HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIP 98-06A; Palomar Business Park Parking Lot Expansion; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (11)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
CASE NO: PIP 98-06(A)
DATE: March 14.2000
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD PALOMAR BUSINESS PARKING LOT EXPANSION
2. APPLICANT: Industrial DeveloDment International
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 18101 Von Karman. Suite 120. Irvine
CA 92612
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 1-10-00
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The addition of a 86.800 sauare foot, 314 Darking soace, amhalt
parking area to serve an existing industrial building on lots 32. 33 and Dortion of 34 of the Carlsbad
Airport Business Center Tract Mar, (CT 74-21). The improvements will be done on an existing me-
graded industrial lot. Dortion of 34. which will be boundarv adiusted to lots 32 and 33. Grading for the
proiect will result in 6,717 cubic vards of excess material which will be stocktiled on the remainder
portion of Lot 34. Total woiect area is 13.28 acres with 156.716 sauare feet of existing building; area.
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.
0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
P -\
DETERMINATION.
Ixl
0
0
0
0
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 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 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 Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
31 I&D
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“NO Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but 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. 03/28/94
0 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 thansignificant, 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.
0 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 I1 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.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
landuses)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community) ? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0 0
0 0
0
0
IXI
IXI
El
0
El
0
IXI
IXI
0 0 0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed offlcial regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 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 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
0 0 0
0
IXI
El 0 0
0 0 0 IXI
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Faultrupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IXI IXI IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
IXI IXI IXI
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
11)
0 0 IXI
0 0 0 IXI
El 0 0
5 Rev. 03/28/96
r
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) 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 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
1 1)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
0
0
0151
0151 om
0
0
0 om om
0151
0
0 0
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)
- 5.3-12) 0 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 0 0
0 on
0
0
0
0151
OIXI
UIXI
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insuffkient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traftic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
proposal result in:
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
151
0
0
0
no
0 0
0
0151
0
0151
0
0
UIXI
0 0151
0 17
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
0
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 0
0
0
0
0151
0151
6 Rev. 03/28/96
r
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24)
0
0
om om
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
c) 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 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
proposal:
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
1 - 5.13-9)
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
0 0
0 0
0 0
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 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:PgS 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0 om
om 0 0
0
0 om om om 0
0 0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in.
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15)
1 - 5.9-15)
0
0
om om
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-7)
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
om om om om
0 om
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0 om
Rev. 03/28/96 7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect?
Createlightorglare?(#l:Pgs5.11-1-5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
(#l:PgS 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
10)
10)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
XV.RECREATI0NAL. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#1 :Pgs 5.12.8- 1 -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :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?
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
T
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant Impact
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
IXI Ixl
Ixl Ix1 IXI Ix1
IXI
IXI
151
Ixl
IxI
Ixl IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
n
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? 0 om
(“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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
0 0 0 IXI
9 Rev. 03/28/96
n
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
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.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
,-. A
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONhCNVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The addition of a 86,800 square foot, 3 14 parking space, asphalt parking area to serve an existing
industrial building on lots 32, 33 and portion of 34 of the Carlsbad Airport Business Center Tract
Map (CT 74-21). The improvements will be done on an existing pre-graded industrial lot,
portion of 34, which will be boundary adjusted to lots 32 and 33. Grading for the project will
result in 6,717 cubic yards of excess material which will be stockpiled on the remainder portion
of Lot 34. Total project area is 13.28 acres with 156,716 square feet of existing building area.
The site does not contain any flora or fauna.
The property is a graded industrial pad developed under CT 74-21 and Specific Plan 200. The
original project processed an Environmental Impact Report for the development and grading of
the industrial park. The proposed grading involves cutting up to three feet of material to create
the level finish surface for the parking lot. Excess material will be stockpiled on an adjacent lot
and will be five feet in height covering an area of 47,600 square feet. The project incorporates
erosion control measures and NPDES.
.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Water
The project site will have additional impervious surface which will result in additional surface
water runoff. The project incorporates BEST management practices and NPDES to maintain
water quality before water leaves the site.
Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in 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 buildout 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 buildout, 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 subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
TransportatiodCirculation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout 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 buildout.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 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 buildout 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 subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no hrther environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Report
has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport
Road (PAR) and El Carnino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental
documentation. Pursuant to $15162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a
“Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded
intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has
interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequent
EIR” if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn
lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been conditioned
to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements,” thereby guaranteeing
mitigation to a level of insignificance.
111. 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) 206-46 13.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Renort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
/4
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
None
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
None
14 Rev. 03/28/96
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
15 Rev. 03/28/96