HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 50791
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. 5079
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 265,000 SQUARE FOOT
RETAIL COMMERCIAL CENTER ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND EAST OF CALLE
BARCELONA AND WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 23.
CASE NAME: THE PAVILION
CASE NO.: SDP OO-lO/CDP 00-37
WHEREAS, Thomas Enterprises, Inc., “Developer and Owner,” has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lot 4 of City of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-08, Green Valley, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to map thereof No. 13997, as filed in the offke of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, dated July 10,200O as
file No. 2000-362589.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of December, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
b NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
“ND” dated December 11, 2000 and addendum dated December 5,2001, and
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
“PII” dated December 6,2000, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on
the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
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
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
D. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of December 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
i
CARLSBAD PLAIkIN:%~ISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5079
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Southeast of Calle Barcelona and west of El Camino Real.
Project Description: New construction of a 260,000 square foot retail commercial center
on an existing graded 18.3 acre pad.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4614.
DATED: DECEMBER 11,200O
CASE NO: SDP 00-lO/CDP 00-37
CASE NAME: THE PAVILION
PUBLISH DATE: DECEMBER 11,200O
Planning Dietor
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP OO-lO/CDP 00-37
DATE: November 19,200O
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: The Pavilion
2. APPLICANT: Thomas Entermises Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2924 Emerson, Suite 206. San Diego
California 92 106
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 19.2000
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New construction of a 260.000 sauare foot retail commercial center
on an existing graded 18.3 acre pad.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
q Land Use and Planning lxl Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
El Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
q Air Quality El Noise 0 Recreation
III Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
0
0
0
III
Ix]
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A(n) EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
/2-t&- 4
Date
2 Rev. 03128196
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &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.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
l 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.
l An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
b)
4
d)
4
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18 #2:Pgs 4.1-1 - 4.1-
27 ) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18 #2:Pgs 4.1-1 - 4.1-27)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18 #2:Pgs 4.1-I -4.1-27)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18 #2:Pgs 4.1-1 - 4.1-27
#2:Pgs 4.3-l - 4.3-2)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18 #2:Pgs
4.1-l- 4.1-27)
II. POPULATION 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
or 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
4
‘4
cl
4
e)
cl
9)
h)
9
expose people to potential impacts &lving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15 #2:Pgs 4.7-l -
4.7-l 1)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15 #2:Pgs
4.7-l - 4.7-l 1)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l :Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15 #2:Pgs 4.7-l -4.7-11)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15 #2:Pgs 4.7-l -4.7-l 1)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15 #2:Pgs
4.7-l - 4.7-l 1)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15 #2:Pgs4.7-1-4.7-11)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15 #2:Pgs
4.7-l - 4.7-l 1)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15 #2:Pgs 4.7-l -
4.7-l 1)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15 #2:Pgs 4.7-l - 4.7-11)
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
El
q
q
q
0
0
q
q
El
q
q
cl
q
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
0
q
El
q
0
Less Than Significanl
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
0
III
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
No
Impact
txl
IXI
lxl
IXI
[XI
lxl
lxl
lxl
lxl
lxl
lxl
lxl
IXI
IXI
lxl
El
Ix]
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Rev. 03l28196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
4
4
4
9
g)
h)
4
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11 #2:Pgs 4.8-l - 4.8-6)
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11 #2:Pgs 4.8-l -
4.8-6)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11 #2:Pgs
4.8-l - 4.8-6)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11 #2:Pgs 4.8-1 - 4.8-6)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11 #2:Pgs 4.8-l - 4.8-
6) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11 #2:Pgs 4.8-l - 4.8-
6) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11 #2:Pgs 4.8-l - 4.8-6)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11
#2:Pgs 4.8-l - 4.8-6)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11 #2:Pgs 4.8-l - 4.8-6)
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 #2:Pgs4.11-1-4.11-14)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12 #2:Pgs 4.11-l- 4.11-14)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12 #2:Pgs
4.11-1-4.11-14)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12
#2:Pgs 4.11-1-4.11-14)
VI. TR4NSPORTATIONKIRCULATION. Would the
a)
b)
cl
d)
4
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22 #2:Pgs 4.9-l - 4.9-42)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22 #2:Pgs
4.9-l - 4.9-42)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22 #2:Pgs 4.9-l - 4.9-42)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22 #2:Pgs 4.9-l - 4.9-42)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22 #2:Pgs 4.9-l - 4.9-42)
Significaut Impact
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
El
III
III
0
IXI
IXI
lxl
EKI
lxl
lzl
lxl
lxl
0
IXI
lxl
IXI
0
lxl
lxl
IXI
lzl
Rev. 03128196
No
Impact
6
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22 #2:Pgs 4.9-l - 4.9-42)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22 #2:Pgs 4.9-l - 4.9-42)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a>
b)
4
d)
4
VIII.
a)
b)
cl
in impacts to:
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 #2:Pgs 4.4-l
- 4.4-16)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24 #2:Pgs 4.4-l - 4.4-16)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24
#2:Pgs 4.4-l - 4.4-16)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24 #2:Pgs 4.4-l -4.4-16)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24 #2:Pgs 4.4-l - 4.4-16)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 Jz 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
healthhazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15 #2:Pgs4.10-l-4.10-11)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15 #2:Pgs 4.10-l -4.10-11)
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
Less Than
Significanl Impact
El
0
No
Impact
lxl
IXI
El
IXI
lzl
El
Ix]
lxl
lxl
la
Ix]
Ix]
IXI
lxl
Ix]
[XI
lxl
7 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
4
b)
4
4
4
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6 #2:Pgs
4.12-1-4.12-8)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4 #2:Pgs
4.12-1-4.12-8)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5 #2:Pgs 4.12-1 -
4.12-8)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#2:Pgs 4.12-l- 4.12-8)
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7 #2:Pgs 4.12-I -4.12-8)
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a)
b)
Cl
d)
e)
9
8)
XIII.
4
b)
cl
XIV.
4
W
cl
d>
e)
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9 #2:Pgs 4.12-1-4.12-8)
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7 #2:Pgs 4.12-1 -
4.12-8)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7
#2:Pgs 4.12-l- 4.12-8)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8 #2:Pgs 4.12-1 -
4.12-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3
#2:Pgs 4.12-1 - 4.12-B)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7 #2:Pgs 4.12-l- 4.12-8)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5 #2:Pgs 4.2-l - 4.2-13)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l :Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5 #2:Pgs 4.2-l -4.2-13)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5 #2:Pgs
4.2-l - 4.2-13)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10 #2:Pgs 4.5-l - 4.5-7)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10 #2:Pgs 4.5-l - 4.5-7)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10
#2:Pgs 4.5-l - 4.5-7)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
1 - 5.8-10 #2:Pgs 4.5-l - 4.5-7)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.X-10 #2:Pgs
4.5-l - 4.5-7)
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
0
q
0
q
q
q
q q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Ix1
Ix]
Ix1
IXI
IXI
El
lxl
IXJ
lxl
lzl
lxl
IXI
lxl
lxl
lxl
Ix1
lxl
IXI
lxl
El
8 Rev. 03128196
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
b)
XVI.
a>
b)
cl
XVII.
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 opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
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 connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
q q q Ix]
q q q Ed
0 q q lxl
q q q lxl
q q q lzl
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
4 Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
4 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. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
A larger project was considered in the Program Environmental Impact Report prepared for the
Green Valley Master Plan and Tentative Map. Biological impacts associated with the creation of
the building pad were identified and a mitigation program developed. Traffic impacts, both
project specific and cumulative, were assumed and addressed for that larger project (300,000
square feet of commercial) in the Program EIR than this proposal. The project will have no
effect beyond those analyzed in the Program EIR.
The Green Valley Program EIR has provided the basis for this initial study and the conclusion is
drawn that development of the proposed commercial center will not have significant adverse
effects to the environment. The proposed project is within the scope of the Green Valley Master
Plan and the Program EIR prepared for the master plan and master tentative map adequately
describes and analyzes a “worst case” activity which is greater in scope than the proposed
project.
AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2)
measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation
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.
10 Rev. 03128196
CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The 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
filing 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.
11 Rev. 03128196
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1.
2.
Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
Program Environmental Impact Report for the Green Valley Master Plan and Master
Tentative Map (EIR 93-02), dated September 1995, City of Carlsbad Planning
Department
12 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF A@PLICABLE)
N/A
13 Rev. 03/28/96
ADDENDUM TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR
SDP OO-lO/CDP 00-37 - THE PAVILION
Project Address/Location: Southeast of Calle Barcelona and west of El Camino Real.
Project Description: New construction of a 265,000 square foot retail
commercial center on an existing graded 18.3 acre pad.
The project was described as 260,000 square foot commercial center on the Negative
Declaration when it was issued by the Planning Director in December 2000. The project
has been modified since that time to be comprised of 217,578 square feet of commercial
and 47,422 square feet of office.
Because there has been a change of use to substitute commercial with office, the overall
effect is a lessening of the intensity of the project even though there is 5,000 square feet
more building area. Office uses require fewer parking stalls, generate less traffic and
require fewer services than commercial.
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
14 Rev. 03/28/96