HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 4518P
It
<
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
1
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4518
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE
BUILDING GENERALLY LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTH-
EAST CORNER OF AVENIDA ENCINAS AND PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 3.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD PACIFIC CENTER, PHASE
CASE NO.: SDP 98-23/CDP 98-89
WHEREAS, Prentice Properties Acquisition Partners, L.P., a C
Limited Partnership, “Developer” and “Owner”, has filed a verified application with
of Carlsbad regarding property described as
I11
Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No 15386 in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map
thereof no 11287, filed in the office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, September 16,1988, as file No. 88-467980 of
official records
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction P
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of April, 199
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
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative according to Exhibit “N
*
\
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
1
a 0
April 21, 1999, and “PII” dated January 25, 1998, attached hereto anc
part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findiws:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy
considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identifiet
project and said comments thereon, prior to APPROVAL of the project. Base
EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that thc
substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environn
hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Negative Declaration I:
prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Qua
the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the
Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the indt
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
4. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this project hi
incorporated into this project.
,..
...
...
...
...
.. .
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 45 18 -2-
, 0 0
1
2
3
4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of April 199!
following vote, to wit:
5
6
7
AYES : Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L'Heure
Nielsen, Segall, and Welshons
NOES:
8 , .. , *.I ABSENT: . Commissioner Trigas
I ._, .. . ,$
9
10
11
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 12
_.
. . ,.. . .., ',. .', ,, -i. ,
13 ATTEST:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MICHAEL J. HMZMMER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4518 -3 -
\
&t ~ ~ . - D-0- -
0
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresslLocation: 705 Palomar Airport Road. Located on the southwest comer
Palomar Airport Road and Interstate-5.
Project Description: The project consist of constructing the third office building o
three building campus development. The three story professio
office building will have 44,200 square feet of floor area. 7
project also includes additional parking spaces to accommodate
new building
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proj
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act i
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said reviev
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plann
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of d
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Departmenl
(760) 438-1 16 1 , extension 4447.
DATED: JANUARY 25,1999
CASE NO: SDP 98-23RUD 98-07/CDP 98-89
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD PACIFIC CENTER PHASE I11
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 25,1999
MICHAEL J. NLZhhfLER
Planning Director
..__ 2075 La Palmas Dr. 0 Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0t
e e
\
ENVIRONMENTAL MPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 98-23/CDP 98-89PUD 984
DATE: January 14. 19!
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Pacific Center Phase I11
2. APPLICANT: Prentice Properties Management, L.P.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 703 Palomar Aimort Road. Suite 25
Carlsbad. CA 92009 (760) 93 1-7634
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 15.1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development of the third of three adjacent office buildings to L
developed on contiguous properties in a campus-like setting at the southwest corner of Palom:
Airport Road and Interstate 5. The building is a three story office building with 41,000 squaI
feet of floor area. The project also consists of adding parking spaces to accommodate the ne1
building. The areas of proposed improvements for the building and parking areas have bee
previously grades and maintained as landscaped grass lawns.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec
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 W TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards
B Air Quality c] Noise
0 Cultural Resources
0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
\ DETEMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tl
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl
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 NEGATIV
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 ‘
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlic
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatio
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigate
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to b
addressed.
0 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 all potential1
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmentb
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.
- PIannef Signature Date
/-/g “P?
- l/l@/W
Planning Direcxr’s SiMture Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Ci
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 followil
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 I
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negatil
Declaration, 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 a:
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea(
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, I
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “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.
0 “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 tk
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce th
effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significan
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze1
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 upor
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).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily require(
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EU
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement 0.
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tha
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing i
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, ar
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporatet
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e 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 h:
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, ar
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 hi
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 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. 03128196
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 #l: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
landuses)? (#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) ? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0
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 0
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; #2)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#1 :Pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 1 5)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
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
0 0 0 0
5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 0 0
5.1-15) 0 0
0 0
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 0 0
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
0 0 0 0
5.1-15) 0 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- 0 0
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0
11; #2)
b) Exposure of people OT property to water related hazards
5
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 w
0 w 0 [x] o w
0 IXI
0 IXI 0 IXI
0 IXI 0 [XI 0 w
w 0
0 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
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)
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-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
1 - 5.3-12; #2)
- 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l: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:PgS 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)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
€3
0
0 o
[XI
0
0
0
0
0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
6
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 [XI
0 0 IXI
0 0 [XI
0 0 El
O w
0 0 [XI
0 0 €3
0 0 0
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 o w
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 IXI
0 w
0 [XI
0 w
0 w
0 El
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
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)
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
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) 0 o
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 0 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 0 0
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 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 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, ortrees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
0
0
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 0
1 - 5.9-15) 0 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)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
0 0 0 CI
7
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
0 w
o w
0 w
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI o w
0 [XI
0 [XI
o w
o w
0 [XI
0 w
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 IXI 0 [XI 0 [XI
Rev. 03128196
m e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0
5.12.8-7) 0
XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new system 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 system? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
5.13-1 - 5.13-9) o
0
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI
d) Sewer or septictanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l: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 -
0 CI o €23 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 IXI
5.12.3-7) 0 [XI
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 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
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)
1 0)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 o
0
0
0
0
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI 0 [XI
0 @
0 [XI
0 [XI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
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
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impaci ,Impact
0 [XI
I7 [XI
0 [XI
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQr
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negativ
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)@). In this case a discussion should identify th
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 from 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 Mitigatio
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated (
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitt
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03128196
0 0
\
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is a vacant pre-graded Manufacturing zoned lot of 2.05 acres of land. The Cit
of Carlsbad’s Manufacturing zone allows professional office uses as an allowed use. The sit
was previously graded to create the building pad to the third of three building. During th
interim, the site has been landscaped and maintained as a grass lawn area. The proposed parkin
areas are currently unimproved and contain low forbs. The site has been maintained to prever
the growth of any significant vegetation. The site has access from Avenida Encinas and a
frontage improvements including landscaping, sidewalk, curb, and gutter have been provided
The site does not contain surface waters of native habitat. The project site is surrounded b:
existing office buildings to the west, interstate 5 to the east, Palomar Airport Road and a gasolinl
station to the north, and two separate industrial buildings to the south.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
I
11. ENVlRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
There are no anticipated significant environmental impacts to the following categories c
environmental effects listed on the checklist: (1) land use and planning; (2) population an
housing; (3) geologic problems; (4) biological and cultural resources; (5) energy and miner;
resources; (6) hazards; (7) noise; (8) public services; (9) utilities and service systems; (1C
aesthetics; and, (1 1) recreation, therefore, a detailed environmental analysis and explanation i
not provided in this Initial Study. Ths determination is based on the existing environmentz
setting for the following reasons: (1) the project site has been disturbed by authorized grading
(2) the surrounding properties are developed with office and industrial land uses; (3) all th
support utilities and service infrastructure has been constructed; and, (4) the project is consister
with the Manufacturing zone development standards.
Water
The project site is improved with two office buildings and associated parking and driveway:
The development of the site with additional impermeable surfaces in the form of a building an’
additional parking spaces will increase the amount pollutants in the form of urban surface runoff
The increase is considered to be minor and not a significant impact.
Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update(
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, reactivc
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are thc
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since thc
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considerec
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 measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demanc
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mas:
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5:
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable anc
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into thc
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-0 1 , by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 * hrther environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at th
Planning Department.
TransportatiordCirculation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update
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 intersectior
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, numeroL
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measurc
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 whe
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highwa
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. Tk
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either bee
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 tk
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefor1
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 tk
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 C
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.
The project is considered an in-fill type of development that is consistent with the General Pla
and zoning. The project falls within the scope of the City’s MEIR for the City of Carlsba
General Plan update (EIR 93-01) certified in September, 1994, in which a Statement (
Overriding Considerations was adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic. A
Average Daily Trip (ADT) of 820 would be generated by the proposed project. This ADT
consistent with the generation rate analyzed for the site in the MEIR. All feasible mitigatic
measures identified by the MEIR which are appropriate to this project have been incorporatc
into the site design. No additional mitigation measures in the forrn of roadway improvements a
necessary. The project site has also been disturbed by authorized grading. The surroundir
properties are developed with industrial and commercial land uses and all the support utilitic
and service infrastructure have been constructed.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
* e
t 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, 920C
(760) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 447 1.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Updz
2. Environmental Site Assessment of Carlsbad Pacific Center - Phase 1 EMG Corporate Cent€
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
1 10 1 1 McCormick Road, Baltimore, Maryland 2 103 1
14 Rev. 03/28/96
. + 0 a . LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
Not applicable
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORTNG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
Not applicable
15 Rev. 03/28/96
.I
b 0 0
i APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES Al\
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
16 Rev. 03/28/96