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