HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 57431
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. 5743
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW
THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE
BUILDINGS ON A SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF FARADAY AVENUE AND EAST OF EL
MENT ZONE 5.
CAMINO REAL WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGE-
CASENAME: CARLSBAD CORPORATE CENTER -
PARCEL C
CASE NO.: SDP 97-08(B)/SUP 97-05(B)
WHEREAS, H. G. Fenton Company, “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by H. G. Fenton Company/
Fenton Carlsbad LLC, “Owner,” described as
Parcel C of Minor Subdivision No. 98-11 in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Parcel Map No. 18416, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on January 26,2000 as File No.
2000-39031 of official records
(“the property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 6th day of October 2004, 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
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
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
ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, Exhibit “MND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated July
30, 2004, and “PII” dated July 12, 2004, attached hereto and 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 the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project, and any comments
thereon prior to APPROVAL of the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of SDP 97-08(B) and SUP 97-05@) and
is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5744 and
5745 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference.
3. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and (b) City’s
approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary,
in connection with the use contemplated herein. This obligation survives until all legal
proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not
validated.
...
PC RES0 NO. 5743 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2c
25
28
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that the approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of October 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Cardosa, Dominguez,
Montgomery, and Segall
NOES:
ABSENT: Chairperson Whitton and Commissioner Heineman
ABSTAIN:
C- PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HMZMKLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5743 -3-
c
City of Carlsbad
(P- MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Carlsbad Coruorate Center - Parcel C
East of El Camino Real, between Orion Drive and Faraday Avenue (APN 209-
SDP 97-08(B)/ SUP 97-05(B)
050-32)
Request for approval of a Site Development Plan amendment and a Special Use
Permit amendment for the development of four industriaVoffice buildings on Parcel C of the Carlsbad Corporate
Center. The subiect site is located on the east side of El Camino Real, north of Orion Drive and south of Faraday
Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad. SDP 97-08 was previously approved in 1997 to allow the development of one
industrial building with 166,884 square feet on the subiect site. This proposed amendment is now requesting 3
one-story buildinps and 1 two-story buildinp on the same site with less area than was previously approved. The
new proposed area will be a total of 105,609 square feet. The site is currently vacant but was previously graded.
Land uses surrounding the subiect site include El Camino Real to the west, Federal Express warehouse and
distribution facility and other industrial buildings to the north. east and south. Environmental impacts for the
proposed proiect were previously analmed in the Negative Declaration adopted for SDP 97-08/SUP 97-05 in
1997.
DETERMINATION: 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 (EL4 Part
2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
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.
The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one
potentially significant impact 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. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained
to be addressed).
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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVLRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
October 6, 2004, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 5743
IbM- MICIYAEL J. HOLZM~LER ”
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
PROJECT LOCATION:
Carlsbad Corporate Center - Parcel C
East of El Camino Real, between Orion Drive and Faraday Avenue
CASE NO: SDP 97-08(B)/ SUP 97-05(B)
/APN 209-050-32)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Site Development Plan amendment and a
Special Use Permit amendment for the development of four industrial/office buildings on Parcel C of the
Carlsbad Corporate Center. The subject site is located on the east side of El Camino Real, north of Orion
Drive and south of Faraday Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad. SDP 97-08 was previously approved in
1997 to allow the development of one industrial building with 166,884 square feet on the subject site.
This proposed amendment is now requesting 3 one-story buildings and 1 two-story building on the same
site with less area than was previously approved. The new proposed area will be a total of 105,609
square feet. The site is currently vacant but was previously graded. Land uses surrounding the subject
site include El Camino Real to the west, Federal Express warehouse and distribution facility and other
industrial buildings to the north, east and south. Environmental impacts for the proposed project were
previously analyzed in the Negative Declaration adopted for SDP 97-08/SUP 97-05 in 1997.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: 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 (EL4 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 will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EL4 Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration are 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 the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by
the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued
when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Saima Qureshy in the
Planning Department at (760) 602-4619.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD JULY 30,2004 TO AUGUST 30,2004
PUBLISH DATE JULY 30,2004
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 97-08(B)/ SUP 97-05(B)
DATE: Julv 12,2004
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: Carlsbad Corporate Center - Parcel C
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Saima Qureshv - (760) 602-4619
PROJECT LOCATION: East of El Camino Real, between Orion Drive and Faraday Avenue
(APN 209-050-32)
PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS:
Drive, San Diego, CA 92 108
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: P-I (Planned Industrial)
ZONING: M-Q (Industrial - Qualified Development Overlay Zone)
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements):
PROJECT DESCRPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SE'ITING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
H.G. Fenton Company, 7588 Metropolitan
Request for approval of a Site Development Plan amendment and a Special Use Permit amendment for
the development of four industriaVoffice buildings on Parcel C of the Carlsbad Corporate Center. The
subiect site is located on the east side of El Camino Real, north of Orion Drive and south of Faraday
Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad. SDP 97-08 was previouslv approved in 1997 to allow the development
of one industrial building with 166,884 square feet on the subject site. This proposed amendment is now
requesting 3 one-story buildings and 1 two-story building on the same site with less area than was
previously approved. The new proposed area will be a total of 105,609 square feet. The site is currently
vacant but was previously paded. Land uses surrounding the subject site include El Camino Real to the
west, Federal Express warehouse and distribution facility and other industrial buildings to the north, east
and south. Environmental impacts for the proposed project were previously analyzed in the Negative
Declaration adopted for SDP 97-O8/SUP 97-05 in 1997.
1 Rev. 07/03/02
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 Aesthetics u Geology/Soils u Noise
0 Agricultural Resources 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials and Housing
c] Air Quality 0 HydrologyAVater Quality 0 Public Services
0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources TransportatiodCirculation
0 Utilities & Service Systems u Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
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 MITIGATED 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 “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 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.
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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
Planner Signature Date
.
Planning DireckdSignadd Date I I 1
3 Rev. 07/03/02
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 op project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, 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 significantly
adverse.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but potentially significant adverse 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.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse 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 adverse effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse 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.
4 Rev. 07lQ3lO2
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse 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 adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse 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.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant No Impact Impact
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0
0
BO ow b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
0 0 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? OB
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
0 0 IXIO
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model- 1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
cl
0 0 OB
OB
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
0 0
111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
0 OB a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
IXIU b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially Significant
Impact
0 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 0
0 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
0 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or US. Fish and Wildlife Service?
0 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
0 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
0
0
0
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
f)
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 IXIO
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
OIXI
OIXI
om
OB
om
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Q 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
Q 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale
ontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
0 0 ow
0 0 05
0 om
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 05
0 OIXI
0 OIXI
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially Significant Impact
0
17
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 OM
17
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
OIXI
OM
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially Significant Impact
0 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e,, the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level whch would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
0
0
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
0 e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
0 o g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal FIood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
0 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
0 j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
0
0
k)
1)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters. o m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 ow
0 ON
0 OIX]
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXIO
OIXI
OIXI wo
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 0
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
0 0 IXI 0
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
0 w
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 0
0 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal prograrq or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
0 0 0 IXI c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) 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?
0 0 0
0
IXI
ixI 0 0 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
0 0 wo
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
0 ow
IXIO c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
0
0
IXIO d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 [XI0
0 0
0
0 0
OIX]
OIXI
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
13
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Significant No [ncorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 OB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
om
om
om
om
om
om
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. 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 cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0
0
0
0
0
0
OIXI
OIXI
OB
IXIU
IXIU
XVIII. 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 fkom 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.
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.
14 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request for approval of a Site Development Plan amendment and a Special Use Permit amendment for
the development of four industrial/office buildings on Parcel C of the Carlsbad Corporate Center. The
subject site is located on the east side of El Camino Real, north of Orion Drive and south of Faraday
Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad. SDP 97-08 was previously approved in 1997 to allow the development
of one industrial building with 166,884 square feet on the subject site. This proposed amendment is now
requesting 3 one-story buildings and 1 two-story building on the same site with less area than was
previously approved. The new proposed area will be a total of 105,609 square feet. The site is currently
vacant but graded. Land uses surrounding the subject site include El Camino Real to the west, Federal
Express warehouse and distribution facility and other industrial buildings to the north, east and south.
Environmental impacts for the proposed project have been previously analyzed in the Negative
Declaration previously adopted for SDP 97-08/SUP 97-05 in 1997.
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. The subject site is located along El Camino Real, which is designated as a scenic
corridor. The design of the proposed project is consistent with the El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards, which regulates aesthetics of the corridor. The design features included in the project will substantially
reduce the project visual effects to a level considered less than significant.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
No Impact (b&c) - The proposed project will cause changes in visual character in that the current use of the subject
site is vacant which will change to a developed site. The overall project design seeks to enhance the visual character
of the area through implementation of a consistent architectural theme which will enhance and connect the project
with surrounding land uses.
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in the introduction of new sources of light and
glare into the project area. However, impacts involving the creation of light or glare would be less than significant
as there are no existing land uses that would be significantly or adversely affected by project lighting or glare.
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. There will be no impacts on agricultural resources due to the proposed project as the site is not
designated as or used as farmland. The subject site is zoned for Industrial (M) and is not subject to Williamson Act
Contract. The project would not result in other changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of
farmland to non-agricultural uses. The project would be characterized as infill development and has been
surrounded by industrial development for many years.
15 Rev. 07/03/02
111. AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area
for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
(PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution
controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is
embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the
County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms to the RAQS which include the
following:
0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being
implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan, Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no
way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Less than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of
Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality
violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in
2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates
in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized
through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust
control. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such
emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment
and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be
minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the
violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality
readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as
less than significant.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
16 Rev. 07/03/02
Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine
particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net
increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the
proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project,
air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the
CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered
de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or
concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the
project. No impact is assessed.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction
equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or
transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
No Impact. The subject site is an infill site which is currently vacant and was previously graded. The site is
surrounded by industrial development and El Camino Real. No riparian, aquatic, or wetland habitat is present on the
site. No habitat under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and
Game, or the Regional Water Quality Control Board would be impacted. There are no wildlife corridors or habitat
linkages on the project site. The proposed project would not conflict with any HCP, NCCP, or other approved
habitat conservation plan, or local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. It is not within the
boundaries of or adjacent to any pre-approved mitigation areas, hardline areas, or standards areas identified in the
City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in $15064.5?
17 Rev. 07/03/02
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact. The subject site is an infill site which is currently graded and is surrounded by industrial development.
There will be no impacts on cultural resources. There are no known historical, archeological, paleontological, or
human remains on the project site.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury
or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
No Impact. Ground rupture generally is considered to occur along pre-existing fault strands. Since no active faults
have been mapped on the site or in the vicinity of the project site, ground rupture on-site is considered unlikely.
Therefore there will be no impacts involving ground rupture.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii.
iv. Landslides?
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact (aii-aiv.) - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of
Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. However there are
several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The
project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of seimic-realted ground failure or liquefaction
is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November
1992).
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact. The project’s compliance with standards in the City’s Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent
erosion through slope planting and installation of temporary erosion control means will avoid substantial soil erosion
impacts.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
No Impact. Portions of the project site would be located on undocumented fill consisting of soft silty clay and very
loose clay sand, varying in thickness from 2.5 to 6 feet. The project would comply with recommendations contained
in the geotechnical investigation prepared by Geocon, Inc. for the project, which call for the removal and
compaction of the undocumented fill. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
No Impact. The project would be located on soil deposits considered to be moderate to highly expansive. The
geotechnical investigation prepared for the project has identified special foundation design recommendation and
pavement sections, which will be incorporated into the project design. No impact would occur.
18 Rev. 07/03/02
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will use public sewer system. Therefore there
will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS-Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public
or environment?
No Impact (a-d). Based on the nature of the land use, there is no routine transport or use of disposal of hazardous
materials associated with office building other associated uses proposed. Therefore, there is no potential of a
significant hazard associated with the project from accidents involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment, or from the emission of hazardous substances within the proximity of a school.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The project site is located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area. The mfluence area
encompasses those areas adjacent to airports which could be impaired by noise levels exceeding the California State
Noise Standards or where height restrictions would be needed to prevent obstructions to navigate airspace as
outlined in Federal Aviation Administration regulations. The proposed project’s consistency with the CLUP was
previously analyzed when the Carlsbad Corporate Center was approved. There are no changes in the proposed use
or CLUP which would require a new consistency analysis. Thus the proposed project would not result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore will not result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires,
including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wild lands?
No Impact (g-h). The project will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with any adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation since the project site is surrounded by urban development which
is adequately served by emergency services.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
No Impact. The applicant is required to comply with Order 2001-02 issued by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. A Storm Water Management Plan for the project was prepared by REC Consultants, Inc. to address existing
19 Rev. 07/03/02
and proposed pollutants of concern and what measures will be implemented to ensure that pollutant loads are not
increased as a result of this project, to the maximum extent practicable.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
No Impact. The project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater for potable or irrigation use. The
project will be served via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site.
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
No Impact. The project is required to implement measures to reduce urban pollutants prior to discharge, thus
groundwater quality will not be affected by this project.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
No Impact. The proposed project does not propose to alter existing drainage patterns, nor any stream or river that
would result in erosion or siltation on or offsite.
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will change land use of the site from vacant to
industrialloffice buildings. The developed site will have a drainage pattern different from the existing use. The
project is required to comply with Order 2001-02 of Regional Water Quality Control Board.
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
No Impact. The existing storm drain system will adequately convey runoff from the subject site. Since this project
maintains peak runoff to predevelopment flows, there is no additional impact to consider. Compliance with NPDES
requirements ensure that the off-site flow does not increase pollutant discharges.
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. As a result of the project 1) Implementing source BMP measures to avoid pollutant
contact and; 2) Installing treatment BMP measures to remove pollutants from storm water, the proposed project is
not anticipated to contribute additional pollutants, to the maximum extent practicable.
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
No Impact. The proposed project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map. Therefore there will be no impacts
regarding flooding.
i)
No Impact. The proposed project would not place structures withm 100-year flood hazard areas. Therefore there
will be no impacts from flooding.
Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
20 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact (j & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation, or area subject to inundation by
seiche or tsumani.
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters?
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic
organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other
alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following
construction?
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
PI The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
Less Than Significant Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project is not located immediately adjacent to any body of
water. The project will be required to comply with Order 2001-01 and the Storm Water Management Plan for this
project. Drainage and development will be controlled via best management practices to ensure that pollutant loads
are not increased to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact water quality.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact (a-c) - The project site is surrounded by development on all sides, including El Camino Real to the west
and other industrial and office buildings to the north, south and west. The proposed development of the site will be
compatible with and will integrate into the existing land uses. The project is consistent with the property’s General
Plan designation of PI (Planned Industrial) and Zoning designation of M-Q (Industrial - Qualified Development
Overlay Zone).
X. MINERAL, RESOURCES
No Impact. There are no known mineral resources, of local importance or otherwise, on the project site. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of such resources.
XI. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project is for the development of four industrial buildings, which are
not anticipated to result in noise levels in excess of established standards. Construction of the project would be
limited to the hours identified in Section 8.48.010 of the City’s Municipal Code and would not result in noise
impacts. Once the project is developed, ambient noise levels would be slightly increased due to the traffic associated
with the project. The impact would be less than significant. The project is conditioned to submit a detailed noise
study to show that interior noise level will not exceed 45dB CNEL.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
21 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact. Based upon the nature of the proposed industrial/office use, the project will not result in any activity
that would generate excessive groudbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels. In addition, the project site is
not located adjacent to any use that generates excessive groundbourne vibrations or groudbourne noise levels.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact (c & d) - Other than traffic generated noise, typical industrialloffice land use does
not generate a Substantial amount of noise. With regard to temporary or periodic increase in noise levels, the only
potential increase in noise would be from construction activity associated with the development of the project. The
City incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to ensure that noise and other potential
impacts to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a Substantial
permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise level in the project vicinity.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area.
The influence area encompasses those areas adjacent to airports which could be impaired by noise level exceeding
the California State Noise Standards or where height restrictions would be needed to prevent obstructions to
navigable airspace as outlined in Federal Aviation Administration regulations. The proposed project lies outside the
noise contours of the airport. Therefore the project is compatible with the CLUP.
r) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore will not expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
No Impact (a-c). The project would result in the development of office buildings, surrounded by other offices and
industrial development therefore, the project would not induce Substantial growth either directly or indirectly. The
project is proposed on a vacant lot and would not displace any existing housing or individuals.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
No Impact. The proposed project is located in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. The provision of public
facilities within the Zone 5 LFMP, including fire & police protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities,
have been planned to accommodate the projected growth in that area. Because the project will not exceed the total
growth projections anticipated within the Zone 5 LFMP, all public facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed
development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in Substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need
for additional government facilities.
XIV. RECREATION
No Impact (a and b). Since the area is non residential there is limited demand for recreational facilities. The
project will be assed a fee of $00.40 a square foot according to City guidelines to mitigate for the use of recreational
facilities by employees and visitors. The project does not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
facilities such that Substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Nor does the
22 Rev. 07/03/02
project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The previously approved project for the subject site,
SDP 97-08 analyzed the project for 1,335 ADT. The proposed project is expected to generate a total of 1,189 ADT,
which is less than previously analyzed and approved ADT for the subject site.
The project is served by El Camino Real and Faraday Avenue. The City has identified the need for a westbound to
northbound right-turn-only lane at the intersection of El Camino Real and Faraday Avenue. The proposed project
would contribute 36 vehicles per hour (VPH), or 1.99%, to the right-turn-only lane. The project would contribute its
fair-share to the costs of constructing the right-turn-only lane, and would not cause an increase in traffic that is
substantial in relation to existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed
project are, therefore, less than significant.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated
three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad
as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS
on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Rancho Santa Fe Road
El Camino Real
Palomar Airport Road
SR 78
1-5
Existing ADT* rn Buildout ADT*
17-35 “A-D” 35-56
27-49 “A-C” 33-62
10-57 “A-D” 30-73
124-142 “F’ 156-180
“D” 260-272 199-2 16
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if
that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated
roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS.
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community
plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the
buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes
implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and
highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-
term and at buildout.
As mentioned above the City has identified the need for a westbound to northbound right---only lane at the
intersection of El Camino Real and Faraday Avenue. The proposed project would contribute 36 vehicles per hour
(WH), or 1.99%, to the right-turn-only lane and would contribute its fair-share to the costs of constructing the right-
--only lane. The project would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for roads or highways. Impacts from the proposed project
are less than significant.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. Although the project lies within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Plan it does not include any
aviation components. Therefore it will not result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety
risks.
23 Rev. 07/03/02
4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore,
would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police
Departments.
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply
with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. The proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS-Would the project:
No Impact (a-g) - The proposed project development will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality
Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 5 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed
with industriaVoffice use thus wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate future
development on the site. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater facilities, wastewater treatment
facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the
City at build-out. The proposed project will increase the demand for theses facilities. However, the proposed
project would not result in an overall increase in the City’s growth projection. Therefore, the project will not result
in development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilitieshpplies, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage facilities.
Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed development on site without exceeding landfill
capacity. In addition, the proposed development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statues
and regulations related to solid waste.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause 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 or
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment. The project
site does not contain any fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species.
The project site is currently vacant and is surrounded by existing industrial development. The site is not identified
by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal community. The
project will not threaten the number of a plant or animal community. In addition, there are no historic structures on
the site and there are no known cultural resources on the site. The project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California History or prehistory, a
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?)
24 Rev. 07/03/02
Less Than Significant Impact. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for
the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections.
Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards,
habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of
development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region
wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage
standard, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure
that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively
considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described above, the project would
contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described
above, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented.
The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino
Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system.
The CMA had determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated
roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent
with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impacts kom the project to the regional circulation
system are less than significant.
With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure
that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable impacts.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. Based upon the industriaUoffice nature of the project and the fact that future
development of the site will comply with all City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect
substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. Any future commercial development on the site will be
required to comply will all applicable federal, state, regional and City regulations, which will ensure the
development of the site will not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
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.
1. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapuing Study, November, 1992.
2. Citv of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the Citv of Carlsbad, December,
1999.
3. Comprehensive Land Use Plan McClellan-Palomar Aimort Carlsbad, California, SANDAG, April, 1994.
4. Storm Water Management Plan, REC Consultants, Inc., May 2004.
5. Negative Declaration and EIA Part 11 - SDP 97-O8/SUP 97-05, October 1997.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
1. The applicant shall pay its fair-share to the costs of constructing the right-turn-only lane at the westbound to
northbound right-turn-only lane at the intersection of El Camino Real and Faraday Avenue.
25 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
26 Rev. 07/03/02
1
PROJECT NAME: Carls bad Corporate Center Parcel “C” FILE NUMBERS: SOP 97-08(B)/SUP 97-05(6)
APPROVAL DATE: August 6,2004
Monitoring
Type Mitigation Measure
The applicant shall pay its fair-share to the costs of
constructing the right-turn-only lane at the westbound
to northbound right-turn-only lane at the intersection of
El Camino Real and Faraday Avenue.
Remarks Shown on Verified Monitoring
Department Plans Implementation
Engineering N/A
Dept.
Explanation of Headinas:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remalks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.