Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 7023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY INTO FOUR PARCELS, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW 44,180 S.F. FLORAL TRADE DISTRIBUTION CENTER AND MARKETPLACE, A 33 FOOT TALL, 9,900 S.F. MICRO-BREWERY AND WINERY BUILDING, 1984 S.F. CULINARY CENTER, AND 896 S.F. FARM SHED WITH THE REMAINING LAND DEDICATED TO FARM PLOTS, ORCHARD, HOPS FARM, VINEYARD AND PARKING ON 17.22 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN A 45.60 ACRE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN SOUTH OF CANNON ROAD AND EAST OF CAR COUNTRY DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 13 AND THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CASE NO.: CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 WHEREAS, Carlsbad Ranch Company, L.P., “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lot 3 of Carlsbad Tract Unit No. 94-09 (Carlsbad Ranch Unit 1), in the City of Carlsbad, county of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 13357, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, September 11, 1996 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on December 4, 2013, 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 Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration, Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “Notice of Intent (NOI),” and “Environmental Impact Assessment Form – Initial Study (EIA),” attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7023 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 Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. b. c. d. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of carlsbad; and that based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NOTICE TO APPLICANT An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal prior to any judicial review. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on December 4, 2013, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioners Black, L'Heureux, Schumacher, Scully and Segall Commissioner Anderson KERRY K. SIEKMANN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION DON NEU City Planner PC RESO NO. 7023 -2- Planning Division 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-602-4600 760-602-8558 fax www.carlsbadca.gov NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT NAME: Carlsbad Floral Trade Center PROJECT NO: CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of Cannon Road and Car Country Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is Phase One of a four phase development on 17.22 acres within a 45.66 acre site. Phase 4 buildout is approximately 113,780 SF. Phase 1 includes the subdivision of the property into four parcels, a new 44,180 SF floral trade distribution center and marketplace, 9,900 SF micro-brewery and winery building, 1,984 SF culinary center, and 896 SF farm shed with the remaining land dedicated to farm plots, orchard, hops farm, vineyard and parking. Future Phase 2 is proposed to include 11,700 SF of retail and surface parking. Future Phase 3 is proposed to include 32,000 SF of retail and surface parking. Future Phase 4 is proposed to include 16,000 SF of retail and surface parking. 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 (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the Initial Study did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. AVAILABILITY: A copy of the Initial Study (documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008 and is available online at: http://www.carlsbadca.gov/planning-notices.aspx. COMMENTS: Comments from the public are invited. Pursuant to Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines, in reviewing Negative Declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) identify the specific effect; (2) explain why they believe the effect would occur; and (3) explain why they believe the effect would be significant. Written comments regarding the draft Negative Declaration should be directed to Christer Westman Senior Planner at the address listed below or via email to christer.westman@carlsbadca.gov. Comments must be received within 20 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the Planning Commission. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4614. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD November 1, 2013 – November 20, 2013 PUBLISH DATE November 1, 2013 Planning Division 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-602-4600 760-602-8558 fax www.carlsbadca.gov NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT NAME: Carlsbad Floral Trade Center PROJECT NO: CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of Cannon Road and Car Country Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is Phase One of a four phase development on 17.22 acres within a 45.66 acre site. Phase 4 buildout is approximately 113,780 SF. Phase 1 includes the subdivision of the property into four parcels, a new 44,180 SF floral trade distribution center and marketplace, 9,900 SF micro- brewery and winery building, 1,984 SF culinary center, and 896 SF farm shed with the remaining land dedicated to farm plots, orchard, hops farm, vineyard and parking. Future Phase 2 is proposed to include 11,700 SF of retail and surface parking. Future Phase 3 is proposed to include 32,000 SF of retail and surface parking. Future Phase 4 is proposed to include 16,000 SF of retail and surface parking. 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 did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: [CLICK HERE date] , pursuant to [CLICK HERE Administrative Approval, PC/CC Resolution No., or CC Ordinance No.] ATTEST: DON NEU City Planner Initial Study September 2013 -1- Initial Study 1. PROJECT NAME: Carlsbad Floral Trade Center 2. PROJECT NO: CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 3. LEAD AGENCY: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 4. PROJECT APPLICANT: Carlsbad Ranch Company, L.P. Chris Calkins 5600 Avenida Encinas Suite 100 Carlsbad CA 92008 5. LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON: Christer Westman, Senior Planner 760-602-4614 christer.westman@carlsbadca.gov 6. PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of Cannon Road and Car Country Drive 7. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Open Space (OS) 8. ZONING: Open Space (OS)/ Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is Phase One of a four phase development on 17.22 acres within a 45.66 acre site. Phase 4 buildout is approximately 113,780 SF. Phase 1 includes the subdivision of the property into four parcels, a new 44,180 SF floral trade distribution center and marketplace, 9,900 SF micro-brewery and winery building, and 1,984 SF culinary center, and 896 SF farm shed with the remaining land dedicated to farm plots, orchard, hops farm, vineyard and parking. Future Phase 2 is proposed to include 11,700 SF of retail and surface parking. Future Phase 3 is proposed to include 32,000 SF of retail and surface parking. Future Phase 4 is proposed to include 16,000 SF of retail and surface parking. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/SURROUNDING LAND USES: The entire 45.66 acres are currently being used for agricultural production. To the north is Cannon Road and north of Cannon Road are fields used for strawberry production, to the south are the Carlsbad Flower Fields, to the east is the Gemological Institute of America, and to the west is Car Country Carlsbad a collection of new and used car sales facilities. 11. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): No other agency approvals are required. 12. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The site was previously analyzed in the Carlsbad Ranch/Legoland Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report. (EIR 94-01) CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -2- Initial Study 13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 14. PREPARATION: The Initial Study for the subject project was prepared by: Christer Westman, Senior Planner October 15, 2013 Date 15. DETERMINATION: (to be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ☒ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described herein 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 a “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described herein. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated 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. ☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Population & Housing ☐ Agriculture & Forestry Resources ☐ Hazards/Hazardous Materials ☐ Public Services ☐ Air Quality ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Recreation ☐ Biological Resources ☐ Land Use & Planning ☐ Transportation/Traffic ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Utilities & Service Systems Geo ogy oils ☐ se ☐ CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 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. 16. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the e[:mental determination, indicated above, is hereby approved. ~ lo-28-/s DON NEU, City Planner Date 17. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES: This is to certify that I have reviewed the mitigation measures in the Initial Study and concur with the addition of these measures to the project. Signature Date June 2013 -3-Initial Study CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19 September 2013 -4- Initial Study EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19 September 2013 -5- Initial Study I. AESTHETICS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a-d) No Impact. The project site is undeveloped and planted seasonally with flower crops. The project site is surrounded by commercial development and east of the I-5 Freeway and as such there are no public scenic vistas available from the site or across the site. No trees or rock outcroppings will be impacted by the proposed project. No historic buildings are located in or adjacent to the site. The Carlsbad Flower Fields are located to the south and will not be affected by the project. The area of proposed impact is not located within the viewshed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing as a scenic highway. The proposed use is consistent with the adjacent uses and will only produce light and glare in a comparable or less manner to its neighbors, and as such, the increase in light and glare will not contribute a significant amount of light or glare or create a significant impact. Distant views looking west to the ocean will be maintained from the right- of-way of Armada Drive. Proposed buildings are located north of the vista points along Armada Drive and their roof peaks will be at elevations ranging from 0-10 feet below the vista point pavement. No impact is assessed. CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -6- Initial Study II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a-c) No Impact. Although the site is currently used for agriculture, the project site is not designated as prime agricultural land in the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and is not identified on Map X as agricultural land subject to the LCP Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee. The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California State Department of Conservation, June 1990); therefore, the project will not impact important agricultural resources. The project is subject to the disturbed/agriculture land in-lieu fee pursuant to the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. The existing and proposed General Plan designation is Open Space (OS). A major component of the project is the agricultural production of various crops which is a continued use of the property for agricultural purposes consistent with the Open Space General Plan land use designation. The subject site is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. The project would not conflict with the existing zoning or land uses within the project area or in adjacent areas since the land use to the south is agriculture in the form of the Carlsbad Flower Fields. The project is not proposed within a forestry or timber zone, nor is any part of the project area used for forestry or timber purposes. As a result, no impacts will occur related to the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland production. The project is not located within or in the vicinity of a Federal, State, or locally designated forest and will not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of any forest lands to a non-forest use either directly or indirectly. As a result, no impacts will occur related to conversion of forest lands. The subject property is an infill site which is currently being used as flower production with accessory buildings and is substantially surrounded by existing urban development. No changes proposed by the project will impact other farms or result in additional farmland conversion in the area. CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -7- Initial Study III. AIR QUALITY* Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ * 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. a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the state standard for PM10, PM2 5, 1-Hour and 8-Hour ozone, and the Federal 8-Hour Standard for ozone. The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The RAQS outlines the APCD’s plans and regulatory control measures designed to attain state air quality standards for ozone. The RAQS, which was initially adopted in 1991, is updated on a triennial basis with the most recent update occurring in April 2009. The APCD has also developed the SDAB’s input into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) which is required under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for pollutants that are designated as being in nonattainment of national air quality standards for the air basin. The SIP relies on the same information from SANDAG to develop emission inventories and emission control strategies that are included in the attainment demonstration for the air basin. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or 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(d) of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -8- Initial Study TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? Is the project consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan and also 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 Carlsbad General Plan and also the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Less than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring stations to the project site are at Camp Pendleton and Escondido (E. Valley Parkway). Data available for these monitoring sites from 2009 through 2011, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were as follows: the 1-Hour ozone concentration did not exceed the state standard any time during the years 2009 through 2011; the 8-Hour ozone concentration exceeded both the state and federal standard in 2009 and 2010 and the state standard was exceeded twice in 2011; the daily PM10 concentration exceeded the state standard in 2009, but not in 2010 or 2011; and the federal standard for PM10 and the federal 24-Hour PM2.5 standard was not exceeded during the 2009 through 2011 time period. No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the years 2009 through 2011. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with minimal grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would reduce fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant emissions during construction. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the proposed project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) 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) 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. CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -9- Initial Study IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a-f) No Impact. The project site is fully disturbed and does not include any natural vegetation that is classified as habitat or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The site is elevated and has no wetlands or wetland habitat on site. No tributary areas are on site. The City of Carlsbad has no adopted tree preservation policy or ordinance which would affect the subject project. The subject project will not significantly impact trees or other biological resources protected by such policy or ordinance. As stated above, the project does not conflict with the HMP. There are no overriding preservation ordinances or policies that would be in conflict with the proposed project. CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -10- Initial Study V. CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a-d) No Impact. The project site is included within the Carlsbad Ranch/Legoland Specific Plan (SP 207) which was analyzed by a program Environmental Impact Report EIR 94-01 (SCH 95051001). A data recovery and capping program were implemented for the entire Carlsbad Ranch property prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the first development of the Carlsbad Ranch. Therefore there will be no impacts to cultural or paleontological resources by the project. CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -11- Initial Study VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ iv. Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a-e) No Impact. 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. The project is primarily crop production. Topsoil will be retained onsite and erosion controlled to protect crop fields. During finish grading, exposure of soils could lead to an increased chance for the erosion of soils from the site. However, such grading will follow best management practices for the control of erosion, such as straw bale or sand bag barriers, silt fences, slope roughening, and outlet protection in exposed areas. The project site was investigated by Coast Geotechnical and a report prepared in August 2012. The conclusions of the report are that the site is relatively free of potential geologic hazards such as landslide, liquefaction and seismically induced subsidence. The residual soil and Pleistocene sands of the project site reflect an expansion potential in the very low range. Where structures are proposed the soils should be removed up to five feet in depth and re-compacted. 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. Project Number Project Title September 2013 -12- Initial Study VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a) Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the Carlsbad Floral Trade Center and Marketplace project would result in a net increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions due primarily to transportation, energy use and solid waste disposal from the existing situation, which is the production of flower crops, or the approved situation, which allows for wholesale flower distribution, agricultural production, and public assembly for a culinary center, winery, and brewery. The project “business as usual” CO2e generation is estimated to be 8,403 Metric Tons per year at buildout (Greenhouse Gas Assessment dated October 4, 2013 prepared by Ldn Consulting, Inc.) by facilitating these uses and thereby increasing vehicle miles traveled associated with transporting people and goods to, from and within the project. Vehicular transportation is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation is the direct result of population and employment growth, which generates vehicle trips to move goods, provide public services, and connect people with work, school, shopping, and other activities. Growth in vehicular travel is due in large part to urban development patterns. Over the last half century, homes have been built further from workplaces, schools have been located further from neighborhoods they serve, and other destinations, including shopping, have been isolated from where people live and work. The proposed development is considered "infill" development, projected to be surrounded on two of four sides by urban uses and conveniently accessible to mass transit bus routes. As such, the proposed project is consistent with the planning principle of encouraging higher intensity infill development within an existing urban area at transit corridor locations with bus service. The GHG emissions from any individual project, including the project, do not individually generate GHG emissions sufficient to measurably influence global climate change. However, the GHG emissions from individual projects contribute to cumulative GHG emissions on a global, national, and regional scale. The combination of all of the regulatory measures currently in place will reduce the estimated CO2e by 29% which will meet and exceed the State mandated goals as well as the City of Carlsbad reduction goals. In light of the above factors, the development of the Carlsbad Floral Trade Center represents a less than significant contribution to the impact of GHG contribution to global climate change. b) No Impact. While the proposed project will intensify the use of the site, the project will be consistent with the adopted plans, policies or regulations regulating the emissions of greenhouse gases. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan, the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, and the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. These plans are all consistent with SANDAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan (2004). The project will not violate any air quality standard or state guidelines, and as indicated above will not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality or greenhouse gas violation. Greenhouse gas-contributing emissions from developed-condition electricity consumption, solid waste disposal, and construction related power consumption would not be in conflict with adopted plans, policies or regulations. Thus, the project will result in no impact to these adopted plans, policies or regulations. As a result of these factors, it is concluded that greenhouse gas emissions from the project will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -13- Initial Study VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a-h) No Impact. The project includes a significant agricultural component, however, the materials used are not of a type or kept in quantities that would explode and create a significant hazard to the public or environment. The project site is not within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school nor is it included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The project site is within the boundaries of Review Area 2 of McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Limits on heights of structures, particularly in areas of high terrain, are the only restrictions on land uses within Review Area 2. The project is not located such that building height is a potential hazard for the airport and not in a review area that restricts land use due to potential hazard from airport operations. The project site is not located such that it could adversely affect an emergency or evacuation plan. The project site is an infill property and not adjacent to wildlands. CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -14- Initial Study IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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 (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ g) 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ i) 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a-j) No Impact. The project is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for San Diego Basin" (WQCP), and the city's Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP). The WQCP contains specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit, which includes the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Construction activities for this project are covered under state-wide construction permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ issued by the State Water Resource Control Board Permit. As part of the permit requirements, the applicant will prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. Through each phase of construction, the SWPPP will identify specific erosion control and CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -15- Initial Study storm water pollution prevention plan practices that will be implemented to protect downstream water quality. Post-development activities for this project are covered under Order No. R9-2007-0001 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region. As part of these requirements, the applicant must prepare and submit a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) addressing what treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be constructed to treat the post-development runoff from the project. The SWMP will address how pollutants from this project will be reduced, captured, filtered, and/or treated prior to discharge from the project site. Through this process, the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater; instead it will be served via existing public water distribution lines within the public right-of-way adjacent to the site. Existing water lines will adequately serve the project’s water demands. Rainwater infiltration is needed to provide adequate groundwater recharge. A Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan dated June 14, 2013, was prepared for the project by Aquaterra Engineering, Inc. According to the reports, the project incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) design features, which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing pervious parking surface areas, directing run-off to landscaped swales and two bio-retention basins. The implementation of the LID design features will mitigate the potential impacts that the development can have on stormwater. The project will not significantly deplete groundwater supplies or quality. There are no streams or rivers within or adjacent to the site. The Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan dated June 14, 2013, for the project indicates that the proposed drainage design does not adversely affect surrounding properties and the storm drain system adequately drains the proposed project in a 100-year storm event. Construction of the proposed project improvements is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated NPDES regulations and temporary impacts associated with the construction operation will be mitigated. The total post development runoff discharging from the site will not significantly exceed the pre-development amounts. The project incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) design features, which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to include pervious parking surfaces, directing run-off to landscaped swales and two bio-retention basins to serve as a treatment BMP to attain water quality objectives. Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial erosion or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage systems. The Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, dated June 14, 2013, for the project indicates that Standard Storm Water Permanent Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be incorporated into the project design to address water quality for the project. BMPs will be implemented during construction and post construction phases, which specifically address sediments, nutrients, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses, and pesticides. As discussed in the sections above, the project will not significantly increase pollutant discharges and will not alter the water quality of the receiving surface waters, and the amount of discharge and velocity of run-off will not significantly exceed pre-development levels. As a result of these project design features, there will be less than significant impact to water quality, site erosion, and pollutant discharge, and no receiving water quality will be adversely affected through implementation of the proposed project. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map No. 06073C0764G, Effective Date May 16, 2012; and according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, Catastrophic Dam Failure Inundation, Tsunami and Seiche Hazard Zone Maps, November 1992, the project site is not located within an area affected by tsunami, seiche, or mudflow, nor is the site located within a Catastrophic Dam Failure Inundation Area. Therefore, no impact is assessed. CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -16- Initial Study X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a-c) No Impact. The site does not physically divide an established community, nor does the proposed project conflict with any existing or proposed land use plans or policies, or habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans of the City of Carlsbad. Project uses are consistent with the primary and accessory use permitted by the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Program, and Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan in that the proposed uses are both permitted as they relate to the use of the property for agricultural purposes and accessory uses that are necessary for the benefit of agricultural open spaces uses. The property is not subject to a natural communities conservation plan. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a-b) No Impact. Carlsbad is devoid of non-renewable energy resources. Mineral resources within the City are no longer being utilized and extracted as exploitable natural resources. Therefore, no mineral resource impacts will occur as a result of any project. (MEIR 93-01, page 5.13-1) CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -17- Initial Study XII. NOISE Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a-f) No Impact. The project will not generate noise in excess of levels established by the City of Carlsbad General Plan as acceptable nor are there external noise sources that generate noise levels that will result in excess impacts to the project site. The project site is not within close enough proximity to be adversely impacted by the freeway corridor or McClellan-Palomar Airport. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a-c) No Impact. There is no residential component of the proposed project and the project site is not located in a residential/housing area. CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -18- Initial Study XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ii. Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ iii. Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ iv. Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ v. Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a) No Impact. The proposed open space and accessory uses are consistent with the General Plan and therefore will not affect the provision and availability of public facilities (fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, libraries, etc.). Through the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan and Zone 13 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP), the projection of impacts of development on public services for uses in Planning Area 8 such as agricultural uses, Golf Course, driving range, putting green, public park, and City playgrounds were analyzed. The project will not create a need for new or physically altered government facilities such as fire stations, police facilities, schools, parks or other public service facility. Adequate public services are available through the City’s existing facilities to meet the needs of the development. XV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a-b) No Impact. The project will not affect any existing recreation facilities nor will it generate the need for new or improvements to recreation facilities. CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -19- Initial Study XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a) Less than Significant Impact. The project will generate 2,076 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and X peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways Cannon Road, Car Country Drive, Paseo Del Norte, Legoland Drive, Armada Drive, and Palomar Airport Road. The most current estimates for existing traffic on Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road are 25,420 and 48,626 ADT respectively and the peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection(s) of Cannon/I-5 is LOS B and Cannon/Paseo Del Norte is LOS A. The design capacities of the arterial roads affected by the proposed project are up to 40,000 vehicles per day on Cannon Road and more than 40,000 vehicles per day on Palomar Airport Road. The project traffic would represent 6.9 % of the existing traffic volume and 4.37 % of the design capacity of Cannon Road. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The Traffic Impact Analysis Report states that the 11 intersections surrounding the project site currently operate at acceptable levels. 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 from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) No Impact. In 2009 the congestion management agency (SANDAG) employed an “opt out” option defined in Assembly Bill (AB) 2419. The congestion management program is no longer relevant to development in the City of Carlsbad. CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -20- Initial Study c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) No Impact. All project driveways, circulation aisles, parking and loading areas will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. f) No Impact. The project site is close to bus routes on Cannon Road, as well as public streets and sidewalks. The project has been designed with pedestrian access as well as onsite bicycle “parking” facilities. CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -21- Initial Study XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a-g) No Impact. The existing water and wastewater treatment capacity for the site will adequately serve the project and no new or expanded entitlements for water or wastewater treatment are needed. In addition, the Zone 13 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed with open space and open space accessory uses and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate future residential uses on the site. All public facilities, including water 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 development will incrementally increase the demand for these facilities; however, will not result in an overall increase in the City’s growth projection in the NW quadrant. Therefore, the project does not create development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. No impact assessed. CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -22- Initial Study XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a) No Impact. There are no significant habitats, fish or wildlife species onsite to be affected by the development proposal. No Impacts have been identified that might contribute to a significant adverse cumulative impact. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local General Plan Land Use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described above, the project would contribute incrementally to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. However, the air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented. The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA had determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -23- Initial Study 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 significant. With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable impacts. c) No Impact. Based upon the fact that future development of the site will comply with all City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. Development of the site and structures will be required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, Regional and City regulations, which will ensure that development of the site will not result in adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -24- Initial Study XIX. LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES (if applicable) CARLSBAD FLORAL TRADE CENTER CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03 June 2013 -25- Initial Study EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Division located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Division, March 1994. 2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, dated March 1994, as updated. 3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, as updated. 4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP), City of Carlsbad Planning Division, final approval dated November 2004. 5. San Diego Regional Airport Authority/San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission. McClellan- Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Amended December 1, 2011. 6. Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report (EIR 94-01), Cotton/Beland and Associates, November 1995. 7. Carlsbad Marketplace and Floral Trade Center Traffic Impact Analysis Report, RBF Consulting, June 17, 2013. 8. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Coast Geotechnical, August 29, 2012 9. Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, Aquaterra Engineering, Inc., June 14, 2013 10. Greenhouse Gas Assessment dated October 4, 2013 prepared by Ldn Consulting, Inc.