HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-28; NAHI Headquarters; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
-- -
CASE NO: SDP 97-131CDP 97-28
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: NAI Headauarters
2. APPLICANT: Koll Real Estate Grow
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4275 Executive Square. Suite 240, San
Diego. CA 92037; (760) 642-0904
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED:
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Site DeveloDment Plan and Coastal DeveloDment Permit for an
82,000 square foot building containing mace for office. manufacturing ‘and warehouse uses with
at grade Darking maces on 5.09 acres on the east side of Armada Drive north of Palomar Aimort
Road within Planning Area 2 of the Carlsbad Ranch SDecific Plan.
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 IX1 Public Services
rJ Population and Housing rJ Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
rJ Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Water Hazards rJ Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise rJ Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
- DETERMINATION. -
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and WATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 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.
0 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. An Negative
declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
[x1 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 (EIR) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided 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.
Planning Director's Sighdture Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
c.
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 chccldist. 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.
e 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.
e “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.
e “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.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
e 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).
e 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.
e 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
c
-.
0 If there are one or more potentially
EIR if there are mitigation measures
significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
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 ana a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e 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 Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t lmpact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal:.
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (1; pg. 5.7-1 through 5.7-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (1; pg.5.4-5 through 5.4-13, 5.7-1 through 5.7-
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
landuses? (1; pg. 5.1-1 through 5.1-16)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (1; 5.7-1 through 5.7-18)
18, and 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
(1; pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9)
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (1; pg. 7-1 through 7-4)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (1; pg. 7-8 and 7-
9) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
0 0 0 o 0 0
0 0 0 housing? (1 ; pg. 7-8 and 7-9)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (1 ; Appendix A)
Seismic ground shaking? (1 ; Appendix A)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1 ;
Appendix A)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1 ; Appendix A)
Landslides or mudflows? (1 ; Appendix A)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1;
Appendix A and pg. 5.12-6 and 5.12-7)
Subsidence of the land? (1 ; Appendix A)
Expansive soils? ( 1 ; Appendix A)
Unique geologic or physical features? (1 ; Appendix A)
IXI
IXI
IXI
0 0 0
0 0 cl
CI 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 IXI 0 1x1 0 IXI
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 IXI
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (1; pg. 5.12-1
through 5.12-7)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (1 ; Appendix A)
5 Rev. 03/28/96
-_
. Issues (and Supporting lnfonnation Sources).
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water qualixleg. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
Changes in currents, or the come or direction of water
movements? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
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? (1; pg. 5.9-13 through 5.9-22 and 5.12-1
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1;
Impacts to groundwater quality? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (1; pg.
body? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
through 5.12-7)
pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
5.12-7)
5.9-13 through 5.9-22)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (1; pg. 5.2-1
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1; pg. 5.2-1,
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (1; Appendix A)
d) Create objectionable odors? (1 ; Appendix A)
through 5.2-8)
5.2-4, 5.2-6, and 5.2-7)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1 ; pg.
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (1 ; pg.
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1;
Appendix A)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1; pg.
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1; pg. 5.7-1
through 5.7-18)
5.5-1 through 5.5-29)
(1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29 and 5.9-1 through 5.9-4)
5.5-25 and 5.5-26)
5.7- 1 6)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IE3
0
0
0
IXI
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
0
Less Than
Significan
t impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
IXI
IXI
IXI
€24
IXI
[XI
IXI
0
IXI
€3
0
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significan lmpact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless t Impact
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1 ; pg.
5.4-1 through 5.4-13)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-
13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e j Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1; pg. 5.4- 1
through 5.4- 13)
in impacts to: -. -
(1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13)
0 Ix) 0
0
0
0
0
0 Ix)
0 .El
0 0 0 IXI
17 IXI
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1; Appendix A)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (1 ; Appendix A)
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? (1 ; Appendix A)
0 o
0
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 €24
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)? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (1; 5.9-1 through 5.9-4)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (1; pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9)
0 0 0 IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-1 through
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( 1 ; pg. 5.8- 1
through 5.8-7)
0
O
5.8-7) 0
0
0 IXI
0 IXI
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? (1; pg. 5.9-1 and 5.9-2)
b) Police protection? (1; pg. 5.9-2 through 5.9-4)
c) Schools? (1; pg. 5.9-7 through 5.9-13)
0 O 0
O 0 IXI IXI 0 D 0 0 IZ
7 Rev. 03/28/96
- lssues (and Supporting Infomation Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1;
e) Other governmental services? (1; pg. 5.7-2 and 5.7-16)
pg. 5.7-2,5.7-3, and 5J116)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (1 ; Appendix A)
Communications systems? (1; Appendix A)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7)
Storm water drainage? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
Solid waste disposal? (1; pg. 5.10-1 through 5.10-5)
Local or regional water supplies? (1; pg. 5.9-13 and
5.9-22)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (1; pg.
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (1; pg.
Create light or glare? (1 ; Appendix A)
5.1 1-1 through 5.1 1-7)
5.1 1-1 through 5.1 1-7)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (1 ; pg. 5.3-1
through 5.3-8)
Disturb archaeological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through
Affect historical resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1 ; pg.. 5.3-
1 through 5.3-8)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8)
5.3-8)
-4
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0 0 (XI
0 0 (XI
0 0 0
0 0 IXI
(XI
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
0 o 0 IXI
o 0 0 IXI
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (1; pg. 5.7-2
through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1; pg. 5.7-2
through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16)
8 Rev. 03/28/96
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project havethe 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?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 Ix1 0
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. In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The NAI Headquarters Project is proposed for a 5.09 acre site located on the east side of Armada
Drive north of Palomar Aiiport Road within Planning Area 2 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific
Plan. The project consists of an 82,000 square foot building containing space for office.
manufacturing and warehouses uses. All parking for the project will be constructed at grade.
Planning Area 2 is located in the central portion of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The project
site fronts on Armada Drive and has views to the west. In conformance with the requirements of
the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, the building is located parallel to Armada Drive to screen
areas of parking from view on Armada Drive as much as feasible.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project was evaluated in the “Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final
Program Environmental Impact Report, dated November 1995 (EIR 94-0 1 ).” EIR 94-0 1
evaluates the environmental effects of the development and operation of: The Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan; improvements to the I-S/Cannon Road Interchange; and the development of a 24.2
acre parcel immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the specific plan site. The Carlsbad
Ranch Specific Plan is a planning document which will guide the development of a 447.40 acre
area through the provision of a comprehensive set of guidelines, regulations, and implementation
programs. include office, research and
development, related light manufacturing, commercial, hotel, destination resort, golf course,
agriculture, a vocational school campus, and LEGOLAND Carlsbad. The 24.2 acre parcel
adjacent to the northern boundary is proposed as a continuation ofthe Specific Plan golf course.
The proposed land uses for the Specific Plan
EIR 94-01 analyzed the following environmental issue areas: Agricultural Resources, Air
Quality, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources, Biological Resources,
Traffic/Circulation, Hazardous Wastepesticide Residue, Land Use Compatibility; Noise, Public
Services and Utilities, Solid Waste, Visual AestheticdGrading, and Water Quality. The Initial
Study prepared for the Specific Plan Amendment is contained in Appendix A of EIR 94-01 and
analyzed additional issues which were determined not to have a significant environmental
impact. EIR 94-01 was certified by the Carlsbad City Council on January 9, 1996. At that time
Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation and
Monitoring Program were approved. All mitigation measures applicable to the NAI
Headquarters project proposed for an existing graded lot in Planning Area 2 of the Carlsbad
Ranch Specific Plan have been incorporated into the project design or are required as conditions
of approval for the project.
References to the applicable section of EIR 94-01 are provided next to each item on this
environmental impact assessment form. A brief explanation is provided in the following section
for each item checked as having a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant
unless mitigation incorporated”:
10 Rev. 03/28/96
V. AIRQUALITY
a) AirQuality
No significant impacts as a result of construction activity are anticipated. Implementation
of the air quality mxigation measures will lessen long-term operation air quality impacts
to a level less than significant. It was concluded in the analysis for EIR 94-01 that the
development anticipated under the proposed specific plan amendment together with the
development of other related projects will have a significant and unavoidable cumulative
impact on the region’s air quality. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted
for this cumulative impact.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUATION
a) Increased Vehicle Trips
A series of circulation system improvements are required as part of the development of
the Carlsbad Ranch property. With the implementation of the improvements identified in
EIR 94-01 all of the analyzed intersections and street segments are projected to operate at
acceptable levels of service. It was determined that the Carlsbad Ranch project in
conjunction with cumulative build-out forecasts, will result in a significant cumulative
impact to the 1-5 freeway and SR-78. A statement of overriding considerations was
adopted for this cumulative impact.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
b) Police protection
The EIR analysis concluded that the conversion of an agricultural area to an urban area
which will attract visitors will require additional law enforcement and crime prevention
services. The potential increase in demand on police services is a significant impact.
This demand for police protection will be reduced through implementation of a
mitigation measure requiring security measures to be incorporated into the proposed
developments.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
f) Solid waste disposal
The generation of additional solid waste is a potentially significant impact. The
mitigation measure identified in EIR 94-01 which has been applied to the project will
reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. The mitigation measure requires the
submittal of a solid waste management plan to address the project’s needs for recycling
facilities and diversion programs/measures which can be implemented.
g) Local or regional water supplies
The project will require the construction of onsite water lines. The impacts of buildout of
the Carlsbad Ranch project to water supplies are potentially significant. Implementation
11 Rev. 03/28/96
of the mitigation measures contained in EIR 94-01 will reduce impacts to a level of less
than significant. The mitigation includes utilizing reclaimed water for landscaping on the
project site.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS: -_ -
(NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las
Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1 161)
1. “Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report,
City of Carlsbad, November 1995.”
12 Rev. 03/28/96