HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 4551e 0 e
v 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4551
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORTNG AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO
CONSTRUCT A FOUR BUILDING INDUSTRIAL CAMPUS
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF EL
CAMINO REAL AND SOUTH OF FARADAY AVENUE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD CORPORATE CENTER
CASE NO.: SDP 97-08(A)lSUP97-05(A)
9 WHEREAS, MSGW California 11, L.L.C., a Delaware limited
10
property owned by Beckman Instruments, Inc., “Owner”, described as l1
company, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad r
12
13
14
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 13958, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, as filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, September 18,1985 as
file no. 85-344096
l5 11 (“the Property”); and
16
17
18
19
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 20
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of May, 1991
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Mo
and Reporting Program were prepared in conjunction with said project; and
21 I1 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tt
22
23
24
25
26
Commission as follows: 27
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the :
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 Mitigated Negative Declaration.
28
* 0 0
t 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 APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declarat
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhit
dated April 9, 1999, “PII” dated March 23, 1999 and Mitigation Mo
and Reporting Program, attached hereto and made a part hereof, base
following findings:
FindinEs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, anal)
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impact5
identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Ma
and Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to APPRO\
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 Declarat
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative De
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in ac
with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guide:
the 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.
4. That this project could have a potentially significant negative cumulative traffi
on the Palomar Airport RoadEl Camino Real intersection. However, this prc
been conditioned to pay its fair share of the “short-term improvements”,
guaranteeing implementation of a mitigation measure that reduces the potential i
a level of insignificance.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall pay its fair share for the “short-term improvements” tl
Camino Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to approval of the final m
issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. The amount shall be deten
the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not limited to, an
in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone 5 LFMP fee; the cr
a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district.
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 4551 -2-
>
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of May, 199!
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners L’Heureux, Nielst
Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Compas
ABSTAIN:
COURTNEY E. *AN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4551 -3-
2 0 0
- City of Carlsbac
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: Located on the east side of El Camino Real, south of Farad:
Avenue and north of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District offici
Parcel is identified by Assessors Parcel Number 209-050-29.
Project Description: An amendment to an existing Site Development Plan and Speci;
Use Permit for a five building 444,000 square foot industrial par
to a four building, 438,494 square foot industrial park and a fol
lot subdivision.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projel
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act an
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, tl
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (:
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before tl
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid th
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environmer
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Cit
that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore,
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for thi
action is on file in 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 2
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Plannin
Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4447.
DATED: APRIL 9,1999
CASE NO: SDP 97-08(A)/SUP 97-05(A)
CASE NAME: CAFUSBAD CORPORATE CENTER
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 9,1999
Planning Director
Rev. 10/98 H:kdmin\TemplatesiMitigated NegDef
2075 La Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-089
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 97-08(A)/SuP 97-050
DATE: March 23, 19s
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Cornorate Center
2. APPLICANT’: MSGW California 11, LLC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Suite 3 10,2030 Main Street, Irvine Cl
926 14, (949) 260- 1900
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 1,1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to an existing Site Development Plan and Sueci:
Use Permit for a five building 444,000 square foot industrial Dark to a four building, 438,49
square foot industrial park and a four lot subdivision.
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
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
17 Water Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
H Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128196
e
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tl
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 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 mitigatic
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.
[XI 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 mitigatic
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negatil
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be 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 Environment;
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voidel
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01:
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Ad Planne Signature Date U-/Vy
4/5/5 5 Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cit
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significar
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 t
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negativ
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 a1
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eacj
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, o
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 adoptel
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 th
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 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significan
effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze(
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicablc
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 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).
e 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 EIP
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement 0:
Overriding Considerations’’ has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
e 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 0
e If there are one or more potentially sigmficant 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 Incorporatec
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 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 t&
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 nc
reduce 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. 03/28/96
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
(Source #l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) El
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the 0
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
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) I7
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible 17
landuses)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
established community (including a low-income or 0
minority community) ? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) o
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 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) 17
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
5.5-6)
111.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
9
g)
h)
i)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 0
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
0 0
5.1-1 - 5.1.15, #2) 0
5.1-15) 0 0
17 0
5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
5.1-15) 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
11, #3)
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved 0
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
- 5
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
El
0
0
0
0
0
0 17 0-
0
0 0
0 0 0
17
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impacf Impact
ow
ON
ow
OH
ow
OH ow
OH
OM OH ow ow
OM OH
nw ow OH
OH
OM om
Rev. 03/28/96
r 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
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?
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
0
0
El
0
0
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- IXI
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12) 0 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
VI.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
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)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22)
5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #4)
(#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)
la
0
0
17
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
result in impacts to:
(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
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0
6
0
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impacl
Mitigation
Incomorated
Unless Impact
0 nw ow
0 ow
0 OH
0 om
17 UIX]
17 170
0 UH
0 ow
0 OH
17
17
I7
0
0
0
17
0
no
UN
ow
OH
Ula
OH
UH
OH
0 ow
0 OH
Rev. 03128196
f 0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated
*.
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) 0 0
- 5.4-24) 0 17
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 17
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 0 17
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and 0
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
1 - 5.13-9)
& 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, or trees? (#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 o
1 - 5.9-15) 17
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 o 0 0 0 C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
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) 17 0
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0
7
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
ow
OH
om
OH
OH
ON
ow
ow
ON om
ON om
om OH nIxI om nm
17Kl
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
'.
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incornorated
b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
I7 o[xI
facilities? (#l:Pes 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 0 0 OH >- d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#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 -
5.12.3-7)
0 0 LIB 0 UBI 0 0 ON 0 0 OH
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 - 5.1 1-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
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)
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? (#1 :Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
0
0
0
0
0
17 0
0
0
0
I7
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
olxl
OH
UH
OH
OH
OH OH
OH
0151
up3
OH
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? I7 UIXI
(“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?
0 0 0 Iz
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQk
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negativc
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify thc
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availablc
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklis
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuan
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 o
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project is a site development plan and a special use permit for a four buildin]
438,494 square foot industrial campus type development adjacent to the eastern edge of E
Camino Real and southerly edge of Faraday Avenue on property zoned M-Q with a General Pla~
designation of PI. The 25.82 acre gently sloping to the east, vacant fallow site proposes :
balanced grading of 58,000 cubic yards which essentially levels the site to create flat buildin]
pads. The 35 foot tall maximum tilt up concrete structures accented by blue green glass arl
comparable to development across El Camino Real within the Carlsbad Research Center. Thl
project also requires the replacement of an existing 18” CMF which is under the alignment o
Orion Way with a 42” pipe to handle the additional flow from the site. The project, as designec
or because of existing site characteristics, has no impacts in regards to Energy and Minera
Resources, Noise, Public Services, and Utilities and Services Systems.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
LAND USE AND PLANNINGPOPULATION AND HOUSING
The proposed land use for the site is consistent with the existing General Plan and Zoning and a:
such its development has been considered within the Housing Element as a direct or indirec
inducer of growth. As the site is vacant no displacement of housing occurs.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
The Engineering Department of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed a preliminary soils report fo
the site and indicated that their are no significant potential impacts as regards fault ruptures
seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, seiche, tsunami, volcanic hazards, landslides, mudflows
subsidence, expansive soils, or erosion.
WATER
The project has been designed and conditioned to not allow off-site impacts due to the change il
impermeable surfaces this project will produce. Development of this project must be in accorc
with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Standards. No beach o
water body exists on or near the project site therefore no impacts to surface waters of the flow oj
existing waters will result due to the land use proposed.
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 milec
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 considerec
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in tht
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 varietl
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provision:
10 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2
Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation includin
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 an
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into th
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project i
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marke
“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 ai
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequen
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, nl
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at th
Planning Department.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
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 severel:
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 devel01
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestriar
linkages, and comrnuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies wheI
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. Tht
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either beex
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 thl
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 is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, includec
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Oj
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatior
impacts is required.
The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Repor
has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airpor
Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Thit
*. measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportatio
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environment2
“Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorde
intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law ha
interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequer
EIR” if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level c
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LO,
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right tm
lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been conditionel
to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements” thereby, guaranteein,
mitigation to a level of insignificance.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A biological and jurisdictional constraint report indicates that there is no potential for any plar
or wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered to occur on the property. There are n’
biological constraints associated with the site.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Site survey and testing indicate there are no significant archaeological cultural resources on site.
HAZARDS
The project is located outside of the airport runway protection zone and the flight activity area.
w. documentation. Pursuant to tj 15 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare
AESTHETICS
The project has been designed in accord with the El Camino Real Corridor Developmen
Standards which is the aesthete regulator of the area.
RECREATIONAL
The demand for recreational facilities is mitigated via the requirement of the Zone 5 Loca:
Facilities Management Plan for a $.40 per square foot non residential park fee.
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City 0:
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Update Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Corporate Center, Carlsbad , California
Geocon Incorporated, November 1998.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
r / 0 0
3. Hydrology and Hydrolics Study, Carlsbad Comorate Center, David Evans an
” Associates, Inc., December 8, 1998
4. 1998 Traffic Monitoring Report for the City of Carlsbad, Valley Research and Plannin
Associates.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. The Developer shall pay his fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El
Camino Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to approval of the final map
or the issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. The amount shall be
determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not
limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone
incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district.
5 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
See Attached
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES ANI
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
L7////w
Date
j‘h5~;l~) kif;ow*lis \ c‘(
13 Rev. 03128196
c e 0
t
C, 9.
?
n 3
m
Q, b
v)
\
C. 3.
CQ
b Q,
?
n n
v, oi
m W
2 3 Z
W
LL
v)
=!
L
CI a
S a
a a
0
CI
&
8 0
'CJ
Q (II
v)
m - L
0
w 2
Z a
I- o W
cl! 5
a
cn a a 7
c-3 04 c 2 1 .. cj
n
cj
a
s! I- 2
W
w Z
w 2
w I- s
$ 5
a
a R
$?%>
.- a+ E mro
c v) a,
(II Es:
9 .o a LZS
22%
.E i ;
$ €5 .p 6 '3
aE .% .P a, 5 .= E LEg ,o c .- -$$ Fa2
QLm
agg
mz E s 0 ^,
0 ms a,? v) 5 (IIZ
.- a, 2 uza $?E 2 0 0
0 Os ga $
oaj€
a,2g 5 g " 3yzn g.gmcq
mu- 30
E $2 r ra, 0.2 .- 0 E5 uclJoa ms m 00
.e u) a,-(J sa,
€5UO -mag J,l Qw rEd a,zC 0
ssg
-sE(IIa, pa,,
s s a)K a, g E.2
'3 a,%% - 0-0 00 z&):Ea3
Y- .- c E;;;
as c a,.E= l"o5m
a, .- c
03Cl
+
Cl.= cn
QP .E Cl- L
+x s 000
'E -0 x .- -0 a, .e 6 .E):
0-07 - a,- c+
.- s os?
L sCy 3 .- .= a3
mo 7 a,"csc\l
.-
pg5
m.5 K 0 K C.2 3
1 ,
I 1 j .i
I 1 1 J
1
( J
I !
( I i
I
I I
I
2
I (
I
I (
<
I [ ; -
7
9 < .
2
E
._ c 0: -
GC I[ 5 ca .c
.- 0 'E
k II
x5
c ma
-cl
ul-