HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 98-91; Armstrong Garden Center; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (3)IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP 98-2Q/CDP 98-91
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Armstrong Garden Center at the Flower Fields
2. APPLICANT: CB Ranch Enterprises, a California Corporation
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5600 Avenida Encinas. Suite 106
Carlsbad. CA 92008 (760) 930-9123
4.
5.
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Coastal Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit for a
6.400 square feet retail garden center building and associated 27.600 square foot nursery yard
with 503 at grade parking spaces on a 53.80 acre lot on the northeast corner of Palomar Airport
Road and Paseo Del Norte within Planning Area 7 (Flower Fields) of the Carlsbad Ranch
Specific 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.
[X, Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
I Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Biological Resources X Utilities & Service Systems
| Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics
Hazards Cultural Resources
I | Noise Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
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.
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. An 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 (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.
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director's Sfgnatu^ey Date
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 II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental
document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required
(Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and
the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are
mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are
agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an
Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that
reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the
significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier 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. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (1; pg. 5.7-1 through 5.7-18)
b) 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-
18, and 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(l;pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (l;pg. 5.1-1 through 5.1-16)
e) 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)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
II. 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-
c) Displace existing housing,
housing? (1; pg. 7-8 and 7-9)
especially affordable
IEI
D
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (1; Appendix A)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (1; Appendix A)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1;
Appendix A)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1; Appendix A)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (1; Appendix A)
f) 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)
g) Subsidence of the land? (1; Appendix A)
h) Expansive soils? (1; Appendix A)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1; Appendix A)
D
n
D D
n
n x
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
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)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
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? (1; pg. 5.9-13 through 5.9-22 and 5.12-1
through 5.12-7)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1;
pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through
5.12-7)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (1; pg.
5.9-13 through 5.9-22)
Pot
Sigi
Ir
entially
nificant
npact
Pot
Sig
U
Mil
Inco
entially
nificant
nless
igation
rporated
1
Less Than
Significant Ir
Impact
D
No
npa
H
D
D
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
through 5.2-8)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1; pg. 5.2-1,
5.2-4, 5.2-6, and 5.2-7)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (1; Appendix A)
d) Create objectionable odors? (1; Appendix A)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1; pg.
5.5-1 through 5.5-29)
b) 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)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29 and 5.9-1 through 5.9-4)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (1; pg.
5.5-25 and 5.5-26)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1;
Appendix A)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1; pg.
5.7-16)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1; pg. 5.7-1
through 5.7-18)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats I I
(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. I
5.4-1 through 5.4-13)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak I I
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
13)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(l;pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1; pg. 5.4-1
through 5.4-13)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
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)
D
n
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)
D
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-1 through
5.8-7)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-1
through 5.8-7)
XL 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)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1;
pg. 5.7-2, 5.7-3, and 5.7-16)
e) Other governmental services? ( 1 ; pg. 5 .7-2 and 5.7-16)
K 31aa
a
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? (1; Appendix A)
b) Communications systems? (1; Appendix A)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
n
D D
Dn
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
facilities? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
f) Solid waste disposal? (1; pg. 5.10-1 through 5.10-5)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (1; pg. 5.9-13 and
5.9-22)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
n n
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (1; pg.
5.11-1 through 5.11-7)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (1; pg.
5.11-1 through 5.11-7)
c) Create light or glare? (1; Appendix A)
D
n
n
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1
through 5.3-8)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through
5.3-8)
c) Affect historical resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1; pg. 5.3-
1 through 5.3-8)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8)
n
n
n
n
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
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)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1; pg. 5.7-2
through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16)
D n M
XVI. 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?
("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
n n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
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.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Armstrong Garden Center Project is proposed for a 53.80 acre property located on the northeast corner of
Palomar Airport Road and Paseo Del Norte within Planning Area 7 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The
project consists of a one-story, 6,400 square foot retail garden center building and associated 27,600 square foot
nursery yard with 503 at grade parking spaces. Planning Area 7 is located along the westernmost ridge of the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and is occupied by the "Flower Fields", and associated uses including a 4, 000 square
foot retail greenhouse structure and associated parking.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The "Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report, dated November
1995 (EIR 94-01)" evaluates the environmental effects of the development and operation of: The Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan; improvements to the I-5/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. The proposed land uses for the
Specific Plan 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 of the Specific Plan golf course.
EIR 94-01 analyzed the following environmental issue areas: Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Archaeological
and Paleontological Resources, Biological Resources, Traffic/Circulation, Hazardous Waste/Pesticide Residue,
Land Use Compatibility; Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Solid Waste, Visual Aesthetics/Grading, 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.
The proposed 6,400 square foot Armstrong retail garden center was not specifically included as a projected land use
within Planning Area 7 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan project description. However, EIR 94-01 analyzed the
environmental impacts from the buildout of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan area with a variety of Projected
Land Uses including Office, R&D, Retail and Hotel uses in Planning Areas 2, 3, and 7 (see Table A). In
comparison, the Approved Land Uses (projects) within Planning Areas 2, 3 and 7 has resulted in a different land
use mix. However, even with the addition of a 6,400 square foot retail garden center to Planning Area 7, no greater
intensification of development (based upon Average Daily Trips ADT) than was analyzed in EIR 94-01 will occur.
Accordingly, the proposed Armstrong retail garden center does not create any new environmental impacts not
previously analyzed in EIR 94-01. All mitigation measures applicable to the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan have
been incorporated into the project design or are required as conditions of approval for the project.
PROJECTED LAND USE & ADT APPROVED LAND USE & ADT
PLANNING AREAS 2,3 AND 7 PLANNING AREAS 2,3 AND 7
Office 300,000 SF 6,000 ADT Office 475,888 SF 8,547 ADT
R&D 500,000 SF 4,000 ADT R&D 118,500 SF 663 ADT
Retail 20,000 SF 800 ADT Retail 15,980 SF 599 ADT
Hotel Rms. 280 2,800 ADT Hotel Rms. 251 2,510 ADT
Gdn. Or. 6,400 SF 256 ADT
TOTAL 13,600 ADT TOTAL 12,575 ADT
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
I. LAND USE
d) Agricultural Resources
Planning Area 7 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan is currently developed with the "Flower Fields". A
retail nursery within Planning Area 7 is classified as an accessory use provided that the nursery is accessory
to the continuation of a bulb growing and cut flower farming operation at the "Flower Fields". As an
accessory use, the nursery would function as a direct retail and marketing outlet for flower and bulb
products of the fields. The addition of a year round garden center nursery to the Flower Fields will
improve the economic viability of the cut flower/bulb growing business in that:
1. Direct sales of bulbs and flowers can occur without the operational complexity and financial
risk of the existing Flower Fields retail operation, which is limited to a six week season.
2. Regional marketing from the 44-store Armstrong Southern California group will enhance the
farm product sales.
3. Urban farming costs (landscaping, security, and detention and storm drain systems
maintenance) can be absorbed by the accessory nursery.
4. Rent from the retail nursery will provide a revenue stream that is not dependent on weather and
growing conditions (unlike farming and visitor services).
The subject property is also under an Agricultural Preserve (Williamson Act) Contract (No. 76-1). This
Williamson Act contract allows the development of a retail nursery on the property subject to the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
Accordingly, this project has been conditioned as follows:
1. This Conditional Use Permit for a retail garden center within Planning Area 7 of the Carlsbad
Ranch Specific Plan is approved subject to the condition that the "Flower Fields" will be
planted in an open field flowering crop each year and will remain in bulb growing and cut
flower production in perpetuity. The Conditional Use Permit for this retail garden center may
be revoked at any time if this condition has not been met.
V. AIR QUALITY
a) Air Quality
No significant impacts as a result of construction activity are anticipated. Implementation of the air quality
mitigation 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/CIRCULATION
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. The Traffic Impact Report for Armstrong Garden Center (O'Rourke
Engineering, April 1999) concludes that the proposed project would not result in significant traffic and
circulation impacts.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
b) Police protection
11 Rev. 03/28/96
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 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.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. This Conditional Use Permit for a retail garden center within Planning Area 7 of the Carlsbad
Ranch Specific Plan is approved subject to the condition that the "Flower Fields" will be
planted in an open field flowering crop each year and will remain in bulb growing and cut
flower production in perpetuity. The Conditional Use Permit for this retail garden center may
be revoked at any time if this condition has not been met.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM OF APPLICABLE')
13 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 7 7
g/ff
T r
SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documeA^ are on file in the Planning Department
located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phbne (619) 438-1161)
1. "Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report, City of
Carlsbad, November 1995."
14 Rev. 03/28/96