HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 42771
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4277
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ADDENDUM,
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ACCOMMODATE
AN OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE FACILITY LOCATED AT
THE TERMINUS OF NEWTON DRIVE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: NEWTON BUSINESS CENTER
CASE NO.: HDP 97-1UCDP 97-35
WHEREAS, Hill Pinkert Architects, developer’s agent, has filed a
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Industrial Devel
International, Inc., “Owner”, described as
All that portion of Lot “F” of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 823, filed in the office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896
excepting therefrom that portion lying within Carlsbad Tract
No. 83-25, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California according to map thereof No. 11278, filed in the
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, July 9,
1985. Said parcel of land is also known as County of San Diego
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 212-050-41 and 212-050-43.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of May, 199
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tt
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by si
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the 1
Commission as follows:
0 e
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
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby APPROVE the Mitigated Negative Declaration acc
Exhibit “ND” dated December 24, 1997, Addendum, and Mitigation M
and Reporting Program, and “PII” dated November 7, 1997, attached hl
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, anal]
considered Mitigated Negative Declaration and the environmental impact;
identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitl
Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to APPROV
project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Con
finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effe
environment and hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declar,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accorda
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guideline:
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration rel
independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
4. That the habitat loss does not cumulatively exceed the 5% guideline establish
Draft Conservation Guidelines of the Draft Natural Community Conservat
(NCCP), in that the proposed take would not occur within the draft HMP
core and/or linkage planning areas.
5. That the habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high habit;
in that the project is surrounded by existing industrial and residential develo
6. That the habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the City’:
Management Plan, in that the proposed development is consistent P
recommendations of the Draft HMP.
7. That the habitat loss has been minimized and mitigated to the maximur
practicable in accordance with the mitigation established by the NCCP Guideline
the purchase of credits in the Manchester Environmental Land Bank
preservation of .78 acres of CSS habitat and 4.98 acres southern maritime cl
at a 1.5:1 ratio and an expansion of an existing onsite Brodiaea filifolia prc
include a few hundred additional individuals will be required as mitigation.
PC RES0 NO. 4277 -2-
0 0
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
8. That the habitat loss will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the sun
recovery of listed wildlife species in the wild, in that mitigation for the loss w
in the preservation of equal or better habitat in an offsite location..
9. That the habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, in that the 1
consistent with the City’s General Plan and all required permits will be obtr
Conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions stipulated in the attached Envirl
Mitigation Monitoring dated, May 6, 1998.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of May 1991
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, h
Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H&ZM~!LER
Planning Director
~ PC RES0 NO. 4277 -3-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: Northern terminus of Newton Drive between the Carlst
Research Center and the Camino Hills Mobilehome Park in the
M Zone.
Project Description: 175,932 square foot office and distribution building on a 16,
acre industrial lot.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projc
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act a
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review.
Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact I
the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file
the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in tl
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from tl
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within :
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the PlanniI,
Department at (760) 438-1 161 , extension 4477.
DATED: DECEMBER 24,1997
CASE NO: PIP 97-07/HDP 97-1 8/CDP 97-3 5
CASE NAME: NEWTON BUSMESS CENTER-LA COSTA PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL
PUBLISH DATE: DECEMBER 24,1997
MICHAEL J. HmZmLER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-11 61 - FAX (760) 438-0894
0 0.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART Il
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: PIP 97-
DATE: November 7. 1 S
BACKGROUND
1. ' CASE NAME: NEWTON BUSMESS CENTER - LA COSTA PRODUCTS INTERh'ATIONk
2. APPLICANT: Hill Pinkert Architects
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT 16969 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 23
Irvine. California 92606
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Aueust 2 1.1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 175.932 square foot ofice and distribution building on a 16.1 1 acl
site located north of the Carlsbad Research Center and south of Camino Hills Mobilehome Par
in the P-M (Planned Industrial Zone)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projecl
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impac
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning @ TransportatiodCirculation . 0 Public Services
Population and Housing Ix) Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water 0 Hazards Cultural Resources
m Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
a e - DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[7 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on .
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[zl I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on t
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigati
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIT
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earli
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A mitigatc
negative declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to 1
addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tk
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential1
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicab:
standards and (b) have been avoided or .mitigated pursuant to that earIier , includin
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Thereforc
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
/24f - 9 7
Date
Date
AH:vd
2 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the C
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a signific;
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followi:
pages in the form of a checklist. Ths checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negati
Declaration, or to rely on apreviously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “NO Impact” answers that 2
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved.
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that tl
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopte
general standards and policies.
e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatia
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fkom “Potentially Significant Impact” to
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and tl
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce th
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significar
effect on. the environment, but fi potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzec
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicabl,
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatec
Negative Declaration, including. revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up01
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to o
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prio
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additiona
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
a When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirec
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIF
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement 0:
Ovemding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
rn A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence thal
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 *
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, a
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In ti
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includir
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h,
not been discussed or mitigated -in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, a~
. the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less thi
significant; (2) a ‘‘Statement of Oveniding Considerations” for the significant impact h
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduc
.the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is nc
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, (
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of th
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION. Particular attentio
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determine,
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with, general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?)
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 land uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
(Source #(s): (Source #1) 0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #I) 0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source #1)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? 0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts invoiving:
a) Fault rupture? (Sources #1 and 2)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #1 and 2)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #1)
(Sources #1 aild 2)
e) Landslides or mudflows?(Source #2)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(Source #2)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #2)
h) Expansive soils? (Source #2)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #2)
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
the rate and amount of surface runof€? (Source #2) 0
hazards such as flooding? (Source #1) 0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
cl 0 0
0
0
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0
El
Ix1
0
0
0
w IXI
0.
IXI
IXI IXI 0
IXI
0
No
Impa
El
0
n
Ix1
Ix1
Ix1 w
Ix1
0 El
.Ixi
Ix1 1xI
0 0 Ix1
0
IXI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
e e issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?(Sources #1 and 2)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (Source #1)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?(Sources #I and 2)
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?(Sources #I and 2)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(Sources # 1 and 2)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Sources #1 and
2) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (Sources #1 and 2)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
#1) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
d) Create objectionable odors?
cause any change in climate?
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in: '
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source #I)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. fann equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
d) Insufficient 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)?(Source #1)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #1)
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? (Source #3)
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D 0
0 0
0 0
0 a
0 0
0 0
0 0
IXI
I3
0
Ix1
0
0 0. 0
El
0
0
0 0 0
0
w
6
LessThan No
Significan Impac
t lmpact
UBI
0 Ixl,
€3
'0 El
0 Ixl
0 w
0 IXJ
0
(XI 0 rsl
0 w
El
0 (XI
8
0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI
0 €2
0 0
Rev. 03128~6
e Issues (and Supponing Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
b) Locally designated species (eg heritage trees)?
(Source #3)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #3) . .
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (Source #3)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Sources
#3 & 4)
0
CI
c3
0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
.a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(Source #I) 0
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
ineffkient manner? (Source #1) 0
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of fixture value to El
the region and the residents of the State? (Source
#1)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited CI
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (Source
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source #1) 0
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards?(Source #I) 0
#1)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
health hazards? (Source #1) 0
grass, or trees? (Source #1) 0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #1)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source
#1)
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? (Source #1)
b) Police protection? (Source #1)
c) Schools? (Source #I)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (Source #1)
(Source #1)
7
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0.
0
0
U
0
0
0
0-
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
Less Than No Significan Impac
t impact
0 'Ixi
0 w
c3 w
0 El
U w
0 Ix1
0 w
0 €3
IXI
0 Ix)
0 w
0 El
€3 0 0 Ix1
0 IXI 0 Ix) 0 &I 0 &I
0 €3
Rev. 03/28/96
a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? (Source #I) n-
b) Communications systems? (Source #I) U
.. 0 ~ c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #1)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #1)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #1)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #I)
facilities? (Source #1) 0
0 0 0 0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
0 0 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #I)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #5)
c) Affect historical resources? (Source #5)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
0 0 0
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 0
(Source #5)
potential impact area? (Source #5) 0 e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
parks or other recreational facilities? (Source #1) 0
I 0
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce 0
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?
8
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
.o 0 0
17 cl 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
LessThan No
Significan Impal
t Impact
0 Ixi 0 Ix1 w
0 €3 0 IXI D El 0 1x1
€3 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI IXI 0 0 Ixl 0 Ix1
0 €4
0 €3
0 Ix1
0 El
Rev. 03/28/96
9 9
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Irnpac Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
IXI El 0 0
0 a .El w
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ.
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negath
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify tl
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availabl
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fiom the above checkli:
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuar.
to applicable legal standards, and. state whether such effects were addressed b:
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigatiol
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated o
refined fiom the earlier document and the extent to which they address site
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
9 ?
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. LAND USE:
b. The project is located in the coastal zone and is subject to the Mello I1 segment
Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the implementing zoning ordinances regulati.
development in the coastal zone (Chapters 21.201 and 21 -203) . Applicable policies inch
avoidance of 25%+ slopes possessing coastal sage scrub habitat, a .prohibition from gradi:
during the rainy season (October 1 to April 1 of each year), and adherence to. erosion ar
sediment control standards and the City’s Master Drainage plan. Although the project do
result in disturbance to coastal sage habitat which will be mitigated, the habitat is not located (
steep slopes. The project will be conditioned to receive a grading permit which will require tl
construction of all necessary drainage facilities and installation of the necessary erosion contr
to avoid runoff.
c. The site is designated by the General Plan for industrial use and abuts existing industri,
development to the south and eas4 however, it is adjacent to existing residential development 1
the north and vacant residentially designated property to the west. To ensure compatibility wil
adjacent existing and future residential uses, structural setbacks,’which are a minimum of 81
from the northwestern property line and 278’ fiom the northern and northeastern property lint
(Camino Hills Mobilehome Park), will include landscaping and provide adequate buffer.
between land uses. The Camino Hills MHP located north of the site is approximately 70’ lowe
’ than the proposed development, and the residentially designated parcel to the west j
approximately 20’ higher along the shared northern and western property boundaries. Th
project is designed so that all truck loading areas are located along the eastern portion of the sit
and truck circulation will occur along the eastern and southern driveways away from th
residentially designated parcel to the west.
d) No agricultural operations are currently conducted on the site; therefore, no impact tc
agricultural resources will OCCUT.
e) The site is currently vacant and adjacent to existing industrial development to the sout!
. and east . The site will receive access fiom an existing industrial road (Newton Drive) ant
adequate separation from residential uses to -the north and west will be provided; therefore, nc
disruption or division of an existing community will occur.
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project is an industrial facility which will not directly increase the population, however, tht
proposed facility will provide employment for approximately 400 employees. The site is located
to the north of the Carlsbad Research Center, an existing planned industrial park, which provides
the required infrastructure (roads and utilities) to accommodate this development. The site is
vacant; therefore, no existing housing will be directly impacted .
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
No significant geologic problems were identified by GeoSoils, Inc. in their preliminary
geotechnical feasibility evaluation. They indicate that the site appears suitable for the intended
10 Rev. 03/28/96
t 9 industrial use provided that the recommendations of the “Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibili
Evaluation” prepared for the site by GeoSoils, Inc. dated April 15, 1997 are incorporated into tl
final design. The project will be conditioned to require compliance with the geotechnical repor
IV. WATER
aj Existing rates of surface runoff would be increased by impervious surfaces created E parking lots and the proposed tilt-up structure. However, the storm drain system in Newta
Drive, which reaches the southwestern boundary of the subject property, will be extended in1
the proposed project. It would be fed. by. drainage inlets placed periodically throughout tl
industrial site. The issuance of a grading pennit for the project will ensure short term erosia
control methods and slope landscaping in accordance with City Standards to avoid runoff durin
construction.
b) The project is not located within a floodplain and proper drainage throughout the site wi:
avoid onsite of off-site flooding.
c-e) Drainage fiom the project will not directly impact surface water in that drainage fiom th
site will enter a storm drain system that discharges into natural drainages that lead to Agui
Hedionda Lagoon. Additionally, the project must comply with NPDES permit requirements tc
reduce pollutants fiom runoff prior to entering the storm drain system. Surface water is no
anticipated to affect site development provided that the recommendations of the “Preliminq
Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation” prepared for the site by GeoSoils, Inc. dated April 15, 199’
are incorporated into the final design.
f-h) No impact to ground water is anticipated, with the possible exception of the addition ol
ground water on a highly localized basis due to the irrigation of landscaped slope banks arounc
the east and northeast perimeter of the central portion of the site.. Site analysis performed bq
GeoSoils, Inc. indicate that the depth to groundwater is approximately 100’ below site grade
Subsurface water is not anticipated to affect site development provided that the recommendatiom
of the “Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation” prepared for the site by GeoSoils, Inc
dated April 15, 1997 are incorporated into the final design .
i) The project has no significant recharge potential for the regional ground water .supply nor
will it utilize ground water.
V. AIR QUALITY:
Although the project itself would not have a significant negative impact on ambient 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.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a varie
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisio
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with deveiopment; 2) measur
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Dema
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including ma:
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 1
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable ar
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into tl
design of the project or areincluded as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because ’ the project j
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is mmke
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, th
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by Cit
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for a
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequer,
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, nc
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at thl
Planning Department.
Air emissions fiom the light industrial operations, which may include ofice, manufacturing ani
warehouse uses, must meet the standards for the San Diego County Air Quality Control Board
In addition, in accordance with the P-M (Planned Industrial) zone performance standards, all use:
shall be operated so as not to emit particulate matter or air contaminants which are readilj
detectable without instruments by the average person while on the lot containing such uses.
The potential for fugitive dust generation during construction to temporarily reduce air qualiq
will be mitigated through the issuance of a grading permit requiring compliance with Cig
Standards (project condition of approval).
c) The project will .occupy less than 4 acres of the 16 acre site with the remaining acreage
. dedicated as open space; therefore, air movement or changes in ciimate are unlikely.
d) The project must comply with all performance standards required by the P-M (Planned
Industrial) zone including odor emission. The uses proposed are unlikely to result in unpleasant
odors, however, the project will be conditioned to comply with this standard.
VI. CIRCULATION:
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.
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 1)
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewall
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulati
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic fiom a failing Interstate
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eith
been incorporated into the design of the project or.are.included as conditions of project approva
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumdatively significant because of tk
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefor
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because tl
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, include
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement I
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan‘
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatio
impacts is required.
b-c) Construction of the proposed project’ would not result in the creation of any hazards t
safety from design features in that no sharp curves or dangerous intersections, or incompatibl
land uses would result fiom project construction. The Newton Drive cul-de-sac will b
constructed to provide access to both the proposed project and the adjacent vacant, residentiall:
zoned parcels currently utilized for agricultural operations.
d). According to the breakdown of uses identified on the site plan, parking proposed onsit.
would exceed the required parking standard by 82 spaces.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4
a,b,d,e) A biological survey has been performed for the property by RBRiggan an(
Associates in which a total of five vegetation types are identified and the proposed developmen1
would result in.disturbance to only one threatened habitat which is considered significant unles:
mitigated. The five vegetation types include: a) .78 acres of coastal sage scrub listed as s
threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act; b) 6.60 acres of southern mixed
chaparral with no evidence of Wart- temmed Ceanothus or Del Mar Manzanita~~pproxirnately
6.1 5 acres of ruderal vegetation;&approximately 1.74 acres of horticultural plantings on
manufactured slopes; disturbed native grassland located outside the area proposed for grading;
‘%)and a wetland area of approximately 100 square feet which is so limited in size and artificial in
nature that it is not considered significant. Two sensitive plant species were identified (adolphia
californica and brodiaea filifolia), however, these lie outside the area proposed for grading. The
brodiaea is located within a fenced preserve which will be buffered fiom proposed grading by an
approximate 100 feet buffer. Due to the presence of coastal sage scrub habitat, a field survey
was conducted for the California Gnatcatcher. No Gnatcatchers were found nor anticipated due
to the low quality and disturbed condition of the habitat.
The only biological disturbance deemed significant is the .78 acres of disturbed coastal sage
scrub habitat. The applicant proposes to mitigate this loss through the purchase .78 acres at a 1 : 1
ratio for preservation off-site in the Manchester Environmental Land Bank in Encinitas. The
proposed “take” will require approval from the City under the 4(d) interim habitat loss rule
13 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e requiring findings that the Gss will not exceed the City’s 5% cumulative loss nor precluc
implementation of the Habitat Management Plan or the regional MHCP. The loss of habitat
considered de minimus by virtue of its size, location and lack of connectivity by the wildli
agencies. The habitat fragment proposed for disturbance is isolated from lands addressed
either plan and is not part of a habitat fragment large enough to require preservation.
c) The project is subject to and consistent with. Mello I1 LCP policies and implementin
ordinances regarding disturbance to 25% slopes possessing 25% slopes with chaparral an
coastal sage scrub plant communities (dual criterion). Disturbance to. a very small area c
isolated 25% slopes containing southern mixed chaparral will result fiom the proposed projec,
however, LCP policies permit an encroachment not to exceed 10% of the steep slope area if th
application of this policy would preclude any reasonable use of the property. Due to the locatio!
of the isolated slopes along the property’s southeastern boundary preservation of these isolate(
steep slopes would preclude circulation around the proposed office and distribution facili?
thereby precluding a reasonable use of the property.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
a-c. The project’s compliance with Building Codes, Title 20, and‘chapter 17 of the Municipa
Code in accordance with the MEIR mitigation measures to reduce impacts (Electricity ant
Natural Gas Section 5.12.1 of the MEIR) associated with the use of non-renewable resources in i
wasteful manner will ensure implementation of energy conservation measures.
The MEIR has identified mineral resources within the City of Carlsbad boundaries, and no
mineral resources are located within the project area.
IX. . HAZARDS
a and c) The City’s Fire Protection Code prohibits the storage of explosive materials
within the City Limits. The project is located immediately to the north of the Carlsbad Research
Center industrial park in which hazardous materials may be utilized for manufacturing processes.
Chapter 6.03 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires disclosure and restricts the usage of
hazardous materials in accordance with the San Diego Code of Regulatory Ordinances as
amended through December 1, 1982. The usage of greater quantities of hazardous materials
require conformance with the Uniform Building. Code specifications for “H’ occupancy
construction. To avoid the use of greater quantities of hazardous materials at the proposed site
which is adjacent to residential uses, the project will be conditioned to prohibit the “H
occupancy building classification within any portion of the structure.
b) The project site is located at the bulb of an existing cul-de-sac street fiom which it will
receive access. The project would provide onsite circulation aisles and parking to satisfy the
projected demand thereby enabling unobstructed circulation through the site for any necessary
emergency response vehicles.
d) There are no existing health hazards on the site per the Phase I Site Assessment
conducted for the property by GeoSoils, Inc. (1997). Construction of the proposed project is
immediately adjacent to the airport influence area and outside the “crash hazard zone”; therefore
the potential for accidents is minimal. The project is not located within the airport noise
contours and therefore not subject to higher noise levels.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
e) The project would not increase fire hazards in that the development would reduce ’
amount of flammable native and non-native vegetation in the area and replace it with irriga
landscaping, a concrete tilt-up structure, and parking lots. The proposed structure would br
minimum of 85’ from native and non-native vegetation existing on adjacent sites/
X. NOISE
.a) The project is subject to the performance standards of the P-M zone; therefore it will I
conditioned to. restrict noise levels to 65 Ldn at the property line to avoid potential increases
existing noise levels. The vertical and horizontal separation fiom eiisting residential uses to ti
north will reduce and avoid noise impacts, however, future residential uses to the west could 1
subject to higher noise levels (65 Ldn) at the property line.
XI. & XI. PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES
In accordance with the City’s MEIR, the project must be consistent with and will be conditionc
to comply with the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards for pub1
facilities and services to ensure that adequate public facilities are provided prior to or concurre:
with development. The project is located within the Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Pia
(LFMP) thereby ensuring that performance standards for public facilities will be met throug
build-out of the zone. The project is conditioned to require the payment of a $.4O/square foc
park fee as required by the LFMP.
XIII. AESTHETICS
a-b) The project will not impact a scenic vista or highway. The development conforms to th
design criteria and development standards required by the P-M zone to avoid negative aestheti
effects. The structure is designed with loading bays. and truck circulation located along th
eastern elevation abutting similar industrial properties and away from the residentially zoner
properties to the north and west. Architectural enhancement along the western elevation aloni
. with a lower bdding pad will somewhat reduce the perception building mass fiom the adjacen
residentially zoned parcel. A 10’ - 30’ high crib wall is required at one location along thc
northern boundary, however, the wall will not be visible from any adjacent property.
c) The project will be conditioned to require a parking lot lighting plan to avoid illuminating
the adjacent residential sites, however, facility lighting
XIV. CULTURAC RESOURCES
A Cultural Resource Survey conducted on the site by Gallegos and Associates identified nc
cultural resources. Although no direct significant impacts were identified and no mitigation
required, the report recommends that the intact portion of site W-122 situated adjacent and west
of the project area be flaggeastaked for avoidance of secondary impacts. This recommendation
will therefore be required as a condition of project approval.
In accordance with General Plan MEIR mitigation measures, the project will be conditioned to
require a paleontologist to survey and inspect the site prior to and during grading operations.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e XV. RECREATIONAL
In accordance with ‘the Zone 5 LFMP, a $.4O/square foot park fee will be assessed at buildi;
permit issuance to ensure the provision of park facilities in accordance with Growth Manageme
parks performance standard.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on file in th
Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, C,
92009, Phone (760) 438-1161.
1. MEIR - 1994 General Plan Update of the Carlsbad General Plan.
2. “Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation” performed by GeoSoils, Inc., date
3. “Report of a Biological Survey of the Newton Drive Industrial Facility Site” performel
April 15,1997.
by RBRiggan and Associates dated May 25, 1997 and revised August 16, 1997 an(
including letter fiom Industrial Developments International dated November 25, 1997.
4. ’ City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan.
5. “Cultural Resource Survey Report” prepared by Gallegos & Associates dated April
1997.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Prior to the issuance of a grading or buildiig permit, whichever occurs first, the develope
shall receive City of Carlsbad approval of a 4d Permit and provide evidence of the purchasc
for preservation of .78 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat in the Manchester Environmental
Land Bank in Encinitas or alternate location approved by the City of Carlsbad.
16 Rev. 03/28/96
e e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES Ab
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
/2/m/77
Date
17 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
DATED DECEMBER 24,1997
CASE NO.: PIP 97-07/HDP 97-1 WCDP 97-35
CASE NAME: NEWTON BUSINESS CENTER
In response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration public noticing, the USFWS ar
CDFG disagreed with the findings of the project's biological survey and analys
performed by RB Riggan & Associates. The agencies disagreed with the classificatio
of a 6.60 acre chaparral plant community located on the site and identified addition:
thread leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) outside of an existing preserve area. R'
Riggan identified the existing chaparral plant community as southern mixed chaparr:
while the USFWS and CDFG identified it as southern maritime chaparral. Souther
maritime chaparral requires mitigation for disturbance and the applicant ha
subsequently agreed to mitigation based on the USFWS and CDFG determination an
offered to purchase credits for the disturbance of 4.98 acres of southern maritimc
chaparral in an off-site habitat mitigation land bank at a 1.51 ratio. While the survey
conducted by RB Riggan in the spring of 1997 revealed no evidence of Brodiaea withil
or outside of the existing fenced preserve, surveys conducted during the winter an1
early spring 1998 by USFWS and CDFG agency staff and RB Riggan have revealel
several thousand Brodiaea individuals within the preserve area, several hundrel
individuals just outside the fenced preserve but within the area proposed as ope
space, and approximately seven individuals located within the area proposed fo
development. Brodiaea filifolia is listed as an endangered plant species by the State o
California. To mitigate this impact, the applicant must obtain from the CDFG a Sectior
2081 permit or other appropriate entitlement to allow any necessary recovery an(
transplantation of the seven individuals of Brodiaea filifolia from within the bounds of tht
proposed development, locate and expand the fence around the existing Brodiae:
preserve to include all of the individuals on the eastern part of the project site along wit1
all of the adjacent clay soils on that part of the property, and the entire fenced preserve
shall be transferred in fee title to The Environmental Trust along with an appropriate
endowment. The fence must be of identical material to the one presently in place anc
constructed prior to any grading of the property.
ENVIRONMENTAL MITI c@ I ION MONITORING AND REPORTI b ROGRAM: Page 1 of hF
I
v)
t-
Q)
3
Q n 2 %-
l- Q) a n I
c/j 05 W
2 a
3 z
W
LL =!
nL W t-
W z
0 cn
v) W z cn 3 m z 0
-
s W z
w 2
z a
F 0 W 2 Q
c;
cj
..
W Q
Z W
3 0
!I n z 0 0
-
I- w
Q a s 0
n 05
Q 6
$52
.P- E mrQ
.- -ma) €$ g
3 .o Q LZS
22:
.r g z : €5 -p g '5
." w) a, mF 5 :e E LEE ,o r '5 -0c $Gh.! 2bw)
Q g .g
mz E
g"m
u a) .= E 73 ->.
0 (fJS
.+. ms
.- a) 2 -&Ea -2 L- &Os ea E
o~€
g .tj .E sgu .
m.&q
5.Ggz %z 32
a) .- .c..
O3Q -
Q.Z m
Q- .G 0" L
-X t 000
s &;
$I m
0 .-
.+. 00.3
C-$?&
0
.- sua, tcL
am
a)"OhB E $2 K ~2 Qg
-"Joal 0 Eo
m2 m 0u)
CQ)
- coo0
c-0 Qw v) F€ma, a," 2 €SF3
C!=3$ Fa,m .sp3a) c S OK 0 2 E.2 0.5 s E
3 a,%%
". E;;;
r a,z=
.-
.- .E% 8%
.- C S.2 3
= a, .-
&I?=
om mQ
0 .- .e 03
a)ctIy)
k-U-a
ENVIRONMENTAL MlTl AI ION MONITORING AND REPORTINb ROGRAM: Page 2 of a
7 1
1 I
.I
I <
1
C c I a
D C E
I: C
0 +
5
E
a s 5
*
C
II
C C
0
C
+
+
?
- E -
T
E a . ,
6 >
m 3
.- I -
biv $ 1: .- % 0 .G 'F
c) fan - :; i3z