HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 5817Approved by City Council Resolution 2005-060, March 8, 2005
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Carlsbad Office Campus
PROJECT LOCATION:
CASE NO: CT 02-12/CDP 02-3 l/PIP02-04/PuD02-05
West Side of Avenida Encinas Between Cannon Road and Palomar
Airport Road OWN - 2 10-090-50)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map. Coastal
Development Permit, Planned Industrial Permit and Non-Residential Planned Development Permit
for the development of 276,900 square feet of office space along with an 82,170 square foot two
level parking structure. The project site is 12.71 acres in size and the new office campus will
consist of four 3-storv buildings, located around a central landscaped courtyard to create a campus
like atmosphere. A total of 1.1 12 parkinp spaces will be provided, one half of which will be located
in the two-level parking structure.
The subject site is located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, south of Cannon Road and north of
Palomar Airport Road. The subject site is currently develoued as the Floral Trade Center, a
wholesale flower sales operation. The existing building; will be demolished. Land uses surrounding
the subject site include IndustriaVoffices to the north and south, 1-5 to the east and the railroad
tracks and open space to the west.
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 (EIA 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.
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: March 8,2005, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2005-064
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
@ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
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
I DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5817
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 DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 154,000 SQUARE
FOOT BUILDING AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR
OFFICE BUILDINGS AND A PARKING STRUCTURE ON A
12.71 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCINAS, EAST OF CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD, NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND
SOUTH OF CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 3.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS
CASE NO.: CT 02-12/CDP 02-3 l/PUD 02-05/PIP 02-04
WHEREAS, Carlmart, LP, as “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
All that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 16274, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County
on October 26,1990
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of January 2005,
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
October 4,2004, and “PII” dated June 24,2004, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinps :
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a.
b.
C.
d.
Conditions:
it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Carlsbad Office Campus - CT 02-12/CDP 02-31PUD 02-05PIP 02-04 the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments
thereon, and the Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to
ADOPTING the project; and
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Program have 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
they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission, finds
that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on
the environment.
Note:
1.
2.
Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of
building permits, grading permit or approval of a final map, whichever occurs first.
Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Carlsbad Office Campus
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemniQ, 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, (b) City’s approval
or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation
and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all
liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions.
PC RES0 NO. 5817 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. This approval is granted subject to the approval of CT 02-12, CDP 02-31, PUD 02-05
and PIP 02-04 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 5818, 5819, 5820 and 5821 for those other approvals incorporated
herein by reference.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that 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 fees/exactions
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 feedexactions 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 19th day of January 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker and Heineman
NOES: Commissioners Dominguez, Montgomery and Whitton
ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa
ABSTAIN:
JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5817 -3-
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Carlsbad Office Campus
PROJECT LOCATION:
CASE NO: CT 02-1YCDP 02-3 l/PIP02-04/PuD02-05
West Side of Avenida Encinas Between Cannon Road and Palomar
Airport Road (APN - 210-090-50)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development
Permit. Planned Industrial Permit and Non-Residential Planned Development Permit for the development
of 276,900 square feet of office space along with an 82,170 square foot two level parking structure. The
proiect site is 12.71 acres in size and the new office campus will consist of four 3-story buildings, located
around a central landscaped courtyard to create a campus like atmosphere. A total of 1.1 12 parking
spaces will be provided, one half of which will be located in the two-level parking structure.
The subiect site is located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, south of Cannon Road and north of
Palomar Airport Road. The subject site is currently developed as the Floral Trade Center, a wholesale
flower sales operation. The existing building will be demolished. Land uses surrounding the subject site
include Industrial/offices to the north and south, 1-5 to the east and the railroad tracks and open space to
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 (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 will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EIA 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 OCTOBER 4,2004 THROUGH NOVEMBER 3,2004
PUBLISH DATE OCTOBER 4,2004
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ January 30,2003
ENDONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 02-12KDP 02-3 ZPIP 02-04PUD 02-05
DATE: June 24,2004
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Office Campus
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
CA 92008
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Saima Oureshv - (760) 602-461 9
4. PROJECT LOCATION: 5600 Avenida Encinas, west side of Avenida Encinas. south of Cannon
Road and north of Palomar Airport Road (APN 210-090-50)
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Carlmart. L.P., 5600 Avenida Encinas. Suite
100, Carlsbad, CA 92008
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: P-I Planned Industrial)
7. ZONING: P-M (Planned Industrial)
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements):
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROdDING LAW
USES:
9.
Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, Planned Industrial Permit
and Non-Residential Planned Development Permit for the development of 276.900 square feet of office
space along with an 82,170 square foot two level parking sbkture. The proiect site is 12.71 acres in size
and the new office campus will consist of four 3-story buildings, located around a central landscaped
courtyard to create a campus like atmomhere. A total of 1,112 parlcing spaces will be provided, one half
of which will be located in the two-level parking structure.
The subiect site is located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, south of Cannon Road and north of
Palomar Aimort Road. The subiect site is currently developed as the Floral Trade Center, a wholesale
flower sales operation. The existing building will be demolished. Land uses surrounding the subject site
include Industrial/offices to the north and south, 1-5 to the east and the railroad tracks and open space to
the west.
1 Rev. OliQ3JO2
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 Geology/soils Noise
0 Agricultural Resources Hazards/Hazardous Materials Popu1ation and Housing
0 Air Quality HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Skrvices
c] Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Recreation
Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation
utilities & Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of
Significance
i
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
17
cl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT h
NEGATIVE DECLAUTION will be prepared.
ve a si@icant effect n the environment, and a
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 signifkant 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 rewin to be addressed.
I frnd that although the proposed project could have a signficant 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.
\T - Planner Signature Date
3 Rev. QllO3lQ2
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 si,g6ficant 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 ‘To Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact sunply does not apply to
projects lrke 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 Sigdicant 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 Sigmficant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Si,onificant Impact” to a “Less Than Si,gnificant 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 si,@ficant level.
“Potentially Sidicant *act” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is sigmfkantly
adverse.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, 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, inchding revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumjances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures requlred 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 si,onificant 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 thls case, the appropriate “Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
4 Rev. 07/03/02
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circktances: (1) the potentiaIly 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 sigmficant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier Em, (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the
Em-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 si&icant 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 sign5cant.
5
/
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
..
Potentially
Significant Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not kted to, trees, rock outcroppings, and hlstoric
buildings wih a State scenic hghway?
17
0
cl 0
0 0
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundmgs?
Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
d)
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are siwcant
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 Mpacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
0 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?
0 0 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
0 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?
JII. 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 0 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Less Than Significant No Impact Impact .
om
171x1
/
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Iv. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for whxh the project region ii
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions whch exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modfications, 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
cornunity 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?
Confhct 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?
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
cl
0
0
Po ten tially Significant
Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact
0
0
0 0
0 0
NO hnpact
Ixl
IXI
I8
0 cl
El
IXI
El --
a
IXI
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
..
Potentially
Significant Unless .
Mitigation Incorporated
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
sigmficance of a historical resource as defined in
Q 15064.5?
0 0
CI 0 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
sigmficance of an archeological resource pursuant to
Q 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale
ontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
IXI
0 cl 0 d) Disturb any human remains, inclulng those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1x1
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 invohing:
17 i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
deheated 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? CI
0 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
0
0
0
IXI
0
n.
N- b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
0 0 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?
nu 0 d) 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?
,8 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ2
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?
W. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
dsposal 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
with 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 si,gificant hazard to the public or
environment?
For a project withm 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 worlung 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 si,gLificant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
includmg where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
VLU. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially Significant Impact
0
cl
0
0
0
El
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant [ncorporated Impact
0
17
El
.w 0
0 0
0 0
0
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Potentially
Significant .-
Impact
0 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 (ie., 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)?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattein of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a mamer, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
0
0
cl 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 woufd result in floodmg on- or off-
site?
0 Create or contribute nmoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runof€?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
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?
Place with 100-year flood hazard area structures,
whch would impede or redirect flood flows? 0
0 Expose people or structures to a sigmficant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
0 Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
0 Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
0 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)?
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated . Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 0 lxl-
IXI 00
IXI no
IXI 00
/
[XI no
0 ow
0 nw
10 Rev. 01103lO2
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
..
Potentially
Significant Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Sigmficant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
El an n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction?
IXI an 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
IxI nu p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
I,X LANDUSE 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?
0 cl
cl
0 ow c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
X. MIiiRAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) 0 0 nw
0 cl ow
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? /
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:
0 [xi 0’ 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? nw b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
0 El NU c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
0 0 a0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
11 Rev. 01/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Mitigation- Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than Potentially
Significant Impact
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 residmg 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 Aii HOUSING - Would the project:
cl ow a) Induce substantial growth in an area either bectly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other mfrastqcture)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0.
0
ow
ow c) Displace substantial niunbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Xm. 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:
0
0
0 El ow i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection? ow ow iii) Schools?
0 iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
0 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?
12 Rev. .01103102
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. TRNiSPORTATION/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 cumdatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
Resu.lt in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in.substantia1 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 hom existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
01
0
0
El o
17
0
El
Less Than Significant
Impact
[XI
El
0
01
/El
0
0
0
No
Impact
[x1
El
IXI
13 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 landfd 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?
XVn. MAIYDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICAYCE
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 elirmnate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
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, whch
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation ’ Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 OH
0
El
17
0
0 BO
/
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tieririg, 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 fiom the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures, whch were incorporated or refined fiom 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 Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, Planned Industrial Permit
and Non-Residential Planned Development Permit for the development of 276,900 square feet of office
space along with an 82,170 square foot two level parkmg structure. The project site is 12.71 acres in size .
and the new office campus will consist of four 3-story buildings, located around a central landscaped
courtyard to create a campus like atmosphere. A total of 1,112 parking spaces will be provided, one half
of which will be located in the two-level parking structure.
The subject site is located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, south of Cannon Road and north of
Palomar Airport Road. The subject site is currently developed as the Floral Trade Center, a wholesale
flower sales operation. This existing building will be demolished. Land uses surrounding the subject site
include industriaVoffices to the north and south, 1-5 to the east and railroad tracks to the west.
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
4 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. The subject site is located east of the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad which
is designated as “Railroad Corridor” in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Design features and
architectural details are included in the project design to enhance the visual character of the project. Incorporation
of these design features will substantially reduce visual effects of the project 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?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? c)
No Impact (bgLc) - The proposed project will cause change in the visual character in that the current use of the
subject site is a wholesale flower market (Floral Trade Center) which will change to the proposed office campus.
The overall project design with its campus-like setting and enhanced landscaping seeks to’enhance the visual
character of the area. Through the implementation of a consistent architectural and design theme, the project will
enhance and connect the project with surrounding land uses. Features incorporated into the project to reduce
adverse aesthetic -acts include substantial landscaping and architectural detail to soften the visual effects and to
enhance the visual character of the project.
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 (a,b&c). 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 Planned Industrial (P-MJ and is not subject to
Rev. 07/03/02 15
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.
III. 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 (O;), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
(PMIo). 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 wdl 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 (SWAG).
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 andlor 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 speclfic
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 confonns to the RAQE 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) aad 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. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and fiom 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.
16 Rev. 07/03/02
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?
Less Than Significant 1mp.a-ct. 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. Accordmg to the
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a) (4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered
de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than sigmficant.
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 US. 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?
1
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 (a-g) - The subject site is an infill site which is currently developed with a 154,000 square feet buildng
and its associated parlung. The site is surrounded by industrial development and 1-5. A Biological Assessment of
the site was conducted by RECON dated September 1, 2004. Two waterways occur on-site. The entire site slopes
slightly to the west where two culvei-ts convey runoff water into a concrete “V” ditch along the western boundary of
the site. Another waterway occurs as a manmade earthen drainage that conveys runoff water along the northern
boundary of the site.
The concrete ditch runs south to north where it connects with the earthen drainage at the northwestern comer of the
site. The earthen drainage gradually travels north, away from the existing parking lot as it flows west. Although the
source of the water within the earthen drainage was not hrectly located, it appears the water originates as irrigation
17 Rev. 07/03/02
runoff from the flower fields east of 1-5. The water exits the site through two culverts in the northwestern comer of
the site.
Caltrans recently cleared aii the vegetation within the drainage along the northern boundary of the site as part of
regular maintenance program to prevent or reduce ponding and flooding hazards within roadside drainages adjacent
to 1-5. Therefore, the drainage is never allowed to become densely vegetated.
The earthen drainage and concrete ditch on-site eventually connect to the Pacific Ocean, via an off-site drainage and
Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The earthen drainage is likely considered a U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (USACE)
jurisdictional water of the US and a California Department of Fish and Game jurisdictional streambed.
The earthen drainage and concrete ditch do not provide any other hctions and value other than conveying runoff
water off-site. The waterways do not provide any habitat for wildlife. The waterways do not provide vegetative
cover for terrestrial wildlife to use for movement, do not connect with or are not located near any wildhfe movement
corridors and are completely isolated by surrounding development. In addition, the waterways do not provide
nesting and foraging habitat for riparian birds.
The subject site is developed with a 154,000 square feet building and its associated surface parking. The existing
development is only 13 feet setback from the earthen drainage. The proposed project will remain within the current
development footprint and will not encroach into any existing undeveloped area. Impacts to the drainage channels
will be further reduced through compliance with the "DES standards by incorporating measures to treat any
potential pollutants of concern prior to runoff leaving the site, such that the potential for pollutants to impact water
quality is minimized. The existing development on-site does not provide any treatment to runoff prior to leaving-the
site.
Due to the above-mentioned facts, it is not recommended that a wider buffer be established along the length of the
earthen drainage.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §13064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological respurce 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 (a-d) - The subject site is an infiil site which is currently developed with a 154,000 square foot industrial
building and its associated parking 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:
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.
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.
18 Rev. Oll03lQ2
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-related ground failure or liquefaction
is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November
1 992).
b)
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.
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A project specific Geotechrucal Investigation was prepared by Leighton and Associates dated April 2, 200 1. The report states that: Shallow ground rapture is possible
but is not considered a significant hazard; Liquefaction is unlikely due to the dense physical characteristics of the
soils encountered during the site investigation; Expected settlements due to seismic events are expected to be
negligible; The susceptibility to earthquake-induced lateral spreading at the site is considered to be low; and due to
the site’s elevation and proximity to open bodies of water, the possibility of site impacts by seiches andor tsunamis
is considered to be negligible. All anticipated geotechnical issues will be reduced to a level less than si,onificant
through compliance with the mitigation measures recommended in the report.
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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A project specific Geotechnica Investigation was
encountered on the site. The soils identified were artificial fill soils, residual soils, Terrace deposits, and Santiago
Formation. The majority of the soils encountered have a low to medium expansion potential. If hghly expansive
soils are encountered during grading operations, construction methods and materials will need to modified to
account for such soils. Geotechnical issues will be reduced to a level less than significant through compliance with =
the mitigation measures recommended in the report.
prepared by Leighton and Associates dated April 2, 2001. The report generally identi i-’ led four soil types
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 utilize the 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?
19 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact (a-c). Based on the nature of the land use, there is no routine transport or use of disposal of hazardous
materials associated with the office campus and other associated uses proposed. Therefore, there is no potential of a
sipficant 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.
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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The subject site is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. A Phase-I Environmental Site Assessment
was conducted by Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants on July 8, 2003. The
study concluded that there is a likelihood that low levels of residual soil and groundwater contamination remain on
site and therefore the applicant should enlist the services of a registered environmental professional to monitor
excavation activities during demolition and construction activities. With this mitigation measure, any potential
impacts are reduced to less than significant.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the McCleIlan-Palomar mort Jhfluence Area.
The influence area encompasses those areas adjacent to airports whch 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 lies outside any
noise contours of the airport. Therefore the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people 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 worlung in the project area.
g) 1 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.
MI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project:
8)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project is required to comply with Order 2001-02
issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A Water Quality Technical Report dated June 2003 was
prepared by K&S Engineering. The report identifies potential pollutants of concern and methods to treat runoff
prior to leaving the site such that the potential for pollutants to impact downstream water quality is minimized to the
maximum extent probable.
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
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 (Le., 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)?
20 Rev. 01/03/02
No Impact. The proposed project is not proposing to use any ground water; therefore there will be no impacts to
depletion of any existing aquifer or ground water table level.
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
No Impact. There will be no qacts to the groundwater quality due to the proposed project because the
groundwater level at the subject site is expected to be we11 below infiltration depths achieved by surface runoff.
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 of€-site?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Preliminary Drainage Study was prepared by K&S
Engineering, dated March 27, 2003. The report identifies pre and post development runoff quantities and
downstream conditions. The report includes mitigation measures to reduce the potential of an increase in erosion or
siltation downstream.
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?
0 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?
Potentially Sigdificant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Preliminary Drainage Study, dated March 27, 2003,
was prepared by K&S Engineering. This report identifies pre and post development runoff quantities and
downstream conditions. The report includes mitigation measures to reduce any increase in runoff due to additional
impervious surfaces.
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Water Quality Technical Report is prepared by K&S
En-oineering, dated June 2003. Ths report identifies potential pollutants of concern and methods to treat runoff prior
to leaving the site such that the potential to impact downstream water quality is minimized to the maximum extent
probable.
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. There is no housing proposed with this project. Therefore there vvlll be no impacts due to 100-year
flood hazard area.
--
0 Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. There are no FEMA 100-year flood hazard areas identified on the project site.
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?
No Impact (j & k). Due to the site’s elevation and proximity to open bodies of water, the possibility of site impacts
by seiches andor tsunamis is considered to be negligible.
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters?
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.&, 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)?
21 Rev 07/03/02
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?
P) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated (l, m, n, o & p) - A Water Quality Techcal Report
dated June 2003 was prepared by K&S Engineering, The report identifies potential pollutants of concern and
methods to treat runoff prior to leaving the site such that the potential for pollutants to impact downstream water
quality is minimized to the maximum extent probable.
IX. LAND USE Aii 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)
No Impact (a-c) - The project site is surrounded by development on three sides, including Avenida Encinas to the
east, light manufacturing/ industrial buildings to the north and south and railroad tracks to the west. The proposed
office development will be compatible with and will integrate into the existing land use pattern. The project is
consistent with the property’s General Plan designation of Planned Industrial (PI) and with the Zoning designation
of Planned Industrial (P-M). The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan.
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
.
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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. An Acoustical Analysis report was prepared for the
proposed project by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. in June 2003. The report indicates that the principal
noise source impacting the project will be 1-5, with additional noise contribution from Avenida Encinas. The project
site will be subject to exterior noise levels of up to 76 &A at the proposed building facades. To achieve interior
noise levels of 50.0 &A, the required structural attenuation would then be 76.0 - 50.0 or 26.0 dBA. This reduction
is easily attainable through specialized glass treatments. Mechanical ventilation and air-condtioning is also
included as part of the project design.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
No Impact. Based upon the nature of the proposed 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?
22 Rev. 07/03/02
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Imp-act (c & d) - Other than traffic generated noise, typical office 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 incoiporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to ensure that noise and other potential
impacts to surrounding properties are not si,@icant. 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?
No Impact. The project site is located with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area. The influence area encompasses those areas adjacent to aiiports 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 of any noise contours of
the airport.
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?
. 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.
‘XI. POPULATION AND HOUSING
No Impact (a-c). The project would result in the development of an office campus surrounded by other industrial
and commercial development therefore, the project would not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly.
The project site is currently developed with the Floral Trade Center, a wholesale flower market and hence the
proposed project would not displace any existing housing or indwiduals.
XIXI. 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 Zone 3 of Local Facilities Management Plan. The provision of
public facilities within the Zone 3 LFMP, including fxe & 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 3 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). The proposed project is in Park District 1 NW quad. 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
guidehes 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 project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expmion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in trafik that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system?
23 Rev. 07/03/02
Less Than Significant Impact. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by RBF Consulting dated November 24,
2003 for the proposed project. The analysis was revised dated June 16, 2004. The report states that the proposed
project will generate approximately 2,550 net new trips per day. The addition of the project generated trips to the
existing con&tions volumes is not forecast to result in a change in LOS &om acceptable to unacceptable at any of
the study intersections or along any study roadway segment. While the increase in traffic fiom the proposed project.
may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic fiom the project
and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase
in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts fiom
the proposed project are, therefore, less than sigmfrcant.
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:
Existine ADT* - LOS Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 ‘‘A-D” 35-56
El Camino Real 27-49 “A-C” 33-62
Palomar Airport Road 10-57 “A-D” 30-73
SR78 - 124- 142 “F” 156-180
1-5 199-216 “D” 260-272
*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 hlghways 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 yed 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.
A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by RBF Consulting dated November 24, 2003 for the proposed project.
The analysis was revised dated June 16, 2004. Project trips are not considered si,onificant as the Level of Service at
adjacent intersections and street segments in not expected to become deficient with the development of the project.
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 Mc-Clellan-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.
d)
No Impact. All project circulation is designed consistent with City’s standards and therefore, will not result in
design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and therefore
it will not increase hazards due to incompatible use.
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
e)
No Impact. The proposed project is designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police
Departments.
Result in inadequate emergency access?
24 Rev. 07/03/02
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. Parlung for the proposed project is provided on-site and it meets all the City of Carlsbad standards.
g)
..
Conflict with adopted policies, pIans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. The proposed project does not conflict with adopted 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 3 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed
with industrialloffice uses thus wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate future
development on the site. All public facilities, includmg 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 these 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 facilities/supplies, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage facilities.
Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed office campus 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 SIGNIFICGVCE
4 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?
/ No 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 developed with the Floral Trade Center 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.
-
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?)
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 gralng 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
25 Rev. 07/03/02
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 se,gnents 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 from the project to the regional circulation
system are less than sipficant.
With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, City standads .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 commercial nature of the project and the fact that futxre
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. As discussed above, any potential impact from
hazardous materials can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as
conditions of project approval. 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 TNFORMATION 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.
2.
? 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and MaQQinP Studx November 1992.
Citv of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the Citv of Carlsbad, December
1999. f
Coqrehensive Land Use Plan McClellan-Palomar Abort Carlsbad. California, SANDAG, April 1994.
Phase I - Environmental Site Assessment San Diego International Floral Trade Center, Ninyo & Moore
Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants, July 8, 2003.
Acoustical Analvsis Report for Carlsbad Office Campus, Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., June
17,2003.
Carlsbad Office Campus - Traffic Imact Analvsis Report, RBF Consulting, June 16,2004.
Geotechnical Investigations, ProDosed Carlsbad Office Campus, Leighton and Associates, April 2, 2001.
Preliminarv Drainaee Studv for Carlsbad Office Camus, K & S Engineering, June 18, 2003.
Water Oualitv Technical Reuort, K & S Engineering, March 2004.
Conceut Water Oualitv Plan for Carlsbad Office Campus, K & S Engineering, April 2002
BioloPical Assessment of the Waterways on the Floral Trade Center Site in the Citv of Carlsbad, RECON,
September 1,2004.
26 Rev. 07/03/02
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
HAZARDS/ HAZARDOUS MATERIAL,
1. A registered Environmental professional shall be hired to be on-site to monitor excavation activities during
demolition, grading andor construction activities that will involve disturbance of soils at the site. If eed I ence
of impacted materials is indicated, these materials should be sampled, analyzed and disposed of in accordance .
with local, state and federal regulations.
NOISE
2. All wall assemblies should have an STC Rating of 60 and all glass assemblies should have an STC Rating
of 30.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY
3. Mitigation measures as stated in the Preliminary Drainage Study for Carlsbad Office Campus prepared by
K & S Engineering, dated June 18, 2003.
Mitigation measures as stated in the Water Quality Technical Report prepared by K & S Engineering, dated
March 2004.
4.
27
/
Rev. 07/03/02
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR
WITH TKE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
28
/
Rev. 07/03/02
NOV. 3.20~4 ~:Z~PM CR STRTE PARKS SDCD
an Diego Coast District
November 3,2004
: Ms. Saima Qureshy
of Carlsbad, Planning Department
Carisbad office Campus Project at East of South Carlsbad State Park,
aration, SCH #2004101019 (CT 02-121CDP 02=31/PIP 02-
us the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Carlsbad r review. We are interested in the pmposed project because it
ity to South Carlsbad State Park (Approximately 100 feet east
). We understand that the project involves a 12.71-acre site
four (4) three-story buildings that provide 276,000 square feet of office space. and
vel parking structure that provides 82,170 square feet of parking (ca, 7,112 . After reviewing the MND we are conmmed about the following issues; the
State Park Property to the Carlsbad Flow Fields, the
Cannon Lake, and the potential for detrimental effects of to migratory
or transparent glass in the proposed building's window
Th
de
CUI rnE
Th bu de or
VUil
Tde MND did not provide a detailed building model that would demonstrate the changes ew sheds related to the proposed project. It is possible that the change from single-
1 to three-story buildings will significantly impact the View from State Park Property
le Carlsbad Flower Fields. We consider this view corridor an important public
nity for State Park uses and would like it preserved so that we incorporate it into
interpretative programs and site design.
pmposed project drainage was not discussed in enough detail in the MND to mine if there would be additional site runoff to Cannon Lake. Cannon Lake ently has water quality problems and we are concerned that the proposed project
i negatively affect water quality.
MND did not provide detail regarding the window treatments of the proposed
lings. We are concerned that the proposed window treatments may not be gned to prevent bird strikes. Window treatments that reflect trees and landscaping
iat are completely transparent can cause high numbers of bird kills. Improper low design may result in significant impacts to resident and migratory birds.
NOV. 3.2004 5:26PM CQ STQTE PQRKS SDCD -I ank you for the opportunity to comment on the pmject: If you have further questions
wenience.
r would like elaboration on the abovementioned issues please contact me at your
rociate Resource Ecologist lfomla State Parks, San Diego Coast District
Ronilee Clark Denny Stoufer Bill Mennell Jeanne Akin Damn Scott Smith
November 29,2004
Darren Scott Smith
Associate Resource Ecologist
California State Parks, San Diego Coast District
PO Box 880069
San Diego, CA 921 68-0069
RE: CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS - PROJECT COMMENTS DATED NOVEMBER 3,
2004
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Carlsbad Office
Campus, in the City of Carlsbad. The subject site is an infill site which is currently developed
with an existing industrial building and its associated surface parking. The proposed project is
for the development of four new office buildings and a parking structure.
View Protection: The city currently does not have a view protection ordinance and the
proposed three story structures do not exceed city’s building height requirement. The proposed
project also meets all other development standards e.g. maximum lot coverage and setbacks.
Drainage: Currently, the existing surface drainage, as originally approved in the 1960’~~ is
running off directly into the drainage channel in an unfiltered state. This allows any surface
pollutants to make their way into Cannon Lake. The proposed project is designed under the
current guidelines for water quality, and as such, is now being filtered with storm drain inlet
fossil filters to remove required level of pollutants. Also, the current design does not increase the
offsite flow beyond the existing levels because of the incorporation of a limited area of pervious
concrete. As a result, the flow from the site with new proposed project will improve the water
quality and will not increase the flow.
Glass on Elevations: The proposed buildings are designed with the latest in glass technology
called low-E glass. The coating used on this glass is muted and less reflective. This coating is
fired onto the glass to help increase its heat rejection properties and at the same time reduce
the high reflectivity associated with commercial office glazing.
If you have any additional comments or questions, please contact me at (760) 602-4619.
Sincerely,
Saima Qureshy, AlCP )
Associate Planner
SQ: bd
a9 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
11/02/2004 17:09 FAX 916 657 5390 NAHC ~OOl/OOl
NATlVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMlSSiON
St5 CAPl'KlL MAU. ROOM 384 SACRAMENTO, CA 9681 4 (916) 6S34082
p3) 657a390 - Fax
Please feel tred to contad me if you have any queabns.
===&
- City of Carlsbad
November 29,2004
Ms. Carol Gaubatz
Program Analyst
Native American Heritage Commission
915 Capitol Mall, Room 364
Sacramento, CA 9581 4
RE: CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS - PROJECT COMMENTS DATED NOVEMBER 2,
2004
Dear Ms. Gaubatz:
Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Carlsbad Office
Campus, in the City of Carlsbad. The subject site is an infill site which is currently developed
with an existing industrial building and its associated surface parking. The proposed project is
for the development of four new office buildings and a parking structure.
The new proposed development will remain within the existing development footprint and will
not encroach into any previously undeveloped areas. Since the site is already disturbed, no
impact to cultural resources is assessed.
If you have any additional comments or questions, please contact me at (760) 602-4619.
Sincerely,
Saima Qureshy, AlCP
Associate Planner
SQ: bd
49 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 0 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us