HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 6029PROJECT DENIED
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6029
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE RELOCATION
4 OF TEMPORARY FIRE STATION 6 TO AN UNDEVELOPED
LOT GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
LEV ANTE STREET BETWEEN ROMERIA STREET AND
6 GALLEON WAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 6.
7 CASE NAME: TEMPORARY FIRE STATION 6
CASE NO.: CUP 05-278
9 WHEREAS, Trimark-Pacific-Casa La Costa LLC, "Developer," has filed a
10 verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by the City of
11 Carlsbad, "Owner," described as
12 A portion of Lot 23 of La Costa Vale Unit No. 1, according to
13 Map No. 7457 filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County on October 18, 1972, in the City of Carlsbad,
14 County of San Diego, State of California
15 ("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
17
project; and
18
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of February 2006, hold
2Q a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
21 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
22 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
23 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
24
relating to the Negative Declaration.
25
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning26
27 Commission as follows:
28 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration, Exhibit "ND," dated
February 1, 2006 according to Exhibits "NOI" dated January 10, 2006, and
2 "PII" dated December 27,2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on
the following findings:
3
Findings;
4
, 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
5 a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
7 thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
o b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
10
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
12 d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
13 the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
14 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of February 2006, by the
following vote, to wit:
17
AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Cardosa, and Heineman
18
NOES: Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Segall, and Whitton
20 ABSENT:
21 ABSTAIN:
22
23 MARTELL B. MONTGOMERY, Chairperson
24 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
25 „ATTEST:26
27
28 DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 6029 -2-
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TEMPORARY FIRE STATION NO. 6
GUP 05-27
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LEV ANTE STREET BETWEEN
ROMERIA STREET AND GALLEON WAY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Relocation of Temporary Fire Station 6 to an undeveloped lot
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: 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) did not identify any potentially
significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be
recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative
Declaration 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 the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by
the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be
issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Elaine
Blackburn in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4621.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD January 10. 2006 through January 30. 2006
PUBLISH DATE January 10. 2006
1635 Faraday Avenue « Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP 05-27
DATE: December 27. 2005
BACKGROUND —
1. CASE NAME: Temporary Fire Station No. 6
2-f LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad: 1635 Faraday Av: Carlsbad. CA
92008
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Elaine Blackburn 760-602-4621
4. PROJECT LOCATION: north side of Levante St between Romeria Street and Galleon Way
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Trimark Pacific: 613 West Valley Parkway.
Suite 200: Escondido. CA 92025
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space COS)
7. ZONING: Open Space (O-S)
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): N/A
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The proposed project is a proposal to relocate Temporary Fire Station 6 from its current location on
Levante Street and La Costa Avenue to an undeveloped lot on Levante Street between Romeria Street and
Galleon Way. The proposed location is across the street from the La Costa Heights Elementary School.
The fire station facilities would include three temporary structures and a paved parking area for up to six
spaces.
The project would incorporate a Butler building, a station modular, and a storage building. The Butler
building would be placed on the west side of the project site. That building would.be approximately 25
feet by 40 feet in size and approximately 18 feet high. It is a pre-engineered metal building. It would
house the Apparatus bay and workbench. The station modular would be placed along the rear of the
property. The modular would be approximately 20 feet by 60 feet in size and approximately 14 feet high.
It would provide space for the fire station office, kitchen, day room, and sleeping and bath areas. A metal
storage unit of 10 feet by 30 feet would be placed adjacent to the Butler building. The storage unit would
be approximately 14 feet high and would provide space for a workout area and storage.
Outside lighting for the project will include switchable flood lights (at the roll-up door of the apparatus
bay) and two parking lot lights. The flood lights can be manually controlled and would be used only
when necessary and for as brief a time as possible. The two parking lot lights would be directed
downward to minimize potential impacts to neighbors.
Rev. 07/03/02
The project would require two new curb cuts on the north side of Levante Street to accommodate
ingress/egress to the station. There is an existing large pine tree along that north street frontage. That tree
would be left in place. (The ingress/egress points would be on either side of the tree.) The project also
includes earthen drainage swales along the east and west sides of the site. The site drains to Levante into
the public storm drain system.
The approximately 0.3-ac project site is part of a larger 5.05-acre parcel. The project area is flat and
contains very little vegetation. The remaining portion of the parcel continues on to the north. The
majority of the subject parcel contains sensitive habitat and is designated as hard line open space
conservation area under the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). However, the area of the proposed
project does not contain any habitat and is specifically excluded from the open space preservation
requirements of the HMP. The project site has an Open Space (OS) General Plan designation and Open
Space (O-S) zoning. No grading is required or proposed to utilize the proposed site.
Rev. 07/03/02
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.
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
] Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils Noise
Hazards/Hazardous Materials LJ Population and Housing
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Circulation
Utilities & Service Systems
Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
/\ 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.
D
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 "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 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 Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
/- 1-
Date
Planning Director's Signature Date
Rev. 07/03/02
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
significantly adverse, 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 significantly
adverse.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but ail potentially significant adverse 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.
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse 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 adverse effect on the environment.
• If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are1'mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse 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.
Rev. 07/03/02
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse 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 adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse 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. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
II. " AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act conn-act?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon, to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
El
El
El
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
n n
n
n
X
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
er that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18
- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
D
D
n
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VII.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
•^
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
n
n
n
EI
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflpw?
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D D IS
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IX.
X.
o) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
XL NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
ether agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundboume noise
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or I I
wetland waters) during or following construction?
m n
x
El D
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
in) Schools?
•4-
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project.
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in insufficient parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless-
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
D
D
D
Ei
14 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IEIe) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. 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?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula-
tively 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?)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVIII. 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
15963(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
•4>
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.
15 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. AESTHETICS
a) No Impact. The project site does not contain or serve as a scenic vista. It is a small portion of an
undeveloped lot surrounded by development. There are no views to surrounding or distant scenic areas.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site does not contain scenic resources which would be
significantly or permanently damaged by the proposed project. The project site is a small (approximately 0.3-ac)
flat portion of a 5-acre parcel. The area of the proposed project is a flat area fronting onto an existing public street.
The proposed development area contains no buildings or rock outcroppings. It does contain one large pine tree
which would remain in place. In addition, the project is conditioned to require the City to return the project site to
its original condition (i.e., to remove all structures, all asphalt/paving, and if deemed necessary, all ornamental
landscaping) to the satisfaction of the Planning Director upon the relocation of the station to its new permanent site.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not substantially degrade the visual character
of the area. .The proposed temporary fire station use involves small structures of a lower height (maximum
approximately 18') than surrounding uses (up to 30' high) and a small parking area for six spaces. The proposed
structures include a Butler building, a modular unit, and a small storage unit. The temporary structures will be new
and will be as neutral in appearance as possible. Further, the fire station use is temporary. When the new permanent
fire station is constructed (in early 2007), all structures, paving, and other remnants of the proposed temporary fire
station use will be removed.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project includes two switchable flood lights at the roll-up door of the
of the apparatus bay) and two parking lot lights. The switchable flood lights can be operated manually and would be
used only when necessary and for as brief a time as possible. (The floodlights would only be needed if the fire truck
were being put back into service after a call at night.) The two parking lot lights would be shielded and directed
downward to minimize potential impacts to neighbors.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
a-c) No Impact. The project site is not currently and has not historically been utilized as farmland and is not
designated as significant farmland. The project site is not zoned for agricultural uses and is not subject to a
Williamson Act contract. The project also does not involve any other changes which would result in conversion of
other farmland to non-agricultural uses. The project site is in an urbanized area surrounded by residential
development and an elementary school. The project involves the placement of a temporary fire station use on a lot
currently zoned as open space.
III. AIR QUALITY
a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-
attainment area for ozone (Os), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns
in diameter (PMIO). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego
Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the
pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning
process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control
District (AI>CD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARE) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
-regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS througrT'the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the
County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
16 Rev. 07/03/02
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are pan of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the
following:
• Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
• Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being
implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City's General Plan and the RAQS.
Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the regional plan.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City
of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality
violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in
2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates
in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and
suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable
potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated
with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed
project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to
the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impact is
considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
d) No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or
concentrations.
e) No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of
construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-
term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a-d,g) No Impact. The project does not propose any habitat modifications either directly or indirectly. The
project site is a flat site containing no sensitive vegetation, no riparian, aquatic, or wetland habitat or other sensitive
natural community. (The project area contains almost no vegetation of any kind.) Since the site contains no
sensitive vegetation or water, it is not likely to contribute to any movement of native or migratory species. The
proposed use involves installation of temporary buildings which do not require any grading and there will be no
disturbance of any areas of the project parcel outside of the small unvegetated project area.
e,f) No Impact. The project site is a small portion (approximately 0.3-ac) of a larger 5.05-acre parcel. The
majority ofjhe parcel is designated to be conserved as hard line open space under the City's Habitat Management
Plan (HMP). However, the proposed project area is specifically excluded from that hard line open space
conservation area and is not subject to any HMP conservation standards. The project area contains no habitat (and
very little other vegetation) with the exception of one large pine tree which is being left in place.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a-d) No Impact. The project site is an open space lot surrounded by urban development. It contains no known
historical, cultural, or paleontological resources. It also is not known to contain any human remains. No grading is
proposed for the project.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a.i) Less than significant impact. In general, major, active fault zones characterize Southern California. The
project vicinityis located within a large seismically active region characterized by northwest trending faults to the
17 Rev. 07/03/02
San Andreas Fault System. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located approximately eight miles to the southwest, is
considered potentially active, although there has been no evidence of movement in the last 11,000 years. The
Elsinore Fault Zone, which lies approximately 20 miles to the northeast, is the nearest known active fault. A major
earthquake on either the nearby Elsinore or Rose Canyon Faults could cause moderate shaking at the site. Also,
offshore seismic activity has demonstrated that small magnitude earthquakes can be generated by the offshore faults.
However, shallow ground rupture due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard
to people or structures, although it is a possibility at any site within the region. In addition, the project site is not
located within any designated California Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone)
(City of Carlsbad 2001).
a.ii) Less than significant impact. The potential for strong seismic ground shaking at the site is low. Although
the project would not involve activities that might cause seismic ground shaking; to reduce the effects from seismic
shaking on the proposed structures; the construction and design plans must adhere to the California Building Code
or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California.
a.iii) Less than significant impact. The project site is a vacant lot graded in 1973 in accordance with
engineering standards and the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer as part of the La Costa Vale, Unit No. 1
residential subdivision. A geotechnical report for the La Costa Vale, Unit No. 1 project was prepared by Benton
Engineering in October 1971. Because properly compacted engineered fill is not considered to be liquefiable, the
potential for liquefaction is considered to be less than significant.
a.iv) Less than significant impact. The project site is a vacant lot graded in 1973 as part of the La Costa Vale,
Unit No. 1 residential subdivision. A geotechnical investigation performed by Benton Engineering (October 1971)
for the La Costa Vale project did not find any landslides within the La Costa Vale project site. Furthermore, the
project would not involve activities that might cause landslides. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less
than significant potential to induce landslides and no impact is identified.
b) Less than significant impact. The project site is mostly disturbed; however some non-native vegetative
cover currently exists. Slight project-related erosion could occur through the removal of stabilizing vegetation and
exposure of credible materials onsite, as well as construction of two curb cuts . The project would affect less than
one acre and would employ BMPs during construction. Furthermore, operation of the project would not involve
activities that might cause soil erosion. Therefore potential impacts from soil erosion would be avoided with BMPs
and are considered less than significant.
c) Less than significant impact. The project site is a vacant lot graded in 1973 hi accordance with County of
San Diego engineering standards and the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer as part of the La Costa Vale,
Unit No. 1 residential subdivision. A geotechnical report for the La Costa Vale, Unit No. 1 project was prepared by
Benton Engineering in October 1971. No grading is required to accommodate the proposed temporary building and
none is proposed. Furthermore, operation of the proposed project would not involve activities that might cause
geological instability. Also, the construction plans shall adhere to the California Uniform Building Code and City of
Carlsbad building permit requirements. Potential stability impacts resulting from development of the proposed fire
station are considered to be less than significant.
d) Less than significant impact. The project site is a vacant lot graded in 1973 in accordance with County of
San Diego engineering standards and the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer as part of the La Costa Vale,
Unit No. 1 residential subdivision. A geotechnical report for the La Costa Vale, Unit No. 1 project was prepared by
Benton Engineering in October 1971. No grading is required to accommodate the proposed temporary building and
none is proposed. Construction plans and structural engineering calculations for the temporary building shall adhere
to the California Uniform Building Code and City of Carlsbad building permit requirements. The supplier of the
building shall also be responsible for the foundation design and any additional soils investigation that may be
necessary. Potential stability impacts resulting from development of the proposed fire station are considered to be
less than significant.
e) No Impact. The project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a-c) No Impact. The fire station would not routinely transport, use, or dispose of any hazardous materials or
acutely hazardous materials. Since no such materials would be stored on site, there would be not risk of accident
from spills or other release of such materials.
18 Rev. 07/03/02
d) No Impact The site is not included on the referenced list of hazardous materials sites and would not
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
e) No Impact. The project site is within two miles of an airport (McClellan-Palomarj with an adopted land
use plan. The airport land use plan does not impose any restrictions on the subject property. The project would not
result in a safety hazard.
f) No Impact. The project is not within the vicinity of a private airport.
g) .No Impact. The project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. The proposed
temporary fire station use would function as part of an emergency response/evacuation plan by responding to fires
and other emergencies in the area. The project site fronts onto a local (residential) street which is not part of any
adopted emergency evaluation plan routes.
h) No Impact. The proposed project site is an open space parcel in an urbanized area. The proposed project
would not increase any risk from fire. Since the proposed use is a temporary fire station, it will continue to
contribute to the prevention and reduction of risk of loss from fire in the zone it serves.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project is subject to the City's erosion
control requirements and would comply with the Clean Water Act. Conformance with the Clean Water Act is
established through implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In general, the SWPPP
regulates water quantity and quality by requiring the use of BMPs and a Monitoring Program Plan. The applicant is
required to prepare a preliminary SWPPP. Conformance with the SWPPP will ensure that water quality impacts
during project construction activities do not rise to significant levels.
b) No Impact. No groundwater exists beneath the project site.
c) No Impact. As noted above in response "b," groundwater does not exist under the project site or the
project vicinity. The nearest groundwater is identified within San Marcos Creek, a perennial stream located further
down gradient approximately 2-miles to the north (City of Carlsbad 2001).
d) No Impact. The site currently drains overland to Levante Street and into the public storm drain system.
The current project design would not interfere with or alter the existing drainage pattern on-site. The current site is
mostly barren with little vegetation to reduce erosion. The project would reduce the erosion potential through the
construction of a paved parking lot and addition of earthen drainage swales along the eastern and western property
lines.
e) Less than significant impact. The existing drainage pattern.of the site would not be altered, as discussed
in "d" above; surface run-off would continue to drain southerly via proposed earthen swales, which would function
as filter basins before flowing into Levante Street. However, development of the fire station and adjacent parking
areas would increase the volume 'Of surface run-off by creating impermeable surfaces on-site. However, the
increased flow from the small site would not contribute enough volume to cause flooding on- or off-site. This impact
is not considered to be significant.
f) Less than significant impact. The proposed project is located in the San Marcos Creek Basin and within
the City's Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Plan as Drainage Basin "D" (City of Carlsbad 2001). Several
natural sub-basin drainage areas convey existing drainage run-off; no non-natural drainage facilities are located
within the project vicinity. The proposed fire station building including the parking area is approximately '/4 acre in
size. As discussed in "e" above, considering the small area that the project site comprises,_it would not contribute
substantial sources of pollutant run-off, nor would it provide significant sources of pollutant run-off from
impervious surfaces to the existing water drainage system. The proposed project design includes earthen swales to
be constructed along the project site's east and west property lines to catch run-off pollutants before they discharge
into Levante Street. This would reduce potential water quality impacts to a level less than significant.
g) No impact. The proposed project does not include any other features that would substantially degrade
water quality.
h) No Impact. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) uses the 100-year flood (a flood which
has a one percent probability of occurring in any given year) as the threshold for floodplain management purposes.
19 Rev. 07/03/02
Floodplains are managed and regulated under Chapter 21.220 of the City's Zoning Ordinance with the intent to
minimize the effects that flood hazards impose on the public's health and safety. The project site is not within
floodplain limits as depicted on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the project area. The project does not
propose any housing. No impacts to the project site would result from a 100-year flood.
i) No impact. As noted above, the proposed project'is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area and
would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impact is identified.
j) No impact. The Stanley A. Mahr Reservoir (also known as the La Costa Dam), owned and operated by the
VWD, is located approximately three miles northeast of the project site. The proposed fire station site is not located
within the downstream drainage path of the reservoir and is outside of the dam inundation area. In the highly
unlikely event of a dam failure, the fire station would not be subject to hazardous flooding risks. No impact is
identified.
k) No impact. The project site is not located within an inundation area in the event of a seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow. The relative elevation of the project site generally protects the site from this type of inundation. No impact
is identified.
1) Less than significant impact. Receiving surface waters in the project vicinity include San Marcos Creek,
which empties into the Batiquitos Lagoon. Without erosion control measures the proposed project would generate
sediment associated with grading and construction activities on-site. Compliance with the City's Grading Ordinance
and the Clean Water Act is required for project construction. Compliance requires conformance with applicable
BMPs and development of an SWPPP and monitoring program plan. The proposed project would incorporate the
most current BMPs available at that time for pollution control and erosion/siltation control. The implementation of
these BMPs (a standard condition of project approval) would reduce the amount of sediment and erosion into the
nearby receiving waters of San Marcos Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon such that any potential temporary impacts
associated with project construction would be less than significant.
m) Less than significant impact. As noted above, the proposed project would comply with federal, state, and
local regulations that control surface water quality. The project proposes to incorporate earthen swales along the
project's east and west boundaries to catch urban run-off pollutants before the run-off discharges into Levante
Street. Pollutants created onsite would be minimal since the V* acre site would not generate a significant amount of
runoff in comparison to the large area of the drainage basin and vehicle maintenance, fueling and cleaning would not
be performed on site. Impacts to water quality could be significant.
n) Less than significant impact. Receiving waters in the project vicinity include San Marcos creek, which
empties into Batiquitos Lagoon. During construction, the quality of these waters could potentially be affected by
other typical construction activities, which could generate erosion and sediment runoff. Upon project completion,
the pavement and structures on-site would increase impervious surfaces that could increase runoff volume and flow
rates. Increased runoff volume and flow rates have the potential to cause off-site erosion, thereby decreasing
receiving water quality. As discussed above, the project would implement BMPs to reduce erosion and sediment
runoff generated during project construction. Construction of earthen swales would function as a filter, collecting
large sediment and allowing fine sediments to drop to the bottom of the swale, thereby improving the runoff water
quality before it discharges to Levante Street. The swales would also decrease runoff velocities. Because of the
small size of the site, the increase in impervious surfaces would not significantly increase off-site flow rates. With
implementation of BMPs, project development would not result in significant changes to receiving water quality.
«*
o) Nonimpact. See response VIII-m. Also, San Marcos Creek, which flows west and empties into Batiquitos
Lagoon, is the closest water body to the project site. Currently this water body is not listed on the Clean Water Act
Section 30(d) list. Therefore, no impact to an already impaired water body would result from project
implementation.
p) No impact. See preceding responses.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) No Impact. The proposed project would not divide an existing community. The project site is surrounded
by residential development and an elementary school. Fire stations are typically located in such areas and would not
be incompatible with its surroundings.
20 Rev. 07/03/02
b, c) No Impact. The site of the proposed project is an open space parcel surrounded by residential uses and
across the street from an elementary school. The project also would not conflict with any land use plans or policies
adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect or any habitat conservation plan. The project site is a small
portion (approximately 0.3-ac) of a larger 5.05-acre parcel. The majority of the parcel is designated a hard line open
space to be conserved under the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). However, the proposed project area is
specifically excluded from that hard line open space conservation area and is not subject to any HMP conservation
standards. The project area contains no habitat.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
a-b) No Impact. The project site is not known to contain any mineral resources.
XL NOISE
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed fire station would not result in exposure to noise levels
above allowed standards. In general, the fire station noise levels would not be louder than that of the surrounding
uses. The only potential source of noise which could exceed allowed levels is the siren/alarm, discussed below.
b) No Impact. The proposed fire station use would not generate any groundborne vibration or groundbome
noise levels.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Any development could be considered to increase ambient noise levels
over the existing undeveloped condition. However, the temporary fire station use would not be expected to result in
any substantial increase in ambient noise levels. The station will operate in a manner designed to be compatible
with its surroundings. Further, any ambient noise increase would be temporary as the use itself is temporary.
d) Less Than Significant Impact The only activity associated with the proposed use which might result in
disruptive temporary periodic noise levels is the siren/alarm associated with the fire trucks. The Fire Department
has committed to limit this impact by restricting the use of the siren as much as possible while ensuring safety. This
limitation would ensure that the potential noise disruption would be less than significant.
e) No Impact. The project site is within two miles of an airport (McClellan-Palomar) which has an airport
land use plan. The airport land use plan places no restrictions on the development of the subject parcel. Further, the
project site is outside of the 65 dbA CNEL noise contour for the airport.
i) No Impact. The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a-c) No Impact. The proposed project would not induce growth. The temporary fire station use would serve
existing development in the surrounding area. The project also would not displace any housing or people. The
project site is part of an open space parcel which would be returned to open space when a permanent fire station is
constructed and the temporary fire station is removed.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a.i-a.v) Nc'Impact. The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse impacts on public services and
would not be associated with any need for new or altered facilities or services. The proposed use itself would not
generate an increased need for fire or police protection, schools, parks, or other facilities. The proposed project
involves the temporary relocation of an existing temporary fire station needed to serve the surrounding area.
XIV. RECREATION
a-b) No Impact. The proposed temporary fire station would not result in increased usage of existing
recreational facilities or in the need for new or expanded recreational opportunities.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 16 Average Daily Trips (ADT). This traffic will
utilize La Costa Avenue, a secondary arterial. Existing traffic on this arterial is 11,750 ADT (2005) and the 2005
peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection impacted by the project is A. The design capacity of the arterial
21 Rev. 07/03/02
road affected by the proposed project is 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent less
than 1% of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from the
proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic"
from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore,
cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system.
The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has
designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments
in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Build-Out average daily traffic (ADT) and
Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Existing ADT* LOS Build-Out ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 "A-D" 35-56
El Camino Real 27-49 "A-C" 33-62
Palomar Airport Road 10-57 "A-D" 30-73
SR78 124-142 "F" 156-180
1-5 199-216 "D" „ 260-272
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
The Congestion Management Program's (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is "E", or LOS "F" if
that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS "F" in 1990). Accordingly, all designated
roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS.
Note that the Build-Out ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region's general and
community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in
modeling the Build-Out projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "E" standard
assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads
and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the
short-term and at build-out.
c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent
with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a
change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed.
d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and,
therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's general plan and
zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use.
e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and
Police Departments.
0 No Impact. The proposed project would provide adequate parking on site and is not requesting a parking
variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate
parking supply.
•^ - •
g) No Impact. The project site is not located in an area conducive to or served by public transportation.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
a-g) No Impact. The project would not generate the need for new or expanded water, storm water, waste water
treatment, or solid waste facilities. The proposed temporary structures would connect to and be served by existing
services and those existing services have adequate capacity to serve the use. Sufficient existing water supplies,
waste water treatment facilities, and solid waste facilities (including land fills) are available to serve the proposed
use. The project also would not require the construction or new or expansion of existing storm water drainage
facilities. The proposed project would not exceed applicable RWQCB requirements and will comply with all
applicable federal, state, and local solid waste statutes and regulations.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
22 Rev. 07/03/02
a) No Impact.
b) No Impact.
c) No Impact.
23 Rev. 07/03/02
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
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.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the'City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
24 Rev. 07/03/02