HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 3885I/ e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3885
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL PERMIT ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
KELLOGG AVENUE, EAST OF CAMTNO VIDA ROBLE,
IN THE CARLSBAD AIRPORT CENTRE, IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: HOMES FOR INDUSTRY
CASE NO: PIP 95-09
8 WHEREAS, Homes For Industry - Carlsbad LLC has filed a
9 application for certain property to wit:
10
11
12
Lot 40 of Carlsbad Tract 81-46 unit no. 2, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map thereof No. 11288, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, July 16, 1985.
13
14
with the City of Carlsbad and which has been referred to the Planning Commissio
15
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a 1
16
Industrial Permit as shown on Exhibits "A" - "G', dated January 17, 1996 on filc
17 Planning Department and incorporated by this reference as provided by Chapter :
18 the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
19 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of Januar
20
21
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; a
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te:
22 11 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considl
23
24
25
26
28
A) That the above recitations are true and correct. 27
Commission as follows:
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Corn
factors relating to the Planned Unit Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P
PC RES0 NO. 3885 -1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
0 0
APPROVES Planned Industrial Permit, PIP 95-09, based on the following
and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the site indicated by the Planned Industrial Permit is adequate in size an
to accommodate the proposed use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, 1
loading, landscaping and other features required by Chapter 21.34 of the C
Municipal Code, and the Carlsbad Airport Centre Specific Plan are providc
2. That the improvements indicated on the Planned Industrial Permit are loc
such a manner to be related to existing and proposed streets and highways,
adequate access is provided to the project from Kellogg Avenue.
3. That the improvements as shown on the Planned Industrial Permit are co
with the intent and purpose of this zone and all adopted development, des
performance standards as set forth Chapter 21.34 of the Carlsbad Municip;
and the Carlsbad Airport Centre Specific Plan (SP 181), in that the PI
manufacturing development is compatible with surrounding and planned inc
uses and that the project design has been reviewed and determined to be corn
with the industrial park by the Carlsbad Airport Centre Owners’ Associatio
4. The Planning Director has found that, based on the EIA Part-11, this Subs
Project was described in Final EIR 81-6 for the Carlsbad Airport Center II
Plan and MEIR 93-01 as within its scope; and there will be no additional sig:
effect, not analyzed therein, and that no new or additional mitigation meas
alternatives are required; and that therefore this Subsequent Project is wit
scope of the prior EIRs, and no new environmental document nor Public Re
Code 21081 findings are required.
5. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives identified in Final EIR 81-6 for the Carlsbad Airport Center 5
Plan and MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project hav
incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
6. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements PI
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility polic
ordinances since:
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will
approved unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available t8
the project. In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note s
placed on the final map that building permits may not be issued :
project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is av;
and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service r
available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements
Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar
apply to sewer service for this project. 1 PC RES0 NO. 3885 -2-
7
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
I
e 0
b. Statutory School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school f
in the Carlsbad Unified School District.
c. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
d. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are reql
conditions of approval.
e. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appl
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contr
payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities
available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
7. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee,
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any ad
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared F
to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure co
availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts create
project.
8. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approvec
of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5.
9. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)
McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April, 1994 in that as conditioned the a
shall record an avigation easement over Lots 1 and 4. The project is compati
the projected noise levels of the CLUP; and, based on the noise/lz
compatibility matrix of the CLUP, the proposed land use is compatible 1
airport, in that manufacturing development is compatible with the noise envir
of up to 75 dBA CNEL as determined by SANDAG and the Comprehensive L,
Plan for the Airport. As the noise levels on Lot 1 and 4 approach 75 dBA
the project has been conditioned to prepare an acoustical study and to mitiga
appropriately to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 50 dBA CN
10. That the Project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual, adopted
Council.
Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby approve the Planned Industrial Pe
the Homes For Industry - Carlsbad LLC Project entitled "Homes for Indus
95-09", (Exhibits "A" - "G1 on file in the Planning Department and incorpol
this reference, dated January 17, 1996), subject to the conditions herein sc
Staff is authorized and directed to make or require the Developer to n
corrections and modifications to the Planned Industrial Permit Docum
necessary to make them internally consistent and conform to Planning Comn
final action on the Project. Development shall occur substantially as show]
approved exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different fr
PC RES0 NO. 3885 -3-
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
0 e
approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. This Project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures WE
required as part of the Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan a
amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. Approval of PIP 95-09 is granted subject to the approval of CT 95-04 and P
03. PIP 95-09 is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Corn.
Resolutions No. 3883 and 3884 for the Tentative Tract Map and Nonres
Planned Unit Development Permit.
4. All uses established in the project shall be consistent with Section 23
(Permitted Uses).
5. All roof appurtenances shall be shielded from view and architecturally integral
the building design.
6. Unless otherwise stated, this industrial project shall comply with all applical
ordinances and requirements.
7. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their term
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail tc
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have t:
to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition i
of all future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certific
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institl
prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek d
for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a succt
interest by the City’s approval of this Resolution.
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
PC RES0 NO. 3885 -4-
1~
~ 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
0 0
I PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED 'at a regular meeting of the F
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of January, :
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Erwin, Monroy, 1
Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
t
WILLIAM COMPAS, Ch'airperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSIO
ATTEST: .
v MICHAEL J. HOLZ~LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 3885 -5-
II
~~.
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project
described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified
environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be
required and a notice of determination will be filed.
Project Title: HOMES FOR INDUSTRY (LOT 40) .
Project Location: North side of Kellogg Avenue, east of Camino Mda Roble
Project Description: The subdivision of a 4.465 acre parcel into eight lots and the
construction of one manufacturing building, ranging in size from
5,029 to 9,987 square feet, on each lot. The parcel has been pre-
graded and is located within the Carlsbad Airport Centre industrial
park.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community
Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
ten (10) days of date of publication.
DATED: NOVEMBER 24,1995
MICHAEL J. m0LZMlLLER
CASE NO: CT 9504/PIP 95-09/PUD 95-03 Planning Director
CASE NAME: HOMES FOR INDUSTRY
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 24,1995
TW: kr
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART IC
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. PIP 95-09PUD 95-03/C
DATE: November 20. 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: HOMES FOR INDUSTRY - (LOT 40)
2. APPLICANT: ANTHONY HAI, ST. GEORGE’S HOLDINGS
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT 2223 Avenida De La Playa. Suite 200.
California 92037; (619) 551-5600
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: SeDtember 6. 1995
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subdivision of a 4.465 acre Darcel into eight lots and the con!
of one tilt-up concrete manufacturinrr building ranping in size from 5.029 to 9,987 square feet on c
The parcel has been premded and is located within the Carlsbad Airport Centre industrial Dark
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless M:
Incorporated as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Land Use and Planning - X Tmportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service S
- Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
- Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources
- X Air Quality - Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 3/28/95
0
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGAl
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will nc
a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been a(
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 ENVIRONMEN
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potent:
significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal stan&
and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached shc
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it I
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 WlLL 1
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequa
in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) €
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, incluc
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of E
Compliance has been prepared.
1
GA/ A ; 1Tmb ~ 11- ZJ- "t3"
Planner Signature Date
\\/z+?T Planning Director @patur& Date
Twk
2 Rev. 3/28/95
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELIMES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Envh
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Envirc
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any 1
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with infc
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Dec
or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supp
an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “NO Impact” answer is ad
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to proj
the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to
or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential imps(
adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of m
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Signifhnt-
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, anc
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 efYect is signi
e Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially signifcant effect
environment, but glJ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or m
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation rr
that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a suppleme
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental dc
have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is requirec
Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare
if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standa
the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant
earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project
of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 3/28/95
0 0
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if
mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation mea
agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Signifb
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be pr
0 An EIR & be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limit
following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in s
EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures th;
the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Ovemding Considerations” for the significa
has not been made pursuant to an earlier Em, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce th
to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the
significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation me
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 for
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to dl
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
.
4 Rev. 3/28/95
0 0
Issues (and supposing Informatim saurces):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (#3:
Pgs. 7, 18) -
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l: pg. 50) -
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#1: pg. 90; #3 pgs. 7, 18) -
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses)? (#1: pg. 86) -
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l: pg. 90) -
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l: pg. 107) -
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: pg. 107; #2:
pg. 7.0-2) -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l: pg. 90) -
DX. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l: pgs. 80, 83; #2: pg. 5.1-9) -
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l: pg. 83; #2: pgs. 5.1-9,
5.1-10, 5.1-12) -
Potentially
S~nificant .
Unless LessThan
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact 1
- -
- -
- -
- -
I
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
5 Rev. 3/28/95
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Jnformatim Sources):
Potentially sigxu€icant
Potentially Unless LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
C) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#I: pg.
82; #2: pg. 5.1-9) - - -
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l: pg. 83; #2:
pg. 5.1-9) - - -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l: pg. 82; #2: pg. 5.1-11,
5.1-12) - - -
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l: pg.
77) - - -
g) Subsidence of the land? (#1: pg. 77; #2: pg. 5.1-1 1) - - -
h) Expansive soils? (#l: pg. 82) - - -
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l: pg. 77) - - -
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l: pg. 84) - - -
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (#l: pg. 84; #2: pg. 5.2-6) - - -
C) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l: pg. 84) - - -
d) Changes in the amount of Surface water in any water
body? (#1: pg. 84) - - -
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l: pg. 84) - - -
f) Change 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: pg. 89) - - -
6 Rev. 3/28/95
e 0
Issues (and supporting Information Sources):
Potentially signifcant
Impact
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l:
Pg. 89) -
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l: pg. 89) -
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies'? (#l: pg.
$9) -
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l: pg. 71;
#2: pg. 5.3-4) - X
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? -(See
Discussion) -
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (See Discussion) -
d) Create objectionable odors? (See Discussion) -
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#1: pgs.
3 1-39) -
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (See Discussion) -
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (#l: pgs. 31-39) -
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (See
Discussion) -
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (See
Discussion; #2: pg. 5.7-6) -
Potentially
Significant
Unless LessTban Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact I
- -
- -
- -
- -
I
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
7 Rev. 3/28/95
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Jnfonnatim sourceS):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:
pgs. 31-39) -
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (See
Discussion) -
VU. 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. 50-57) -
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:
pgs. 50-57) -
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l: pgs. 50-57) -
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l: pgs. 50-57) -
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l: pgs. 50-
57) -
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#2:
pg. 5.13) . -
b) Use non-renewable resourcesG in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (a: pg. 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? (#2: pg. 5.13) -
Potentidy
significant
Unless Mitigation
incorporated
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
LessThan
Significant
Impact L
-
-
-
I -
-
-
-
-
-
-
8 Rev. 3/28/95
0 0
hues (and Supporting Information sources):
E. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation? (See Project Description) -
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#2: pgs. 5.10.2-1 to
5.10.2-9) -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? (See Project Description) -
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#2: pgs. 5.10.2-1 to 5.10.2-9) -
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (See Project Description) -
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (See Project
Description) -
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#2: pgs.
73-76) -
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? (#2: pg. 5.12.5-1) -
b) Police protection? (a: pg. 5.12.6-1) -
Potentially
significant
Unless LessThan Mitigatioa Signifcant
Incorporated Impact
- -
- -
- -
- - .
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
C) Schools? (#2: pg. 5.12.7-1) - - -
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (See
Discussion) - - -
e) Other governmental services? (See Discussion) - - -
9 Rev. 3/28/95
0 .
Issues (and supporting Information sclufies:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
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? (a: pg. 5.12.1-1) -
b) Communications system? (See Discussion) -
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#2: pg. 5.12.2-1)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#2: pg. 5.12.3-1)
e) Storm water drainage? (#2: pg. 5.12.3-1)
f) Soiid waste disposal? (a: pg. 5.12.4-1)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#2: pg. 5.12.2-1)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (#2: pg. 5.11-
1)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (#2: pg.
5.11-1)
c) Create light or glare? (#2: pg. 5.41 1-1)
XW. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Wold the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l: pg. 44)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l: pg. 44)
c) Affect historical resources? (#l: pg. 44)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l: pg. 44)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l: pg. 44)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
e
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
LessThan
Significaut
hpct 1
-
-
-
-
-
I -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rev. 3/28/95
L *~ 0
Issues (and Supporting Infomation Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant
bPt Incorporated Impact
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
’ parks or other recreational facilities? (#2: pg. 5.12.8-1) - - -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#2: pg.
5.12.8-1) - - -
xvr. 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 wild life 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) - X - -
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? - - -
XVTI. EARLTER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA I
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
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 revie
11 Rev. 3/28/95
e a
v b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within th
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier docment pursuant to applicable legal standards, a
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 Incorp.
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier docum
the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
I
..
12 Rev. 3/28/95
d 0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project consists of subdividing a WP acre parcel into &FIEF lots and constructing one manu
building ranging in size from 5,029 to 9,987 square feet on each lot. The buildings would be tilt-up conc
would be constructed on a pregraded lot within an existing industrial park. Building height will be appro.
26 feet. Design and materials of the proposed building will be typical of the industrial area. Access to the
be provided on Kellogg Drive, and parking will be provided onsite at the ratios required by the City of (
Parking Ordinance.
A variety of landscape materials will be installed in substantial conformance with the conceptual landsci
manufacturing with a limited amount of office (approximately 430 square feet per building). Typically s
will not require an above average need for energy consumption nor will they create effects that will irr
surrounding exterior environment.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DISCUSSION
The following sections within this Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part II have been fully addresse
other documents which have been cited and require no additional discussion:
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geologic Problems
Water
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Services (see discussion regarding roads and governmental services)
Utilities and Service Systems (see discussion regarding communications) Aesthetics
Cultural Resources '
Recreation
V. AIR QUALITY:
a. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subst
result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen anc
and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as w
the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additi
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as F
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 mi
measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and inte
improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips thra
445 rn
submitted, As stated by the project applicant, the uses conducted withn the building will be Ti
I
13 Rev. 3/28/95
,. 0 0 . implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage all
modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient builr
site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applic
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the desi!
project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located withi
attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. Thi
is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the cerl
of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of 0.
Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all su.
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, nc
environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning De€
b. There is no evidence that there are sensitive receptors (people susceptible to respiratory distress) pro
part of the project.
c. Experience has shown us that typical industrial buildings will not have an effect on the movement
cause a change in climate.
d. The project description has not identified any use within the proposed building which would create obje;
odors.
VI. TRANSPORTATXON/CIRCULATION:
a. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-w
which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas ar
intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a
of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at 1
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous F
measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: .( 1) measures to ensure the I
of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportat
as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems;
participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffi
failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdictic
City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eitl
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditio& of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the fa
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initia
checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, tl
the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01,
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation
This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the Gene1
14 Rev. 3/28/95
* e 0
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is
b. The project has been designed consistent with the specific plan. No changes have been made that WOI
e
conflict or safety hazards.
d. Parking has been provided according to the standards identified in the Carlsbad Parking Ordinance.
f. Palomar Airport Road and College Boulevard have bike lanes and Palomar Airport Road has a bus :
is convenient to the project.
g. The propused project complies with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan
location of buildings relative to air traffic. No conflict has been identified.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES :
City services such as public street maintenance and administration are provided and those services are pa
of the General Fund. The proposed project will contribute to the fund through the payment of building
annual tax assessments. Payment of the fees and taxes is a guarantee that the services will be provided.
The City has predetermined the level of services needed for the various segments of the community and th
General Plan the services required by the proposed project have been anticipated and will be provided.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
Communication systems are typically provided by the various companies that provide such services. TI
will not require an increase in the core communications system nor will it require the development of a ne
in order to be adequately serviced.
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
See the discussion under Air Quality and Traffic/Circulation.
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES:
This project site is within a planned industrial park which was analyzed in an earlier EIR (EIR 81-6). TI!
project is consistent with the site development as originally anticipated and analyzed in that EIR.
III. SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All of the source documents are on file in the Planning Dt
located 2075 Las Ph Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161.)
1. Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Business Center (EIR 81-6), WESTEC Services, In(
1982.
2. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (EIR 93-
of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994.
3. City of Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, September 1994.
15 Rev. 3/28/91
L 0 0
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) t
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
I
16 Rev. 3/28/95
*
1 0 0 . APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
F
THIS IS TO CERTIEY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASUR
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
17 Rev. 3/28/95