Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 49731 2 3 4 5 6 I 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. 4973 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE THE PUBLIC WORKS CENTER AT THE CITY’S SAFETY CENTER LOCATED ON ORION WAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. CASE NAME: PUBLIC WORKS CENTER CASE NO.: CUP 01-02 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Developer”/“Ownef’ has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as A portion of Lot “B” of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda according to Map No. 823, filed November l&1896, in the office of the San Diego County Recorder (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of May, 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated April 2, 2001, and “PII” dated March 23, 2001, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findiws: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration CUP 01-02 the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and b. the Mitigated 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 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 2nd day of May 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, L’Heureux, Nielsen, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMItiER Planning Director PC RESO NO. 4973 -2. Cite of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: Orion Way, City Safety Center east of El Camino Real Project Description: Construction of the City’s new Public Works Center 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 Mitigated 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 tile 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, or by Anril 23, 2001. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608. DATED: APRIL 2.2001 CASE NO: CUP 01-02 CASE NAME: PUBLIC WORKS CENTER PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 2,200l Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92006-7314 l (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-6559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 69 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CUP 01-02 DATE: March 23.2001 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. CASE NAME: PUBLIC WORKS CENTER APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD - PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carl&d. CA 92008. Richard Cook 760.602.2780 x7305 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 1.2001 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build-out of the Citv’s Safetv Center including the removal of the existing ballfield and construction of uarkinp facilities. warehousing facilities and new Public Works administration and maintenance structures. The uroiect site is already in a develoued state and had urior environmental review with the City auuroval of EIR 82-01 that accomuanied the original auuroval of the Safety Center. This uroiect will also consolidate the three existing City conditional use uermits onsite (for Fire Station No. S/Skateboard Park/and existing Safety Center office) with the urouosed Public Works Center CUP so that all of the citv’s conditional uses at the Safetv Center will be under one uermit. The comulete uroiect is shown on Exhibits “A”-“T” dated Mav 2,200 1 on tile in the Planninv Deuartment and incoruorated herein by reference. 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 El Transportation/Circulation Cl Public Services q Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems q Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics q Water q Hazards q Cultural Resources q Air Quality 0 Noise [XI Recreation El Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03128196 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) q EXJ q Cl q 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. A(n) 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. Planner Signature Date 3/!zYj4l, Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 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. “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 d 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. Rev. 03128196 . 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 signifcant, 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. 03/28196 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: =) b) Cl 4 e) Conflict with general plan designation 01 zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l _ 5.6-18) Conflict with applicable environmental plans 01 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 OT farmlands, OI 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 01 minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: =I b) C) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly 01 indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area o* 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 urouosal result in or . . =) b) C) 4 e) cl 9) h) 9 expose people to potential impacts involving: Faultmpture?(#l:Pgs5.1-1 -5.1-15) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I 5.1-15) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l -5.1.15) Seiche, tsuna’k, 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 01 unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15) Subsidence ofthe 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, 01 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..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) 5 Potentially Significant IlllpaCt q q q q q q q cl cl El q B B q q q q Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q q q q q q cl 8 Cl cl 5i El Cl q q q Less Than Significant Impact NO Impact q q q q q q q q q El q H El q q q q Rev. 03128196 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 4 e) 0 d 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 catrse 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 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 - 5M2.11) 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, 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. TRANSPORTATlONiClRCULATlON. proposal result in: Would the a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) 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-l 5.7.22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus hunouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) g) 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) Potentially Signiticant Impact q q q q 0 q IXI q q q (XI q q q q q q El q Potentially Significant UIlkSS Mitigation Incorporated q q q cl q q 0 q q cl q q q q q q q Less Than Significant Impact q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q NO Impact El txl •l Ed [XI !xl q IXI Ia El q !a IXI IXI El IXI [XI q q E4 q q IXI 6 Rev. 03128/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Cl 4 e) VIII. 4 b) Cl 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 5.4-1 - 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 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-s & 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 ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: =I b) Cl 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-I -5.10.1-S) 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 fue 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 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-S) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 5.12.8-7) XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: -I Potentially Significant Impact q q q q q q q q q q q q q El El q Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant l”lpXt Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated q q El q q 1xI q q IXI q q Ix1 q q IXI q q Ix] q q !a q q (XI q q [XI q q IXI q q El q q [XI q q EJ Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) b) C) 4 e) D 8) XIII. 4 b) Cl XIV. a) b) C) 4 e) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l 5.12.1-S & 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 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8) 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 5.11-1 -5.11-5) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1-5.11-5) 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. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 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? Potentially Significant Impact q 53 0 El q q q q q q q q q q q q Potentially Significant UhSS Mitption Incorporated q q q H H q q q cl q B q q Less Than Significant Impact q B El q q q q q q q q q q El q NO impact El B B IXI Ia IXI El !x [XI [XI El El [XI q q q q El Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Less Than NO Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation b) Cl XVII. Incorporated Does the project have impacts that are individually limited. but cumulatively considerable? q q q [xI (“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 EI either directly or indirectly? 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. 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. Rev. 03128196 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION LAND USE AND PLANNING The project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the Safety Center which is G (Government Facilities). The current Safety Center site represents about half of the site’s planned buildout. The original CUP for the site, CUP 262, contained a conceptual plan for the buildout of the site that accommodate various city government facilities, uses and structures The current uses are: Safety Center (fire and police administration), Fire Station No. 4 and the City’s Skateboard Park. The oval grass field and baseball diamond that currently occupies the center of the Safety Center site will be converted to parking spaces to serve the new structures as proposed on the project exhibits. The proposal to construct Public Works administration space, yard spaces, and warehousing and storage facilities will not adversely impact any land use plans for the site or the area in general. POPULATION AND HOUSING The project will have no affect on population distribution or housing demands or impacts. This is a City project designed to deliver Public Works services in an efficient manner to the public. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS No geologic problems exist onsite since the Safety Center site is previously graded and all proposed improvements are for areas that are already in use in one form or another but in no case are improvements planned for areas that have not been previously disturbed and/or paved over. WATER Since the project is proposed for a pre-graded site, there will be no impacts to surface, subsurface or flood water flows across of through the site. The site is ready for industrial building development, so the buildings, yard areas and parking lots proposed will not create any adverse impacts to the area’s ground water or surface water flow. AIR OUALITY: 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. 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 10 Rev. 03128196 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. 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 proposed project will provide the parking spaces required by the code for the range Parking: of uses proposed. The site plan cover sheet provides a breakdown of the parking requirements. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No biological resources occur on this site because it is a pre-graded lot located within a larger industrial office subdivision. All biological resources impacts were assessed and mitigated as necessary with the approval of the original Safety Center grading and development as reviewed in EIR 82-01. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES The development of governmental facilities on the site, will not involve mineral extraction or the use of mineral resources. In general terms, the building’s materials, energy systems and workplace procedures will emphasize renewable resources, recycled materials and/or energy conservation to the maximum extent feasible. HAZARDS The use of the site for Public Works facilities, in addition to the existing uses, will not introduce hazardous substances or material onto the site; nor will it increase the risk of explosion since only governmental administration and, maintenance and storage uses are proposed. 11 Rev. 03128196 There are no significant noise generating uses in the area so as to negatively impact city government staff, clients or users. Noise from the yard areas will be mostly contained onsite and no residences are located in the immediate vicinity. PUBLIC SERVICES This project is intended to meet the current and future needs of the Public Works Division of the City including administration, maintenance and warehousing. By doing so, the City will be better prepared to deliver public services on a citywide scale. In addition, the use in and of itself, will not generate an extraordinary demand for any particular city service or facility. So, the project will not have any adverse impacts to Public Service. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS The project will require any new or modified utility or service systems. No natural gas or unusual power requirements are involved. The project is fairly standard as far as industrial or institutional buildings and developments are concerned. The project will not have an adverse impact to existing or planned utilities or service systems. AESTHETICS The structures have been designed by a consulting architect and implement a building style that has received staff support, and is acknowledged as a quality architectural style for institutional and public works type buildings. A landscaping theme will be implemented with the project designed to complement the building’s style and materials. Building height regulations are satisfied and attention to screen rooftop equipment in accordance with city policies is a required element of the project. The project’s building elevations and landscape plans are included in the project exhibits. CULTURAL RESOURCES Since a pre-graded site is involved, all environmental resources have already been assessed and mitigated as necessary with the approval of EIR 82-01 including cultural resources. RECREATIONAL A grassy multi-use ballfield with baseball diamond facilities, currently occupies the central portion of the Safety Center site. Although the long range plan for the site involved the development of this area with either buildings or parking, the fact that it provides recreational opportunities currently, and in a quasi-public context, the removal of the ballfield represents an environmental impact. Furthermore, the ballfield is on the NE Parks Inventory within the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. Therefore, the loss the ballfield is an impact that requires mitigation and is the only aspect of the project that requires an environmental mitigation measure. The mitigation is to provide a replacement ballfield within no more than 6 months from the date of physical removal. In addition, the NE Parks inventory must be adjusted to maintain Growth Management compliance. Two related city permits are being concurrently processed to provide these mitigation measures: CUP 01-01 is for the Zone 5 Park Interim Ballfield and is intended to 12 Rev.03/28/96 entitle the required replacement ballfield. GPA 00-08 is a general plan amendment that makes the necessary changes to the NE parks inventory. Approval of both of these actions will facilitate compliance with the mitigation measures attached to this document. 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 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. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1, The maximum amount of time that may elapse between the removal of the balltield and the delivery of a replacement field, of a size and configuration to the satisfaction of the Recreation Director, for this project to not create a significant environmental impact shall be 6 months starting from the first day the existing field is unusable. 2. The replacement field must have all necessary entitlements in place (CUP 01-01) prior to the beginning of field preparation and interim park construction. 3. The NE Quadrant Parks Inventory General Plan Amendment (GPA 00-08) shall be approved by the City Council prior to the physical removal of the balltield. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE~ 14 Rev. 03128/96 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. 37-7 a/ Date / I Signahre \ 15 Rev.03128196 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of I