HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 49221
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. 4922
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM TO ALLOW
AN EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING TELEPHONE
ELECTRONIC SWITCHING FACILITY IN THE PLANNED
INDUSTRIAL ZONE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CAMINO VIDA ROBLE JUST WEST
OF YARROW DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: PACIFIC BELL
CASE NO.: CUP 154(D)/HDP 01-01
WHEREAS, Pacific Bell, “Developer,“/“Owner,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lot 15 of Carlsbad Tract No. 73-49 (C.C. & F. Palomar
Airport Business Park) Unit No. 1 in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Map
thereof No. 8054 filed in the office of the Recorder of San Diego
County, December 31,1974
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration and Addendum was prepared in conjunction
with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of February, 2001,
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 and Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration and Addendum
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
according to Exhibit “ND” dated October 31,2000, and “PII” dated October 24,
2000, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinps:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration and Addendum
and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any
comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
B. The Negative Declaration and Addendum 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
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
D. 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 2lst day of February 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
Nielsen, and Trigas
ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux
ABSTAIN:
JBFFIUFN. SEGA .LL, Chait$& son
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MxHrn~ J. ~~L&~ILLER
Planning Director
PC RBSO NO. 4922 -2-
dity of
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
2175 Camino Vida Roble, Carlsbad, CA. Project is on the east side
of Camino Vida Roble between Las Palmas Drive and Yarrow
Drive.
A 16,132 square foot two-story expansion and the removal of
4,747 square feet of single story modular buildings of an existing
28,079 square foot Pacific Bell electronic switching 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, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 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 Van Lynch in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4613. _
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
OCTOBER 3 1,200O
CUP 154(D)
PACIFIC BELL
OCTOBER 3 1,200O
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92006.7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602.6559 - www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: CUP 154(D)
DATE: October 24.2000
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: PACIFIC BELL
2. APPLICANT: PACIFIC BELL
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3848 7TH AVENUE, ROOM 120, SAN
DIEGO CA. 92103
4.
5.
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 15.2000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 16.132 square foot two-ston, exoansion and the removal of 4,747
square feet of single story modular buildings of an existing 28,079 sauarc foot Pacific Bell
electronic switching facilitv located at 2175 Camino Vida Roble, Carlsbad.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning [XI Transportation/Circulation cl Public Services
El Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems III Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
q Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
q Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03128196
DETERMINATION.
[XI
III
q
El
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 Negative
Declaration 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 Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner ignature
/o-2c/-00
Date
IQ/24 00
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 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
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 &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 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 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 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.
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a)
b)
Cl
d)
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction cwer 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) (#l: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 infrastructure)? (#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 uro~osal result in or . .
a)
b)
Cl
4
e)
cl
d
h)
9
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Faultrupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l 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-l
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-l 5.1-15)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l
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-l 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5.X11)
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..2-11)
0
0
cl
III
0
cl
III
cl
El
El
q
H
El 0
0
q
cl
5 Rev. 03128196
Potentially
Significant
IlllpSKt
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
4
e)
fl
8)
h)
i)
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-l 1)
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-l 5..2-11)
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-l 1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
b)
Cl
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, or 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
b)
8)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle hips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves 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 hxnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or 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)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24)
q
q
q
q
q
q
[XI
q
q
q
IXI
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
6 Rev. 03128196
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
Less Than Significant Impact
NO
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
4
e)
VIII.
4
b)
C)
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 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13.
1 5.13-9)
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-l - 5.12.1-5
85 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
C)
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 sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Increase tire 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)
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-l 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-l 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
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)
7
Potentially Significanl Impact
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El
8
q
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
B q
q
q
NO
l*pXt
IXI
Exd
lzl
[XI
El
Ed
[XI
!xl
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
[XI
I#
!a
El
[XI
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
Cl
4
e)
fl
Is)
XIII.
a)
b)
Cl
XIV.
a)
b)
Cl
4
e)
Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 5.12.8-7)
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 or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect?
(#l:Pgs5.11-1 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.11-5)
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-l - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
XVI.
4
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
5.12.8-1 - 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 Significanl
Impact
B
El
El
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant
lJ&SS Mitigation Incorporated q q
H
El
q
q
q
q
q
B
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
El
1
El
q
q
q
q
q
El
q
q
q
q
No
I*pXt
8 Rev. 03128196
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
b)
4
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Simiticant Significant Inmact Impact Unless ?*pXt
Mitigation In&orated Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? q q UIXI
(“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 q q L fl
either directly or indirectly?
Rev. 03128196
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:
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.
10 Rev.03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project consists of expanding the existing electronic switching facility located at 2175
Camino Vida Roble, Carlsbad, CA, with a 16,132 square foot two-story addition. The project
also proposes to remove 4,747 square feet of temporary modular buildings. The addition will
match the existing masonry block building in height, materials, and texture. The proposed
expansion will be in an area that is currently paved with asphalt and will not disturb and native
flora or fauna. Other improvements include a revised driveway entrance, parking lot
modifications and landscaping.
11 Rev. 03/2X/96
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The project falls within the scope of the City’s MEIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan
update (EIR 93-01) certified in September, 1994, in which a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic. An MEIR may not
be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the tiling of an
application for a later project except under certain circumstances. The City is currently
reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects.
Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its
adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under
which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure
at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level
of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and
could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains
adequate to review later projects. All feasible mitigation measures identified by the MEIR which
are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases 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 buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with 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 subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
-
Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1)
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian 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 buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on tile in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4613.
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.
2. CUP 154(C) Negative Declaration. issued June 18, 1996, City of Carlsbad Planning
department
13 Rev. 03128196
LIST OF MITIGATING MkJRES
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
None
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 Signature
14 Rev. 03/28/96
ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CUP 154(D)
AND HDP 01-01 -PACIFIC BELL
Subsequent to the issuance of the negative declaration, it was determined that the
projects grading and retaining wall improvements required the processing of a Hillside
Development Permit. The requirement of the permit is a minor technical change in that
the grading and retaining wall were part of the original project and only the addition of
the permit requirement is being added to the project. There are no substantial changes
in the project, or changes to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken,
which would result in an increase to the severity of previously identified significant
environmental effects as none previously existed. The grading and the wall were
previously considered with the negative declaration and no additional mitigation
measures are required as a result of the addition of the Hillside Development Permit
requirement.