HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 50401
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. 5040
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
ADDENDUM AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM TO DEVELOP A 15.69 ACRE SITE
WITH A 120,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING
LOCATED ADJACENT AND SOUTH OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD AND EAST OF AVIARA PARKWAY IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE BUILDING
CASE NO.: GPA Ol-05/ SDP Ol-Ol/ CDP Ol-02/ PIP 01-02
WHEREAS, Paciilca Enterprises Island Realty 1 Limited Partnership,
“Developer and Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding
property described as
That portion of that certain parcel of land shown and
designated as description No. 3,78.01 acres on record of survey
map no. 5715, filed in the offrce of the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 19, 1960, being a portion of Lot G of
the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, according to map thereof No 823,
filed in the offke of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
November 16, 1896, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, lying southerly of the centerline of
Palomar Airport Road, as shown on County of San Diego Road
Survey No. 1534, on file in the office of the County Surveyor of
said County
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of September, 2001
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 testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
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
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A> That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
according to Exhibit “ND” dated July 5, 2001, and ‘PIP’ dated June 5, 2001,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findiws:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
D. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Paciiica Palomar Office Building Mitigation, Addendum, and Monitoring and Reporting Program.
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 Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of September 2001 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, and Trigas
NOES: Commissioners Heineman, Nielsen
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
N
CARL&ID PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAELJ. MLZ~~IXIR 1 Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5040 -3-
City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: South and adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and east of Aviara
Parkway. Project site is accessed via Laura1 Tree Road extension. Property is also identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number 212-040-
25-00
Project Description: A General Plan Amendment, Site development Plan, Planned
Industrial Permit for the construction of a 120,000 square foot,
three-story office building and associated parking on 15.69 acres of
land and to adjust the open space/planned industrial boundary.
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 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4613.
DATED: JULY 5,200l
CASE NO: GPA Ol-OS/SDP Ol-Ol/CDP Ol-02/PIP 01-02
CASE NAME: PACIFICA PALOMAR
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 5,200l
MICHAEL J. HOLmILl%R
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: GPA 01-OS/SDP Ol-Ol/CDP Ol-OZPIP 01-02
DATE: June 5.2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: PACIFICA CARLSBAD
2. APPLICANT: PACIFICA ENTERPRISES/ISLAND REALITY I. L.P.
3. ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 12780 HIGH BLUFF DRIVE,
SUITE 160. SAN DIEGO. CA 92130 (858) 755-0216
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 1.2001
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 120,000 square foot, three-story office building located adjacent
and south of Palomar Airport Road and east of Aviara Parkway on 15.69 acres.
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.
cl Land Use and Planning Ix1 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing IXI Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems Cl Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
q Water cl Hazards cl Cultural Resources
q Air Quality lxl Noise cl Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128196
DETERMINATION.
cl
Ix]
0
cl
0
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.
I find that the proposed project MAY have signifkant 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. An EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
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-Ol),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
6-m -a/
Date
Date
Rev. 03/28/96
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 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.
“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.
“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.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &l 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).
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 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
l 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 II 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.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
4
b)
4
4
4
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or
minority community) (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c>
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) 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-l - 5.5-6)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a)
b)
c)
4
4
cl
s>
h)
9
expose people to potential impacts i&&rig: Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15, # 2)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l :Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15, # 2)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l -
5.1-15, # 2) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 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 -
5.1-15, # 2)
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-l - 5.2-
11, #3)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1, # 3)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1)
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q 0
III
q q
q q q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
q
q q
q q q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q 0
q
cl q
q q q
q
q
cl
No Impact
El
l.xl
IXI
(XI
lxl
lzl
(XI
l-xl
txl
IXI
IXI
lxl
El
lxl
lxl
lxl
lxl
IXI
El
Ix]
5 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d)
4
f)
g)
h)
9
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11)
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-I - 5.2-l 1) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5.2-l 1)
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-
1 - 5.3-12) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a)
b)
cl
4
4
f)
8)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7-22, # 4)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-I - 5.7-22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7-22)
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-l - 5.4-24, #5)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24, #5)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l :Pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24, #5)
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q
0
q
q
q
IXI
q
q
q
lzl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated q
0
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
lxl
q
q
No
Impact
El
Ix1
IXI
IXI
lxl
El
q
lxl
Ix)
lxl
q
IXI
lzl
lxl
IXI
IXI
El
q
lxl
El
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
e)
VIII.
4
b)
4
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24, #5) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#I :Pgs 5.4- 1
- 5.4-24, #5)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-I - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
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
& 5.13-l - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
4
d)
4
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-I - 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
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-l - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
e) Other govermnental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
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)
Potentially Significant Impact
q
0
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q
q
q
SignifiCaA Unless Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q
q
0
Less Than
Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El
q q cl q
q
q
No Impact
lz
lxl
Ia
lxl
lxl
El
lxl
lxl
IXI
El
lxl
q
la lxl lxl lxl
lxl
Ix1
7 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
d
4
4
0
8)
XIII.
a)
b)
c)
XIV.
a)
b)
4
4
e)
Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#I :Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-l - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.1 l-5) Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect?
(#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) Createlightorglare?(#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
1QJ Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8- 10, #6)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10, #6)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 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% 1 -
5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
Potentially Significanf
Impact
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant Impact
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
No Impact
El
IXI
lxl
lxl
lxl
IXI
lxl
lxl
Ix1
El
Ix1
Ix]
Ix]
Ix1
lxl
El
IXI
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
cl
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)
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated q q q lxl
q q q la
Rev. 03128196
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.
Cl 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
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project consists of a 120,000 square foot, three-story, office building with 385 surface and
104 underground parking spaces on 15.69 acres located south and adjacent to Palomar Airport
Road and east of Aviara Parkway. Improvements consist of the extension of Laura1 Tree Lane, a
public road, to cross Encinas Creek within the existing Laura1 Tree Lane private road easement
replacing the existing Laura1 Tree Ln. drainage culvert for Encinas Creek; extend drainage
facilities from Palomar Airport Road to proposed detention basins; frontage improvements on
Palomar Airport Road; and storm water detention basins. The General Plan amendment is to
adjust the boundary of the open space/planned industrial based on environmental and biological
constraints.
The project site is bordered by Palomar Airport Road to the north and to the south by Encinas
Creek. The northern developable portion of the site is relatively flat and has been used for
agricultural purposes. On site elevations range from 100 feet to 106 feet in the low-lying area
and up to 160 feet above MSL on the southern slope. The majority of the site is disturbed
habitat, with native vegetation communities (including southern willow scrub and southern
mixed chaparral) existing along the length of the drainage and on the steep slope along the
southern boundary of the parcel. No sensitive plant or animal species were observed on the site.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
II. 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.
Transportation/Circulation
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. 03/28/96
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.
Biology
The site supports, 2.0 acres of southern mixed chaparral, 0.15 acres of southern willow scrub
(disturbed), 0.3 acre of ephemeral drainage, and 9.15 acres of disturbed habitat. The .02-acre of
freshwater marsh and .15-acre southern willow scrub (disturbed) referenced in the biological
report are located west and downstream of the project site. Of these habitats, 0.2 acre is Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE) jurisdictional wetlands (off-site) and .15 acre is ACOE jurisdictional
non-wetland Waters of the U.S (on-site). In addition, Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game (CDFG)
jurisdictional areas include all ACOE jurisdictional areas as well as an additional 2.3 acres of
riparian habitat (southern willow scrub). Development of the site would only impact disturbed
habitat. The project proposes to avoid direct impacts to all ACOE and CDFG jurisdictional
areas.
A focused survey for the least Bell’s vireo was conducted and it was not observed on the site.
Habitat quality was determined to be of poor quality for the support of the willow flycatcher. A
rare plant survey was conducted for the San Diego thornmint and thread-leaved brodiaea with
none found. No rare plants were observed within the project area proposed for development.
A 50-foot buffer is proposed to extend from the identified riparian habitat. A portion of the
buffer area will be improved with detention basins for the control of pollutant discharge in
accordance with the NPDES best management practices and a decomposed citywide trail along
the outermost portion of the buffer. The trail, with a non-paved but permeable surface, will be
placed in the buffer between the buildings and detention basin. Urban water runoff will be
collected from Palomar Airport Road and the project site and run through the basins prior to
being released into the Encinas Creek. The buffer area will be landscaped with a native mix of
plants to transition from the native to non-native landscaping. All sediment removal/swale
maintenance will be accomplished manually, not using motorized equipment that requires
placement in the buffer or wetlands.
13 Rev. 03128196
Mitigation
The focused surveys for the least Bell’s vireo are typically valid for two seasons, with the
projects surveys therefore applicable to at least the year 2001. If the project grading were
completed prior to April 1,2002, no additional surveys or mitigation would be recommended. If
the project grading activities were expected to extend beyond the beginning of the 2002 breading
season, the project applicant shall consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife service
(USFWS) prior to commencing grading to determine if additional surveys or mitigation would be
necessary.
Prior to grading plan approval, areas of the site to be preserved in their existing condition shall be
clearly demarcated on the grading plans to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and Public
Works Director. A habitat protection fence detail approved by the Planning Director and Public
Works Director shall be included on the grading plan along with the location for its installation.
These areas shall be fenced in the field by a qualified biologist who shall also submit to the
Planning Director a letter attesting to the accuracy of the fencing location prior to the issuance of
the grading permit.
To minimize indirect impacts to the Encinas Creek, the proposed 50-foot setback shall be
revegetated using native upland plant species. This shall be included in the final landscape plans
for the project that must be approved prior to the approval of a grading plan. Review and
approval of the landscape plans for the buffer area by the USFWS is required prior to grading
plan approval.
All sediment removal/swale maintenance will be accomplished manually, not using motorized
equipment that requires placement in the buffer or wetlands.
The citywide pedestrian trail, with a non-paved but permeable surface, will be placed in the
northern portion of the buffer between the building and detention basin.
An exterior lighting plan, including parking areas, shall be submitted for Planning Director
approval prior to building permit issuance. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward
and avoid any impacts to adjacent habitat areas and homes. The maximum height of all fixtures
shall not exceed 30 feet.
Noise
The majority of the site is located within the 65 to 70 decibel Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL) noise contours identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palomar
Airport with an area on the northerly portion of the property being within the 70 to 75 CNEL
noise contour. No development that would be affected by noise will be placed within the 70 to
75 CNEL area. Office buildings are listed on the airport Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix
as a conditionally compatible in the 65 to 70 decibel CNEL noise level with the following
mitigation measures:
1. The proposed office building shall be noise attenuated to an interior level of 50
decibels CNEL based on an acoustical study submitted along with the building
plans. Concurrent with the submittal of building plans, the applicant shall submit
an acoustical study documenting what construction materials or measures must be
utilized to meet required interior noise levels. A letter signed by the acoustical
engineer and the project architect which contains the architects registration stamp
14 Rev. 03128196
2.
and certifies that the recommendations of the acoustical study have been
incorporated into the building plans shall be submitted to the Planning Director
prior to building permit issuance.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall prepare and record a
Notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the existing
Palomar Airport Road Transportation Corridor, in a form meeting the approval of
the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #l on file in the
Planning Department).
3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall prepare and record a
Notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft
operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the
Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the
Planning Department).
4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall record an Avigation
Easement for the property to the County of San Diego and file a copy of the
recorded document with the Planning Director.
III. 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) 602-4600.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Final Master Environmental Impact Renort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
Geotechnical Investigation, Pacifica Carlsbad, California, Geocon Incorporated, February
7,200l.
Preliminarv Drainage Studv for Pacifica Carlsbad, Carlsbad, California, Shapouri and
Associates, dated April 2001.
Transportation Analysis for Pacifica Palomar, Urban Systems Associates, Inc., dated
April 13,200l.
Biological Conditions and Constraints at the Pacific Entermises Site, Helix
Environmental Planning, Inc. dated March 13,200l
Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Pacifica Carlsbad Prone&v, Carlsbad,
California, Gallegos & Associates, dated April 2000
15 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Prior to commencing grading, the project applicant shall consult with the United States
Fish and Wildlife service (USFWS), if the project grading activities are expected to
extend beyond the beginning of the least Bell’s vireo 2002 breading season, to determine
if additional least Bell’s vireo surveys or mitigation would be necessary. If the project
grading were completed prior to April 1, 2002, no additional least Bell’s vireo surveys or
mitigation would be recommended.
Prior to grading plan approval, areas of the site to be preserved in their existing condition
shall be clearly demarcated on the grading plans to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director and Public Works Director. A habitat protection fence detail approved by the
Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be included on the grading plan along
with the location for its installation. These areas shall be fenced in the field by a qualified
biologist who shall also submit to the Planning Director a letter attesting to the accuracy
of the fencing location prior to the issuance of the grading permit.
To minimize indirect impacts to the Encinas Creek, the proposed 50-foot setback shall be
revegetated using native upland plant species. This shall be included in the final
landscape plans for the project that must be approved prior to the approval of a grading
plan. Review and approval of the landscape plans for the buffer area by the USFWS is
required prior to grading plan approval.
An exterior lighting plan, including parking areas, shall be submitted for Planning
Director approval prior to building permit issuance. All lighting shall be designed to
reflect downward and avoid any impacts to adjacent habitat areas and homes. The
maximum height of all fixtures shall not exceed 30 feet.
The proposed office building shall be noise attenuated to an interior level of 50 decibels
CNEL based on an acoustical study submitted along with the building plans. Concurrent
with the submittal of building plans, the applicant shall submit an acoustical study
documenting what construction materials or measures must be utilized to meet required
interior noise levels. A letter signed by the acoustical engineer and the project architect
which contains the architects registration stamp and certifies that the recommendations of
the acoustical study have been incorporated into the building plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Director prior to building permit issuance.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice
that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the existing Palomar Airport
Road Transportation Corridor, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director
and City Attorney (see Noise Form #l on file in the Planning Department).
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice
that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from
McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and
the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall record an Avigation Easement
for the property to the County of San Diego and tile a copy of the recorded document
with the Planning Director.
16 Rev. 03128196
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
See attached
17 Rev. 03/28/96
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASUREiS AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date / /
18 Rev. 03128196
ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GPA Ol-
05 - PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE BUILDING
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior
to the filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994
MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although
the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its
adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed
circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in
the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no
new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the
time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later
projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 1
E e E ii !J .- P
E+j8 CO= oisz! ‘g u 0
3 3 e iti m P ‘C 0 .E s E
$ 0 B 2
B
t
aiP
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 1
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 1