HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 4643-x 0 0
L. 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4643
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING .A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW A
RETAIL GARDEN CENTER BUILDING, NURSERY YARD
AND ASSOCIATED PARKING ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD AND PASEO DEL NORTE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 13.
CASE NAME: ARMSTRONG GARDEN CENTER
CASE NO.: CUP 98-20/CDP 98-91
WHEREAS, CB Ranch Enterprises, a California Cor
“De~elopeI”’/”Owner~~, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad
property described as
Lot 1 of Carlsbad Tract No 94-09, Carlsbad Ranch Unit 1 per
map No. 13357, filed September 6, 1996, in the Office of the
County Recorder, as file No. 1997-147754, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitc
Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of Octok
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered :
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
,.. 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declar;
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, according to Exh
dated August 2,1999, and “PII” dated July 26, 1999, attached hereto ai
part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinm:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declara
98-20KDP 98-91 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prog
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any c
thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and E
Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the (
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Envir
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of th’
Carlsbad; and
D. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. The developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
...
...
...
...
...
~ ...
~ ... I
...
1) PC RES0 NO. 4643 -2-
0 0
- 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of October, 19!
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heurc
Nielsen, Segall and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
11 PC RES0 NO. 4643 -3-
0 0
- City of Carlsbac
-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: Northeast comer of Palomar Airport Road and Paseo Del No1
within Planning Area 7 (Flower Fields) of the Carlsbad Ran1
Specific Plan.
Project Description: A Coastal Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit for
6,400 square feet retail garden center building and associatl
27,600 square foot nursery yard with 503 at grade parking spac
on a 53.80 acre lot.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proje
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ar
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 tl
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environme
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Ci
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 th:
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 3
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Plannin
Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4445.
DATED: AUGUST 2,1999
CASE NO: CDP 98-91/CUP 98-20
CASE NAME: ARMSTRONG GARDEN CENTER AT THE FLOWER FIELDS
PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 2,1999 < \"h
MICHAEL J. HM~MILLER
Planning Director
Rev. 10/98 H:\Admin\TemplatesiMitigated NegDec
2075 La Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-08s
0 a
IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP 98-20/CDP 98
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: ArmstronP Garden Center at the Flower Fields
2. APPLICANT: CB Ranch Enterprises, a California Corporation
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5600 Avenida Encinas, Suite 1
Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 930-9123
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED:
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Coastal Develoument Permit and Conditional Use Permit fol
6,400 square feet retail garden center building and associated 27,600 square foot nursery YZ
with 503 at made parking. spaces on a 53.80 acre lot on the northeast corner of Palomar Aim
Road and Paseo Del Norte within Planning. Area 7 (Flower Fields) of the Carlsbad Ran
Specific Plan.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this proje
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impa
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation Public Services
0 Population and Housing c] Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources c] Aesthetics
Water
Air Quality
0 Hazards - u Cultural Resources
0 Noise Recreation
[ZlMandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0 a
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will n
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet ha
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
c] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least 01
potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicab
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
described on attached sheets. An Negative declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects th
remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WIL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzl
adequately in an earlier environmental impact report (EIR) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) ha
been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that a
imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature Date
7-2649 .I
A/! Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
a e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmer
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The EnvironmeI
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physic
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with informat
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration,
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “NO Impact” answers that are adequately suppor
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answel
adequately supported if the referenced mformation sources show that the impact simply does not applJ
projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no sou
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is 1
adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigat
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impac
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and brie
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
Based on an “Em-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on
environment, but a potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitiga
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measu
that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmer,
document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is requir
(Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact’’ is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an E
if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards a
the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to tl
earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures
agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Signific
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may
prepared.
rn An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in
Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures t
reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for
significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR (3) proposed mitigation measures do
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible
determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness o
mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form unc
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussi
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined 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?
(Source #(s): (1; pg. 5.7-1 through 5.7-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (1; pg.5.4-5 through 5.4-13, 5.7-1 through 5.7-
18, and 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(1; pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
landuses? (1; pg. 5.1-1 through 5.1-16)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (1; 5.7-1 through 5.7-1 8)
o
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (1; pg. 7-1 through 7-4)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (1; pg. 7-8 and 7-
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
0
0 9)
housing? (1; pg. 7-8 and 7-9)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (1; Appendix A)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (1 ; Appendix A)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1;
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1; Appendix A)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (1; Appendix A)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1;
Appendix A and pg. 5.12-6 and 5.12-7)
0
0 Appendix A)
0
o
0
o
g) Subsidence of the land? (1; Appendix A)
h) Expansive soils? (1 ; Appendix A)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1 ; Appendix A)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (1; pg. 5.12-1
through 5.12-7)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (1; Appendix A)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
5
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
IXI
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
171
0
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
OBI
UBI
OH
0
OBI
UBI
ON
OIXI
OBI UBI nIx1
om UH
OB OK OK
om
nB
OK nix
Rev. 03/28/96
e
_I 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? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
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? (1; pg. 5.9-13 through 5.9-22 and 5.12-1
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1;
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (1; pg.
body? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
through 5.12-7)
pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
5.12-7)
5.9-13 through 5.9-22)
0
I7
0
0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (1 ; pg. 5.2-1
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1; pg. 5.2-1,
5.2-4, 5.2-6, and 5.2-7)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (1; Appendix A)
d) Create objectionable odors? (1; Appendix A)
through 5.2-8)
VI. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1; pg.
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (1; pg.
5.5-25 and 5.5-26)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1;
Appendix A)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1; pg.
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1; pg. 5.7-1
proposal result in:
5.5-1 through 5.5-29)
(1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29 and 5.9-1 through 5.9-4)
5.7-16)
through 5.7- 18)
la
0
0
[XI
0
0
0
0
0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
in impacts to:
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 0
animals, and birds? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1; pg.
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
5.4- 1 through 5.4- 13)
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-
6
e
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
ow
UIXI o[XI
OIXI o[XI ow
no
om nw ow
nu
I7Kl
UIXI
LIE
OK
OK
nlz
OB
I7E ntz
Rev. 03/28/96
0
i Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact
13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1; pg. 5.4-1
(1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13) I7
through 5.4-13) 0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1;
Appendix A) o
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (1; Appendix A)
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? (1 ; Appendix A)
0
0
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)? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (1; 5.9-1 through 5.9-4)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7)
e) Increase fue hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (1; pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9)
0
I7
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-1 through
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-1
5.8-7) 0
through 5.8-7) 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? (1; pg. 5.9-1 and 5.9-2)
b) Police protection? (1; pg. 5.9-2 through 5.9-4) 0
0
C) Schools? (1; pg. 5.9-7 through 5.9-13)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1;
e) Other governmental services? (1; pg. 5.7-2 and 5.7-16) n pg. 5.7-2, 5.7-3, and 5.7-16)
u
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? (1 ; Appendix A)
b) Communications systems? (1; Appendix A)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
0 0 0
7
0
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 OH
0 OB
0 OH
17
0
0
UBI
KIN
OH
om
0 OH
0 om
0 OIX
0 n[x
0 OK
0 OE lxl oc 0 OB 0 OB
UB
0 OK 0 OB 0 IIIE
Rev. 03/28/96
0
_I Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
facilities? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
f) Solid waste disposal? (1; pg. 5.10-1 through 5.10-5)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (1; pg. 5.9-13 and
0
0
5.9-22) 0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (1; pg.
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (1; pg.
c) Create light or glare? (1; Appendix A)
5.11-1 thrOUgh5.11-7) 0
0 5.11-1 through5.11-7)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through
c) Affect historical resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1; pg. 5.3-
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8)
through 5.3-8)
5.3-8) 0
0 1 through 5.3-8)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (1; pg. 5.7-2
through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1; pg. 5.7-2
through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16) 0
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?
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
0
[XI
0
8
c
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 KI lxl
0
0 0
0
Kl [XI 0 0
OIX
0 OH
0 nIX
El nIX
0 OK
0 OK OK
0 OK
0 OK
nix
El nc
nc
nlz
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
” Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impal Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Sect
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
4 Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standx
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earl
analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporater describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier documc
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
2 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONLENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Armstrong Garden Center Project is proposed for a 53.80 acre property located on the northeast comer
Palomar Airport Road and Paseo Del Norte within Planning Area 7 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. 1
project consists of a one-story, 6,400 square foot retail garden center building and associated 27,600 square fc
nursery yard with 503 at grade parking spaces. Planning Area 7 is located along the westemmost ridge of
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and is occupied by the “Flower Fields”, and associated uses including a 4, 000 squ,
foot retail greenhouse structure and associated parking.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The “Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report, dated Noveml
1995 (EIR 94-01)” evaluates the environmental effects of the development and operation of: The Carlsbad Rar
Specific Plan; improvements to the I-5/Cannon Road Interchange; and the development of a 24.2 acre par
immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the specific plan site. The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan i
planning document which will guide the development of a 447.40 acre area through the provision oj
comprehensive set of guidelines, regulations, and implementation programs. The proposed land uses for
Specific Plan include office, research and development, related light manufacturing, commercial, hotel, destinat
resort, golf course, agriculture, a vocational school campus, and LEGOLAND Carlsbad. The 24.2 acre par
adjacent to the northern boundary is proposed as a continuation of the Specific Plan golf course.
EIR 94-01 analyzed the following environmental issue areas: Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Archaeologi
and Paleontological Resources, Biological Resources, Traffic/Circulation, Hazardous Wastepesticide Resid
Land Use Compatibility; Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Solid Waste, Visual AestheticdGrading, and Wa
Quality. The Initial Study prepared for the Specific Plan Amendment is contained in Appendix A of EIR 94-01 5
analyzed additional issues which were determined not to have a significant environmental impact. EIR 94-01 F
certified by the Carlsbad City Council on January 9, 1996. At that time Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statemeni
Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation and Monitoring Program were approved.
The proposed 6,400 square foot Armstrong retail garden center was not specifically included as a projected land 1
within Planning Area 7 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan project description. However, EIR 94-01 analyzed
environmental impacts from the buildout of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan area with a variety of Projecl
Land Uses including Office, R&D, Retail and Hotel uses in Planning Areas 2, 3, and 7 (see Table A).
comparison, the Approved Land Uses (projects) within Planning Areas 2, 3 and 7 has resulted in a different 12
use mix. However, even with the addition of a 6,400 square foot retail garden center to Planning Area 7, no grea
intensification of development (based upon Average Daily Trips ADT) than was analyzed in EIR 94-Olwill occ
Accordingly, the proposed Armstrong retail garden center does not create any new environmental impacts :
previously analyzed in EIR 94-01. All mitigation measures applicable to the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan hr
been incorporated into the project design or are required as conditions of approval for the project.
PROJECTED LAND USE & ADT APPROVED LAND USE & ADT
PLANNING AREAS 2,3 AND 7 PLANNING AREAS 2,3 AND 7
Office 300,000 SF 6,000 ADT Office 475,888 SF 8,547 ADT
R&D 500,000 SF 4,000 ADT R&D 118,500 SF 663 ADT
Retail 20,000 SF 800 ADT Retail 15,980 SF 599 ADT
Hotel Rms. 280 2,800 ADT Hotel Rms. 25 1 2,510 ADT
Gdn. Ctr. 6,400 SF 256 ADT
TOTAL 13,600 ADT TOTAL 12,575 ADT
References to the applicable section of EIR 94-01 are provided next to each item on this environmental imr
assessment form. A brief explanation is provided in the following section for each item checked as havin:
“potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated”:
10 Rev. 03/28/96
e a
3 I. LAND USE
d) Agricultural Resources
Planning Area 7 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan is currently developed with the “Flower Fields”
retail nursery within Planning Area 7 is classified as an accessorv use provided that the nursery is access1
to the continuation of a bulb growing and cut flower farming operation at the “Flower Fields”. As
accessory use, the nursery would function as a direct retail and marketing outlet for flower and b
products of the fields. The addition of a year round garden center nursery to the Flower Fields 7
improve the economic viability of the cut flowerhulb growing business in that:
1. Direct sales of bulbs and flowers can occur without the operational complexity and financ
risk of the existing Flower Fields retail operation, which is limited to a six week season.
2. Regional marketing from the 44-store Armstrong Southern California group will enhance
farm product sales.
3. Urban farming costs (landscaping, security, and detention and storm drain systc
maintenance) can be absorbed by the accessory nursery.
4. Rent from the retail nursery will provide a revenue stream that is not dependent on weather :
growing conditions (unlike farming and visitor services).
The subject property is also under an Agricultural Preserve (Williamson Act) Contract (No. 76-1). T
Williamson Act contract allows the development of a retail nursery on the property subject to the approval o
Conditional Use Permit.
Accordingly, this project has been conditioned as follows:
1. This Conditional Use Permit for a retail garden center within Planning Area 7 of the Carld
Ranch Specific Plan is approved subject to the condition that the “Flower Fields” will
planted in an open field flowering crop each year and will remain in bulb growing and
flower production in perpetuity. The Conditional Use Permit for this retail garden center n
be revoked at any time if this condition has not been met.
V. AIR QUALITY
a) Air Quality
No significant impacts as a result of construction activity are anticipated. Implementation of the air qua:
mitigation measures will lessen long-term operation air quality impacts to a level less than significant.
was concluded in the analysis for EIR 94-01 that the development anticipated under the proposed spec:
plan amendment together with the development of other related projects will have a significant 2
unavoidable cumulative impact on the region’s air quality. A statement of overriding considerations Y
adopted for this cumulative impact.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a) Increased Vehicle Trips
A series of circulation system improvements are required as part of the development of the Carlsbad Rar
property. With the implementation of the improvements identified in EIR 94-01 all of the analyn
intersections and street segments are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service. It was determir
that the Carlsbad Ranch project in conjunction with cumulative build-out forecasts, will result ir
significant cumulative impact to the 1-5 freeway and SR-78. A statement of overriding considerations v
adopted for this cumulative impact.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
- e 0
z The Traffic Impact Report for Armstrong Garden Center (O’Rourke Engineering, August 16, 19
concludes that the proposed project would not result in significant traffic and circulation impa
However, this report did identify congestion along the Palomar Airport Road Corridor. While the level!
service to the intersection of Paseo Del Norte and Palomar Airport Road and & shown to be critical,
method of calculating capacity and lane utilization may under estimate the actual traffic congestion at
intersection. Accordingly, the applicant and the City have agreed to advance a corridor widening proj
The project is a funded City Capital Project to add an additional lane on westbound Palomar Airport R
from west of Armada Drive to Paseo Del Norte. This improvement will better align the freeway on rar
and will better distribute the AM and PM traffic. This improvement is not considered a direct condition
the Armstrong Garden Center project, rather an advancement of design and construction by Carl
Company for a City funded Capital Improvement project. Because this project is pahering with the C
a condition has been added to require a reimbursement agreement.
.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, a reimbursement agreement shall be approved to design and
construct an additional westbound lane on Palomar Alrport Road from west of Armada Drive to
Paseo Del Norte. Design and construction shall include, but not be limited to, AC paving, curb,
gutter and sidewalk, utility relocation and landscape and sidewalk. The Agreement and scope of
work, including construction timeline shall be approved by the Director of Public Works.
The proposed condition primarily addresses the payment, timing and construction of a corridor-rela.
improvement that is minimally impacted by the Garden Center project. This developer (Carltas) 1
offered to address an improvement adjacent to and within the control of his resources, that will hc
mitigate congestion.
The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Report has record
an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and
Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This potentially creates a chang
circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental documentation. Pursuant to 515 162 of 1
CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a “Subsequent” environmental documentation if substanl
evidence (i.e., the recorded intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. Howev
case law has interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation oi
“Subsequent EIR” if mitigation measures are adopted with reduce the identified impacts to a level
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS into t
acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn lanes-northbound
eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been conditioned to pay its fair share of t
intersection “short-term improvements” thereby, guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
b) Police protection
The EIR analysis concluded that the conversion of an agricultural area to an urban area which will attra
visitors will require additional law enforcement and crime prevention services. The potential increase
demand on police services is a significant impact. This demand for police protection will be reducc
through implementation of a mitigation measure requiring security measures to be incorporated into tl
proposed developments.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
f) Solid waste disposal
The generation of additional solid waste is a potentially significant impact. The mitigation measu.
identified in EIR 94-01 which has been applied to the project will reduce this impact to a level of less tha
significant. The mitigation measure requires the submittal of a solid waste management plan to address tl
project’s needs for recycling facilities and diversion programslmeasures which can be implemented.
g) Local or regional water supplies
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
4 The project will require the construction of onsite water lines. The impacts of buildout of the Carlsb;
Ranch project to water supplies are potentially significant. Implementation of the mitigation measur
contained in EIR 94-01 will reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. The mitigation includ
utilizing reclaimed water for landscaping on the project site.
.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. This Conditional Use Permit for a retail garden center within Planning Area 7 of the Carlsb,
Ranch Specific Plan is approved subject to the condition that the “Flower Fields” will
planted in an open field flowering crop each year and will remain in bulb growing and c
flower production in perpetuity. The Conditional Use Permit for this retail garden center m
be revoked at any time if this condition has not been met.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a reimbursement agreement shall be approved to desi:
and construct an additional westbound lane on Palomar Airport Road from west of Anna
Drive to Paseo Del Norte. Design and construction shall include, but not be limited to, P
paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk, utility relocation and landscape and sidewalk. T
Agreement and scope of work, including construction timeline shall be approved by t
Director of Public Works.
3. The Developer shall pay his fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Cami
ReaLTalomar Airport Road intersection prior to the issuance of a building permit. The amor
shall be determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but r
limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone 13 LFh
fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxi
district.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
13 Rev. 03/28/96
*, e 0
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES Ab
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
1
E&” Lnlcfl> /-
/ / >.I
& a$?
i/
:: /
SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source docurnef: are on file in the Planning Departme
located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Ph‘ 2 ne (619) 438-1 161)
1. “Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report, City
Carlsbad, November 1995.”
14 Rev. 03128196
4
t
w
ENVIRONMEN
r ?
n n
9
n
a Q,
\ 0
0
a Q,
3 0
i/j E W a 2 3 z
W
LL 4
L
.c, Q)
S 3 c Q)
tu
P c
2
(3
.Id 2 E 2
lii 2 a Z L
0' W
E a
d
a
6
..
W
W z d z Q k a Z 0 0
cn cn cn
T-
O hl & a 0 8
s d
2
2
-
w I-
>
n
umc am0 5 c .G
om
Ea,$ a 5v)
tij E,
m2 0 .EJ 3
LE$ $ .E CL 8 5 .o tijn .E J= 3
5 VI-
ne rn
a .E e
a, &?$ zg g
c .e 0
-a
.!E9 g F 8-
SFA rn
PmE L 2n
SE% 2 sa
a .g5
O€$
gZ2 .o a I: % Cu- 8s
ogE a6 E 5z 2
0 0 5
.- g 2 EU u
c v) .E F-0 0 g5z
gz E .G 5 v) g gi3 Q>
sua (06s 2UJ
g c= 3 ge
a, 8.2: €E2
g .g a"
m .G 3 eo$ €5 E '2 z a.E
p5'u 2 a.c-
a.E 5
'5 $?L FS .a,
- 2 E EA
0 c 8:
.-
-Q)a
Q'Z 0 am+
Y- .- a,
oc (/I
-0 ww a, .-
C
cu
mu-
.-
- as Q c
E?
.- m c
-u
u-0
a, > a0 .k C CO
I: s a- I- aocu
TAL MlTl &N MONITORING CHECKLIST: rd e 1 of 1
% E
v)
CL
0 S .- c p? !E$ &E >a,
E -
S om C!= 0 0 52 z 2
v)
2g
E 8r .G L E w
%EL2 .- .-
rga LLI C w
a 8 0) C .- ._ .- B a, c w
B .- a, C w c
a S .- 'oa 6
e=.- w .r L sg?-;;.E 0 a, 0 .=
LOZ
.E .v, E E
3s= uzm
s E 'F'E m v)
2 KZ SQ a, Cll 5 z3.5>, s2
GEE g n94i E+ 0 v) zz e 0 E= uNZ - a,L-a,L
a,; E2SG.g or.2.=20' kQ-3: e€ a, E- cU gg m+s ?;+E g t3g S
0 cc c Em L mr a,>.E$ a, b
=m e 5 >," c SU ZP5q3: 0 -E L >,.& a,? nmc gz .-om E 0-0 u &g cas, v aQ3S:S' g om a, g O-gS'"j2G Fas mz= L 5 Pg 68 g mFm -%E m La,&! +o= 0E5o;uv); mx c cjjr c 0
a%= aum+ gz35a,-.0 .e- m= rn 83
"Ca,omg a a,.= g $b c e-z .s g mm5t+Zv) ;$ a E.f g m; E-%?$ gg.ea u
u) 3 pL-4 cg m3)'- m a,+ a,- u I- Q%Z 0g;z crl "%Zs.= g 2r .'E or 0.s 0 F +s m €ajaUU+ 2 8x2 c a2z.g 0 a, x+" c ax .'s+:gg.& 2 c -2.2 3"E .EV,& gas ms3 .^ z! Z 0 *~gg~3&~ c v) .s$p--Ougz 0
.- x a, o=-o-r8 g:O.v,.rZ,o$ a m 5 5;: : g.g
.c, a$ "2 5 E.5 na ol= c-0
2%- a,E a,Lc - gg3v)a, :5pU=-- 8 a,?LZ g 8s m 0.0 2 m ca 3s c- u 5b=P=E m"'E g&a,ct"g m-0 WPWU
z=m.%m m 9. 2x2 52 a, c v)cZ.p&u > zza a, 3 a,
3003 m a)+'= v) aln ($-e: P 11
0 Q2.G s w m n E.2 ~-0.2 a= c- m: =E n
a, a,z+W I$? 2 L- a, mu--ga a
r c os-0~ + o v) 3z.En e ; a,g c= m 52 kg aa, €2 > LQm 0 &&Oa, 20 ~Zaz Z 2~ ,a ma 2+ 2 ci.-.- m WSJG 6 m (u 0 v)-gj< v)
Ez €75 Q)LL 0 mu Y- c u me
.-
't: E m .-
ra,
-
v)c 2
z xm EZUmg v) a, K+Z 8 Eo=
5 0 mm v) maE a,.- O a, oE =il c m a,5$."E%f a, E+ igg gqcmz5 + Qc Cl)
~2~~~~=$ .- $$Q=o x" E6 v),n~, 8- a, 5 sr xu .-o
v)-E> So% .gEKm2 c>a=a)> 0
..
u)
5 v m
I Q
0 C 0
m C m P
w X
.-
b
.- c
-