Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 43541 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 e e PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4354 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITOIUNG AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO CREATE A 12 LOT INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOP 6 OF THE LOTS WITH 6 OFFICE/RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT/WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL TO THE SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5 CASE NAME: LINCOLN NORTH POINTE CASE NO.: SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD 98-01/ HDP 98-O5/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-08/PIP 98-07 WHEREAS, Lincoln Property Company, Developer”, has filed a application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by W9LNP Rea Limited Partnership, “Owner”, described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 1110, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to parcel map thereof filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, on November 10, 1972 as File No. 302114 of official records. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of August, l! a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tc and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1 relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the 1 Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. a 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 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated 1 Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated June 25, 1998, and “PI June 16, 1998, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the f findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy. considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monito Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to RECOMME APPROVAL of the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments ther Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project wi significant effect on the environment and hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVA Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declara Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accorda requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration ref independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. Conditions: 1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the LIT NORTH POINTE Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated 19,1998. ... ... ... ... ... . .. ... PC RES0 NO. 4354 -2- 0 0 1 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the : 3 4 following vote, to wit: Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of August 1998 5 AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, N Nielsen, and Welshons 6 7 NOES: 8 ABSENT: Commissioner Savary 9 ABSTAIN: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ATTEST: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 4354 9 -3- MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: South of Palomar Airport Road along the west side of El Caminl Real. Project Description: Subdivision of a 50.23 acre Planned Industrially (PM) zone1 property into 12 officelwarehouse lots (ranging from 2.47 to 6.2 acres in area), balanced grading (350,000 cubic yards) of the sit and the construction of 6 office/warehouse buildings (ranging fi-or 60,000 square feet to 72,425 square feet in area and totalin 385,085 square feet) and a satellite antennae dish farm. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projec pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act anc 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 01 the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file il the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in th Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from th' public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 31 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Plannini Department at (760) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 4445. DATED: JUNE 25,1998 CASE NO: SP 109(B)/CT 98-07BUD 98-01PIP 98-07EIDP 98-05/CUP 98-08/ SUP 98-03 CASE NAME: LINCOLN NORTH POINTE PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 25,1998 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-11 61 - FAX (760) 438-089L 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SP 109(B)\ CT 98-07\PUD 98-01\PIP 98-07\HDP 98-05\CUP 98-O8\SUP 98-0 DATE: 6/ 1 6/9 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: LINCOLN NORTH POINTE 2. APPLICANT: Thomas Lamore, Smith Consulting Architects 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5355 Mira Sorrento Place, Suite 60( San Dieao CA, 92121,619-452-3188 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 3/4/98 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project entails the development of a 50.23 ac1 Planned Industrial (PM) zoned property which is located south of Palomar Airport Road alon the west side of El Camino Real. The specific development actions include: (1) subdivision ( the property into 12 non-residential lots ranging from 2.47 acres to 6.28 acres in area, (2) aradin of the entire property (350,000 cubic yards balanced on-site), and (3) the construction of office/warehouse buildings (ranging between 60,000 sf and 72,425 sf in area and totalin 385,085 square feet) on proposed lots 1-3 and 6-8 and a satellite antennae dish farm. 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 [XI TransportatiodCirculation Public Services 0 Population and Housing [XI Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards [7 Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 a DETERMINATION. e (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on th environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, [XI I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatio: measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVI DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but i least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlie document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatio~ measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Mitigatec Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to bl addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on thc environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentiall: significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmenta Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voidec or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01). including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Qj$$.[.&.l !kQL 1 .p I 8 ! ' B'! /n. /? b- [ yJ -7 y> Phiher Signatmi- Date &[ 2.- 3 k Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 a 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cii conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followin pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and huma factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information I use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), NegatiA Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that a: adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatio sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. 1 “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, c it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that th potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopte general standards and policies. a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatio of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and th City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tk, 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 &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze 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 Mitigate Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up0 the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to c supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pric environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition: environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). a When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirel to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier E11 pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement c Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence thz the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 a 0 a If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing a EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, an those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. a An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includin, but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect ha not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, an the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tha significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact ha 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, c determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significar. effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of ths form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentiol should be given ‘to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determinet significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 m e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (# 1 :Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6- 18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#1 :Pgs 5.6- 1 - 5.6-1 8) (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 o b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0 or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 0 5.5-6) 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1 :Pgs ((#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 5.1-15) 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) h) Expansive soils? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1- 1 - 5.1- 15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c3 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 0 0 0 11) 5 Less Than No Significant Impac Impact 0 [XI a w 0 El 0 [XI a [XI o w 0 El 0 [XI 0 w 0 Ixl o [XI 0 [XI 0 Ixl 0 w O [XI 0 w O w 0 w 0 [XI Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs body? ((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 1 1) 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 cl 0 cl V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- [XI 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 0 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#1 :Pgs b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) 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)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - proposal result in: 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:Pg~ 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 5.7.22) w 0 o 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impac Impact 0 IXI El 0 [XI o w 0 w o [XI 0 w 0 0 0 o [XI 0 0 [XI 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI 0 [XI o w O w o w w VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: 6 Rev. 03/28/96 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (#2) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#2) (#2) - 5.4-24) 0 0 0 0 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and proposal? (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) o inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 0 1 - 5.13-9) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 0 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0 0 0 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) 0 1 - 5.9-15) 0 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) 0 cl 0 C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) 7 e Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [XI 0 a a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 .o 0 cl cl 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impac Impact 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 [XI w o w 0 IXI 0 [x1 w 0 [XI w cl [XI cl [XI Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1, e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-7) 0 0 XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & b) Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (# 1 :Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 5.12.3-7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.11-5) 5.11-1 -5.11-5) 0 0 0 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 10) 10) 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 0 0 0 0 (7 XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs cl 0 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impac Impact o w €3 0 w 0 [XI o w 0 w 0 [XI El w o w 0 IXI 0 w o w 0 0 (7 0 €3 [XI w [XI 0 w 0 w o w 8 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impac Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 0 w 0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI 9 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. With the exception of biological resources, earlier analysis of this proposed office/warehous project has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Mast6 Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) . The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the precedin checklist. This proposal is consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan and : considered a Subsequent Project that was described in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. A feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subsequel Project have been incorporated into this project. The development of this project will howeve result in significant biological impacts that were not analyzed in the MEIR for which mitigatio. measures are required. Accordingly, these biological impacts and required mitigation measure are described below. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This project is located south of Palomar Airport Road and along the west side of El Camino Re; and entails the subdivision of a 50.23 acre property into 12 office/warehouse lots which range i: area from 2.47 acres to 6.28 acres and the construction of 6 office/warehouse buildings (385,OS square feet) on lots 1-3 and 6-8. The project’s grading would be balanced on-site and woull consist of 350,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. Elevations on the project site range from 220 fee at the western end of the property to 325 feet at the eastern end. The south-eastern 21.4 acres a the subject property is developed with the vacated Hughes Aircraft industrial building(s) an associated utilities and parking lot. The northeastern corner of the site (10.42 acres) is comprise of ruderal habitat (non-native weeds). Dense native habitathegetation exists within the wester 18.42 acres of the property. The project site is designated for Planned Industrial developmen The property is surrounded by light industrial development to the south and west, and a hotel tt the north. El Camino Real borders the eastern property boundary. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 ‘0 0 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion Biological Resources Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant direct and indirect biologica impacts to the following sensitive upland habitat and sensitive plant species: Coyote Brush Scrul (.35 acres), Southern Maritime Chaparral (15.32 acres), Mule Fat Scrub (.06 acre), Del Ma Manzanita (72 individuals), Del Mar Mesa sand aster (80 individuals) and Nuttall’s scrub oak The project is conditioned to mitigate at a ratio of 2: 1 (3 1.46 acres) the project’s impacts to 15.3’ acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral and .41 acres of other sensitive habitat and sensitive plar species. The specific mitigation site(s) (either within the City of Carlsbad or outside of the City or mitigation method (in-lieu fee) shall be subject to the approval of the City of Carlsbad, U.5 Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. The mitigation shall b required to be approved by such agencies and implemented by the developer prior to the issuancc of grading permits for any phase of the project. The western edge of the project site includes .7 acres of wetlands (Southern Willow Scrub) which will not be directly impacted by development. In order to mitigate potential indirec impacts to this wetland, the project has been designed to include a minimum 10 foot wide buffe along the eastern wetland edge, and is conditioned 1. that the wetland be enhanced by tht removal of non-native pampas grass, and 2. that the proposed manufactured slope locatec adjacent to the wetland be planted with a mix of species which are primarily native to the are, and which are compatible with the function of the wetland. Air Quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatec 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mile: traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactivt organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are tht major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a varietJ of mitigation measwes are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provision: for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measure: to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demanc Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project i located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is make’ “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 aj 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, n further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at th Planning Department. TransportatiodCirculation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update1 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequat to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severe1 impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Thes generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsba Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersection 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, numerou mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measure to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develo] alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestria linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies whel adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highwq onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. Thl applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either beel incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of thc failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project i: consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because thc recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-0 1, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, includec a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ for circulation impacts. This “Statement 0: Overriding Considerations’’ applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’! Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatior impacts is required. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e 111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City ( Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 9200! (760) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 447 1. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Updai (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment - Hughes Property, dated February, 1991 Dudek and Associates. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 e e LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any phase of this project, the projel developer shall be required to mitigate at a ratio of 2: 1 (total of 3 1.46 acres) the project' impacts to 15.32 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral and .41 acres of other sensitit habitat. The specific mitigation may include the acquisition of 3 1.46 acres of comparab: quality habitat either fiom within the City of Carlsbad or outside the City of Carlsba and/or the payment of an in-lieu fee to the City of Carlsbad for future acquisition c comparable acreage and quality habitat. The specific habitat mitigation sites and/or ir lieu fees shall be subject to the approval of the City of Carlsbad, U.S. Fish and Wildlif Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any phase of this project, non-native pamp~ grass shall be removed from the on-site wetlands and the proposed manufactured slop adjacent to and east of the wetlands shall be planted with a mix of species which ar primarily native to the area and are compatible with the function of the wetlands. - 3. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 15 Rev. 03128196 m e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AN! CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date 6hClqY w Signature 16 Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENT !@ MITIGATION MONITORING CHE @L IST Page 1 of 1 ob n h 9 n Q) Q r 00 Q) 3 : :s gik g$ g9 $5 %g 25 Y$ 4rc CQ) rOO Q) $9 Kc9 ZQ) LO .c, Q) S P 0 .- r z 51 - c z c 2 w 2 2 t; E; W K a 0; n cj .. W W Z -I 2 G t n Z 0 0 co cn cn Y cn 7 "I u) S 2 w 5 -I s 0 K a n a 252 .P- E mro " +ma, €-g 3 9 .o a L.29 $2w $E5 -00 a, .- + 3Q .G i 3 .F 5 3 "I Q'= 0 m-E .E m (L) 5 :E E LEE p x .- - "3 'nP .p a g .= Cnjg E E c3 ..m rn a, .e s CO 0 .E a, 0a a,su) TI5 5 m= "I om5 s2- uqj 2E 2 0 u- 0 "2 !?a G 8ajE 92 a,, %E 2zF OL Q+ & u-Y s 000 .= u > .- .- a, u .G 0 a, SQ 3.eu . v,.EST 5*Gg& (0% sz wu) u) a,"uhl E$Ss sa, Q.G 0 €'ti .;;moa, 03 00 .- m2 s a, zs 8: :.E a a, - moo dQau) -c 2 Edgs CS30 ga,(nm .sEma, s saw a, g E.2 m.5 s E .- s s.22 3 a,5w - 2 %.Po 42z E;;; $ &.,= C-TSS'Ei .e a3 d a, c a, c - $ .- e S a, a, 11 u) m L $2 3 u) m E S 0 m rn .- c .- .- - E c a, z II S 0 (II S a, .- - c - s - e U ;E a, ._ L 9 ai .- - > m 3 - irio % .E re 1s 5 zg .c .- iiin ;; s .; "0 UII-