The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-04-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 47430 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4743 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO SUBDIVIDE 8.24 ACRES INTO TEN LOTS AND DEVELOP LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL BETWEEN FARADAY AVENUE AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. CASE NO.: CT 99-17 /PUD 99-07 /SUP 99-06 NINE ONE- AND TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER - LOT 12 9 10 11 12 13 Lot 12 of Carlsbad Tract No. 81-10 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map No. 14 10330, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, February, 18,1982 15 16 17 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring a 18 Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, DSK CARLSBAD PARTNERS, LLC, as “Owner” a “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding prope described as (“the Property”); and 19 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of April, 2000, holc 20 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 21 I1 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimc 22 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, : 23 24 Program. 26 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Report: 25 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fact 27 11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plann 28 Commission as follows: 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 ' A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planni Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration a1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit "Nl dated February 11,2000, and "PII" dated January 19, 2000, attached hereto a made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration a1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the environmental impac therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior APPROVING the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporti Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the Califon Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmen Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evider the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Carlsb Research Center - Lot 12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. i ~ *.* ~ *.- ~ **- ~ ... 1 ... I ... Note: The City Council, on Tuesday, April 4, 2000, declared an end to the moratoril because there were sufficient resources to fund the mitigation measure identified abo therefore, the Planning Commission deleted the condition in the Negative Declaration. PC RES0 NO. 4743 -2- ll 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 Planni Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of April, 2000, by t following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segal and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Heineman and Baker ABSTAIN: U&” WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpersk CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director 1 11 PC RES0 NO. 4743 -3 - 0 e __ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: 5936 Priestly Drive, Carlsbad, San Diego County, CA. Project site is west of El Camino Real, south of Faraday Avenue, north of Palomar Airport Road and east of Priestly Drive. Property is also identified by Assessor’s Parcel Number 212-062-04-00. Project Description: Four two-story and five one-story shell office buildings totaling 102,000 square feet, parking and landscaping on an existing 8.24 acre pre-graded vacant industrial lot (Lot 12) within the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-46 13. DATED: FEBRUARY 1 1 , 2000 CASE NO: CT 99-17/ PUD 99-07/ SUP 99-06 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER - LOT 12 PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 11,2000 MICHAEL J. HODMI&R Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-731 4 - (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 99-17/ PUD 99-07/ SUP 99-06 DATE: January 19,2000 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER - LOT 12 2. APPLICANT: DSK CARLSBAD, LLC. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3838 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 300, SAN DIEGO CA 92108 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 9,1999 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Four two-stow and five one-story shell office buildings totalin2 102,000 square feet, parking and landscaping on an existing 8.24 acre me-graded vacant industrial lot (lot 12) within the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan. Proiect site is west of El Camino Real, south of Faradav Avenue and east of Priestly Drive. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning [XI TransportatiodCirculation [7 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources [7 Utilities & Service Systems c] Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics Water 0 Hazards Cultural Resources [XI Air Quality Noise c] Recreation - u Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03128196 0 0 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) c] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. @ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. c] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided 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. x Planner lgnature Date 2-7- 00 "100 Date 2 Rev. 03128196 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. a A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. a Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). a When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. a A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 e e a If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. a An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a 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 under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03128196 e 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 #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 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 5.5-6) housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#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 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 0 0 0 o 0 0 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 5.1-15) 0 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) g) Subsidence ofthe 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? (#1 :Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) CI IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff’? (#liPgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 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) 0 0 0 1 1) 5 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact ow 0 0 0 OBI OH ow 0 urn UIXI om 0 ow 0 om 0 OBI OH OBI 0 ow nH OIXI 0 UBI 0 OH 0 OH 0 ow ow Rev. 03128196 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? 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:Pg~ 5.2-1 - L.2-11) 1 1) 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1) 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- El 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) I7 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. 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? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) proposal result in: 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) IXI cl 0 0 El 0 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (#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) 0 El 0 (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 6 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 om 0 OBI 0 LIB ON 0 OB 0 OBI 0 on ow om ow 0 0 0 0 0 nu om UBI nm om OB UBI 0 om 0 om 0 om Rev. 03128196 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 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 - 5.4-24) 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 proposal: (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0 0 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 - 5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0 0 0 0 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) 1 - 5.9-15) 0 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) 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) 5.12.8-7) I7 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) 7 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incomorated Unless Impact 0 om 0 OH 0 OH 0 OH OH 0 om UH I7 om 0 OH 0 OH om 0 om 0 OH 0 om I7 OH 0 Elm 0 om 0 om Rev. 03128196 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 0 b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#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 - facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 5.12.3-7) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation 0 0 0 17 I7 o Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 I7 0 BI IXI Ixl [XI El KI XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs b) Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 0 0 OH (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0 UIXI 0 0 OBI 0 0 UIXI I7 0 ON 17 0 nIXI 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 1 0) 10) 0 OB 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 0 0 UIXI 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 - 0 UBI 5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 0 om 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 om 8 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incomorated b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? 0 0 ON (“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? 17 0 OH 9 Rev. 03/28/96 0 m XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) 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 the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project consists of developing an existing vacant pre-graded industrial lot with four two- story and five one-story office buildings. Additional site improvements will be 409 parking stalls, eight carports, pedestrian walkways, trash enclosures and landscaping. Building will be placed in a circular pattern with a central landscape and parking area. A perimeter drive and parking spaces will surround the buildings. Access to the site is via two entries off of Priestly Drive. All services and infrastructure is in place to service the proposed development. The site is a pre-graded industrial lot with no sensitive flora or fauna on site. The 30 foot frontage on Priestly Drive and El Camino Real are currently landscaped as part of the overall specific plan area with turf and Evergreen Elm and London Plane trees respectively. 11 Rev. 03128196 0 0 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion Air Quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety 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 Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. 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 93-01 , 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 further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. TransportatiodCirculation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when 12 Rev. 03128196 0 0 adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been 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 the 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, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Report has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental documentation. Pursuant to $15162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a “Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequent EIR’ if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of insignificance. A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements,” thereby guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance. 111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760) 602-46 13. 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. 13 Rev. 03/28196 0 e LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES The Developer shall pay their fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camino Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to issuance of a building permit. 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 5 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM See attached 14 Rev. 03128196 0 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. /-2Is-28&7 Date 15 Rev. 03128196 ENVIRONMENTAL MlTldlhlON MONITORING cHEcws& 1 of 1 (D m Q, 3 cn P a iz 4 m Q, 50 a8 d- Q, 2, -04 r" rcn G; ~$ a$ Zn fY .. W SCj !s! - kn a c3 != cuz W F 7 6 A E W I- z W 0 I 0 PC cn W E I i5 n a m I? p! a 0 w+ w 26 an ZJ wo r~n a6 LS $E $32- 2'; g €2 v) cow ,o .u a -00 -00 & .G z L2a, OSa coca .- .- s*m g g + $ €5 .- c '3 20 mE .% .P a, 5 .e E g c .- a= VJ LE2 -"$ 922 kg .E a .u, 3 000 rn$ E 5 " ^W g-0 h m a, .e c 80 0 m& 0 .P a, a2 v) 5 co= om% 7356 3€ m 0 m- b "2 e6 5 8,E a,6F & g .- 3.Em . v).P5C 5.sgz 2% 3z E $2 c g),o ocn OL a+ L rcY s - .- - 0- .- a, -0 s+ .r_ 0 a, am a-mhl ~2 Q.G 0 E5 -=moa, .= v) am ea, €ZOO -ma0 :E:$ a11 2 €323 scso gam$ .? E gfY a, g E.2 a.5 s E s =.En S '$ a, ([I- Tjg.=a +-= E;;; .- 9 -0 .go a, != v)- c a" FoSm s 2 ln E S 0 m .- "4 zz gg >"" E - S om sC 0 $g = v) mE &€.Sa, . F a$ z; 6.' rm .- s a, m a- 0 ca, .- "r m.r m .- sa, ?=& s kg: gF =e .g a EU m a--0 a m m n'iJE5 Q'i5-sm s 2 a77 zb 5.G Som 0-t: EGO a,E 8 = E;zg?LF ,Q.Z zag> 0 "%2$!;5g &a,uS .- Cp? g+ =lnc &- & f2 a,€ $$ms ; Sm-4 m E.G.'Eg - a,mlnmm 'C a L b&Z0a,.Z 5 SOOln~.GO su g $$zggmg$ *F x"--, Lugs 2 90 .- 0 (I: y" - S .GG 5 hsNZ m m">ao c, 075 5 QW 2 >La b %- QaZ$$ $.E - Q QC 3s m.2 E:t 2 L ln 5 o~a,-cpou L 2: "ZKa,.G b2hp5&ms X > €2 a? &g O 8 0 ln.g Eez.gZ 2 Q$) 250 = I- .E .S mu .r E $2 ua,m - .O .e- & C .- LC % g C Qua .-r~ ln z 9 8 m.- cIC C L LU a, 3 L-u m= E .E 2 s E 15 00 Sm as 2g 55 Q)a 2- 0s 52 Q)Q) a= z .2 3s am Q .g 5: '= 0 00 am .cI '0 .E €E 5a Q)E OQ) -5 52 st =z 2- 26 82 =$ 0"- g 2 wlf= 4.5 'E E 2; s$ GQ) WE :g I- -= sa 0 .F -s 'J E .2 s5 !? ozz 22 n 'EJ- 0 mL .cI - .c, .. .- sa- a Q) ooa Q, * 2 Egs .. s g SgQ) z L.cI ax 5 k d L c a,P gz 0 - $g- .- Ea =E 25 ;E .- 5: 0 a, m '3 mm c .P 00, 0 C 2 .E Eu 0-J ZU% .FU 0 .- - '3 Em, c-z 09 u) II .- 5 CB m 0-$ zgs 23L a,+ $2 gs z8;; E .E %E c .- =E US$ sm .- >E L - m 3 0 .- r 8 m Is) t: .- L s C E P P L - a, m C 0 n m 2 s 0 c a, gj2 ;; 2-i g =o L - m- =F Ea, .e .E a, m c m'nm ,-G on g * o " z.2 *G p u)E $j II 5 ERo 8 PI1 0 .s c Wl-2 a, 'E - ma.& E 0 a,% an 0, *