HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 49511
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. 4951
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW
AN EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING TELECOM-
MUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT FACILITY LOCATED AT 3368
HARDING STREET IN THE R-3 ZONE AND LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: PACIFIC BELL HARDING STREET
BUILDING ADDITION
CASE NO.: CUP 46(B)
WHEREAS, Pacific Bell, “Developer/Owner” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as:
Portion of Tract 113 of Carlsbad Lands, Map No. 1661, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th 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:
4
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, according to Exhibit “ND”
dated March 13, 2001 and “PII” dated February 16, 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
Findin@:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Conditions:
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project, and any comments thereon prior to
APPROVING the project; and
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
1.
. . .
building permits..
The developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the mitigation
measures specified by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program.
PC RESO NO. 495 1 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
l(
1:
12
II
2(
21
2:
2:
2f
2f
2t
2:
2)
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of May, 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compaq L’Heureux,
and Trigas
NOES: Commissioner Heineman
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
n //
ATTEST;
Planning Director
PC RBSO NO. 495 1 -3-
- Cite of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: 3368 Harding Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Project Description: The project includes a total of 14,608 square feet of additional
floor area to the existing Pat Bell equipment facility. Additions
include an attached 1,418 square foot outdoor equipment enclosure
to house air cooled chillers and pump, a 498 square foot extension
of an underground vault, a 6,537 square foot addition to the
existing first floor, and the addition of a second floor totaling 6,156
square feet.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on tile in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated 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 Amre Hysong in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4622.
DATED: MARCH 13,200l
CASE NO: CUP ‘46(B)
CASE NAME: PAC BELL HARDING STREET ADDITION
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 13,200l
MICHAEL J. HOtiMItiER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad. CA 92006-7314 - (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602.6559 l w.ci.carlsbad.&.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP 146(B)
DATE: Februaw 16.2001
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
CASE NAME: Pacific Bell Harding Street Addition
APPLICANT Robert Royce. Allied Design Group
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2359 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300. San
Diego. CA 92 101
4.
5.
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The pro&t includes a total of 14,608 sauare feet of additional floor
area to the existing Pat Bell telecommunications equipment facility located at 3368 Harding
Street. Additions include an attached 1.418 square foot outdoor eauipment enclosure to house air
cooled chillers and PLUIIP, a 498 sauare foot extension of an underground vault, a 6.537 square
foot addition to the tirst floor. and the addition of a second floor totalinrr 6.156 square feet.
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.
IXI Land Use and Planning El Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
q Population and Housing q Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
q Geological Problems Cl Energy & Mineral Resources cl Aesthetics
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
q
IXI
q
q
cl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A(n) 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 pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance haa been prepared.
Planner Signat&
3/07 o/
D&e
Date
2 Rev.O3/28/96
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 ‘Wo Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information soume 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 soume 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 &l 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. 03l28l9.5
. 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 ER, (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
fomr under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev.O3/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agriculhual resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, 01 impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide tbe physical arnngement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
II. POPULA’lTON AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
01 extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Faultrupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l -5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1.15)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l -
5.1-15)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
0 Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l -
5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absmption rates, drainage patterns, 01 the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people 01 property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1)
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q Cl Cl
0
0 q
B q
q
q
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Lncorporated
q
Cl
cl
cl
q
cl
q
0
El q
q
q q
q
B
q
q
Less Than No Significant Impact Impact
El
q
!xl
cl
q
q
q
q
El q
q
q q
B q
cl
q
q
El
q
El
El
El
IXI
El
El lxl ix
IXI
IXI IXI
H El
(XI
El
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
9)
h)
0
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)
changes in the amount of surface water in ally water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11)
Changes in currents, or the wurse 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-I -5.2-l 1)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#I :Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-I
- 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or tempemture, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
=)
b)
Cl
d)
4
0
9)
pmposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traff% congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
cwe~ or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-I - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access 01 access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traftic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l
5.7.22)
VILBIOLOGlCAL 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)
q
q
q
5
q
q
q
5
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
J q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
q
5
5
5
q
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6 Rev. 03128196
Potentially
Significml impact
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
LhlkSS
Mitigation
Incorporated q
LessThan No
Significant Impact
Impact
b)
C)
d)
e)
VIII.
4
b)
4
I
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5 &5.13-l -5.13-g)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -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
theresidentsoftheState?(#l:Pgs5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5&
5.13-l - 5.13-9)
IX HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
=I
9
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-l - 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
healthhazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-S)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15; #2)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-1s; #2)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the urowsal have an effect
=I
b)
4
4
e)
. . upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
stices in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-l 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 -5.12.7-S)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ()
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -
5.12.8-7)
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
B q
B
Potentially Significant
UllkSS Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
5
5
I3
El q
Less Than Signiticanl Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El q
El
No Impact
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
q
q
El 5 5 5
7 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
4
b)
4
d)
4
0
g)
XIII.
4
b)
Cl
XIV.
=)
b)
4
4
e)
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
communicatiom systems? ()
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-l - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l - 5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-I - 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.11-S)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Dishlrb 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.
I - 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:
4
b)
XVI.
4
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opporhmities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a tish 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
1IlpCt
q
q q
q
B q
q
q
q
q
q
B
q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
q
q q
q
El q
q
q
5
q
q
B
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant Impact
q
q q
B q q
q
q
q
q
q
B
q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
5
iI
H
5
5
5
5
q
5
5
Ei
5
5
5
5
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
9
XVII.
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in ccmnection 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,
either directly 01 indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially Potentially LessThan No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated cl q q EI
I.3 q q IXI
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The proposed addition to the Pat Bell equipment facility in the R-3 residential zone requires
approval of a conditional use permit amendment to ensure the facility is compatible with
surrounding multiple family residential uses. The existing Pat Bell equipment facility has
resided at this location for many years without conflict; therefore, with mitigation to reduce noise
levels generated by the operation of indoor and outdoor mechanical equipment, the facility will
be compatible with surrounding residential uses.
V. AIR QUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
horn the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2)
measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation
Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including
mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by
City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR
This document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. 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
10 Rev. 03128196
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
tieeway 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 ElR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need, 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
A 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. 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.
X. NOISE
The site is currently impacted by traffic noise from the I-5 freeway so that noise levels along the
property boundaries of the eastern half of the lot range between 69 and 72 dBA CNEL. The
project includes mechanical equipment (chillers, chiller pumps, air handlers, generator, and
outdoor radiator fan) that will be housed within the main building and enclosures attached to the
proposed building. As indicated below, noise levels generated by this equipment would exceed
the existing noise levels; therefore, mitigation is required to ensure that existing noise levels at
the property boundaries will not be exceeded:
Air cooled chiller and uumn - 97 dBA without mitigation
14 foot high masonry wall enclosure with steel door tilled with insulating material and full
perimeter sound gaskets. 8 foot masomy wall around chiller pump (no gaps or holes in barriers).
Air handlers and ememencv generator - 98 - 111 dBA without mitiaation
11 Rev. 03128196
The air handler in the first floor room should have seven foot long sound attenuators
placed inside the room at the louver opening. The sound attenuator should be Industrial
Acoustics Company Model 7s or equivalent.
The air handlers in the second floor room should have five foot long sound attenuators
placed inside the louver openings. The sound attenuators should be Industrial Acoustics
Company Model 5s or equivalent.
Place a five foot long attenuator the generator room at the louver opening. The sound
attenuator should be Industrial Acoustics Company 5S or equivalent.
Install super critical grade muffler on the generator. The muffler should be GT Exhaust
Systems Model 201-6100 or equivalent.
Install a sound rated door with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) 45 or greater rating for
the exterior access door to the generator room.
Install minimum two-inch thick, semi-rigid liberglass sound absorbing material on at
least 50 percent of the generator room interior wall and ceiling surfaces (Owens-Coming
Type 703 plain or equivalent)
With implementation of the above mitigation measures, the noise levels associated with the
mechanical equipment would range up to approximately 62 dB CNEL at the southern property
boundary, 66 db CNEL at the northern property boundary, and 56 db CNEL at the eastern
property boundary assuming 24 hour operation of the equipment. These noise levels are less
than the existing noise levels.
XIII. AESTHETICS
To avoid the potential for light and glare impacts to adjacent residential apartment units resulting
from the proposed 25’ high parking lot light standards, low (4 - 6 foot high) bollard lighting will
be installed in the parking lot at the specified locations.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Plamring Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Imuact Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Cat&bad Planning Department.
2. “Pacific Bell-Harding Street Mechanical Equipment Noise Study” prepared by Dudek &
Associates, Inc., dated December 4,200O.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1.
2.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.
Air cooled chiller and pump - 97 dBA without mitigation
14 foot high masonry wall enclosure with steel door filled with insulating material and
full perimeter sound gaskets. 8 foot masomy wall around chiller pump (no gaps or holes
in barriers).
Air handlers and emergencv generator - 98 - 111 dBA without mitigation
The air handler in the first floor room should have seven foot long sound attenuators
placed inside the room at the louver opening. The sound attenuator should be Industrial
Acoustics Company Model 7s or equivalent.
The air handlers in the second floor room should have five foot long sound attenuators
placed inside the louver openings. The sound attenuators should be Industrial Acoustics
Company Model 5s or equivalent.
Place a five foot long attenuator the generator room at the louver opening. The sound
attenuator should be Industrial Acoustics Company 5s or equivalent.
Install super critical grade grade muffler on the generator. The muffler should be GT
Exhaust Systems Model 201-6100 or equivalent.
Install a sound rated door with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) 45 or greater rating for
the exterior access door to the generator room.
Install minimum two-inch thick, semi-rigid fiberglass sound absorbing material on at
least 50 percent of the generator room interior wall and ceiling surfaces (Owens-Coming
Type 703 plain or equivalent)
Install low (4 - 6 foot high) bollard lighting in the parking lot at the locations specified
for parking lot lighting on the approved site plan (Exhibit “B”).
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
See Attached.
13 Rev. 03/28196
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 / ’
14 Rev. 03128196