Potentially Significant
UIlkSS
Mitigation incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
B q q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El q
8
NO
Impact
El
lxl
El
[XI
El
IXI
IXI
El
!a
!a
El
IXI
El
El
B
IXI
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
“I substantial alterations to the following utilities:
7 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
4
b)
Cl
4
9
f-J
g)
XIII.
4
b)
C)
XIV.
=)
b)
C)
d)
e)
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-l 5.13-9)
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-l - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-S)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-l 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l -5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l -5.11-S)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8.
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8.
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8.
1 - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV.RECREATlONAL. Would the proposal:
=)
b)
XVI.
=)
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-l
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-l 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
El
El q q
q
q
q
q
q
El
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q
q q
El
El
q
q
q
q
q
B
q
q
q
q
Less Illan
Significant Impact
q
8
B
1
q
q
q
q
q
B
q
q
q
q
NO Impact
IXI
1
El
El
txl
El
El
El
IXI
tzl
El
El
El
El
izl
8 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
b)
C)
XVII.
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sienificant Sienificant Sieniticant Imoact impact ilJ”kSS impact Mitigation
Incorporated
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? q cl q
(“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)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, q
either directly or indirectly’?
cl 0
El
IXI
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:
4 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.
cl 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. 03128196
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project site is a vacant commercial lot surrounded on all sides by development.
The proposed use is consistent with the land use designations for the site and the proposed
development is of similar scale and style as the adjacent properties. There is no evidence that
there are significant resources of any type onsite.
AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certitied 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.
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.
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
10 Rev.03128/96
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.
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.
EARLJER 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 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
11 Rev.03/28196