Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 96-14; Taylor Made Golf; Hillside Development Permit (HDP) (20)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: HDP 96- 14 DATE: DECEMBER 9,1996 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: TAYLOR MADE GOLF 2. APPLICANT: HAMANN CONSOLIDATED INC. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5355 Mira Sorrento Pl., Ste. 650, San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 452-3188 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 27.1996 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hillside Development Permit to grade 140,000 cubic yards of earth to construct a golf driving range facility. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources Air Quality 0 Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 ,?- DETF9MINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 0 0 IXI 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A MITIGATED 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 Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. .. December 26,1996 Planner Signature Date I d30/46 Planning Director’xignfie Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (PAor Compliance). When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations’’ for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 ,P i Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (EIR 93-01 pg 3.0-8, pg 5.6-9; Official Zoning Map, revised 03/95) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.6-17) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.6-9; Zoning Ord pg 622, SP 180 pg Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.13-3; Zoning Ord pg 622; Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (SP 180 pg 10) 10; EIR 80-3 pg 82) SP 180 pg 10; EIR 80-3 pg 82) 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.5-2) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (EIR 93-01 pg 7- 0.5) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.6-10; SP 180 pg 10) 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (EIR 80-3 pg 13-15, Geo Study 11/96) b) Seismic ground shaking? (EIR 80-3 pg 13-15; EIR 93- 01 pg 5.1-5; Geotechnical Hazard Mapping Study, November 1992, Geo Study 11/96) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (EIR 80-3 pg 13- 15; Geotechnical Hazard Mapping Study, November 1992, Geo Study 11/96) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.1-9, 5.10-3; Geotechnical Hand Mapping Study, November 1992, Geo Study 11/96) e) Landslides or mudflows? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.1-4; EIR 80- 3 pg 15, Preliminary Soils Investigation Phase 5, Carlsbad Research Center pgs 7, 8; Geotechnical Hazard Mapping Study, November 1992 Geo Study 1 1/96) Potentially Potentially Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact Unless Significa Mitigation nt Impact Incorporate d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 5 Rev. 03/28/96 ,r' LI Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (EIR 93- 01 pg 5.1-4; EIR 80-3 pg 15; Preliminary Soils Investigation Phase 5, Carlsbad Research Center pgs 7, 8; Geotechnical Hazard Mapping Study, November 1992) Subsidence of the land? (EIR 80-3 pg 15; Preliminary Soils Investigation Phase 5, Carlsbad Research Center pgs 7, 8; Geotechnical Hazard Mapping Study, November 1992) Expansive soils? (EIR 80-3 pg 15; EIR 93-01 pg 5.1-4; Preliminary Soils Investigation Phase 5, Carlsbad Research Center pgs 7, 8; Geotechnical Hazard Mapping Study, November 1992) Unique geologic or physical features? (EIR 80-3 pg 15; EIR 93-01 pg 5.1-4; Preliminary Soils Investigation Phase 5, Carlsbad Research Center pgs 7, 8; Geotechnical Hazard Mapping Study, November 1992) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (EIR 80-3 pg vi) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (EIR 80-3 pg 22) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (EIR 80-3 pg 19) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water Changes in currents, or the come or direction of water movements? (EIR 80-3 pg 19) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (EIR 80-3 pg 19; EIR 93-01 pg 5.2-3) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (EIR Impacts to groundwater quality? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.2-3) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (EIR 80- body? (EIR 80-3 pg 19) 80-3 pg 19; EIR 93-01 pg 5.2-3) 3 pg 19; EIR 93-01 pg 5.12.2-3) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? Create objectionable odors? Potentially Potentially Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact Unless Significa Mitigation nt Impact Incorporate d 0 0 ow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 IXIO 0 OIXI 0 nIxI ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 OIXI 0 OB 0 OIXI 0 on 0 ow 0 ow 6 Rev. 03/28/96 r, Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (EIR 80-3 pg 43) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (EIR Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (EIR Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (EIR Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (EIR 93-01 pg (EIR 80-3 pg 43) 93-01 pg 3.0-8,5.7-6) 80-3 pg 43; EIR 93-01 pg 5.7-6) 93-01 pg 5.7-6) 5.7-6-12) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (Biology Report) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Biology Report ) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Biology Report) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Biology Report) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Biology Report) ~~ ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (EIR Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.13-1) 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? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.13-5,6) 93-01 pg 5.13-1) Potentially Potentially Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact Unless Significa Mitigation nt Impact Incorporate d IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.10.2-4,5,6) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.10.2- 0 0 7) 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 IXI IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (XI w 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 OIXI 0 OIXI 7 Rev. 03/28/96 f". Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, hazards? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.10.2-4,5,6,7) health hazards? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.10.2-4,5,6) grass, or trees? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.12.5-4) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.9-6, b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (EIR 93-01 7,121 pg 5.9-6,7) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government , services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection?, (EIR 93-01 pg 3.0-9, pg 5.12.5-4; General Plan Land Use pg 28,29) b) Police protection? (EIR 93-01 pg 3.0-9, pg 5.12.6-2) C) Schools? (SP 180 pg 10; EIR 90-3 pg 5.12.7-1) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (EIR 93-01 pg 3.0-9; General Plan Land Use pg 28,29) e) Other governmental services? (EIR 93-01 pg 3.0-9; General Plan Land Use pg 28,29) XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas? (EIR 93-01 pgs 3.0-9,5.12.1-4) Communications systems? (EIR 93-01 pgs 3.0-9, Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (EIR 93-01 pgs 3.0-9,5.12.3-3) Sewer or septic tanks? (EIR 93-01 pgs 3.0-9,5.12.3-3) Storm water drainage? (EIR 93-01 pg 29; EIR 93-01 pg 3.0-9, General Plan Land Use pg 29) Solid waste disposal? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.12.2-3; 5.12.4- Local or regional water supplies? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.12.1-4) 1) 5.12.2-3) AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (EIR 93-01 Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (EIR 93- Create light or glare? (EIR 93-01 pg 5.10.3-1) pg 5.1 1-1) 01 pg 5.11-1) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 8 Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significa nt Impact 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI 0 IXI IXI No Impact IXI IXI IXI [XI [XI 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXIO 0 IXIO 0 0 0 IXIO 0 om 0 OIXI 0 OIXI Rev. 03/28/96 P Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) Disturb paleontological resources? (EIR 80-3 pg viii, b) Disturb archaeological resources? (EIR 80-3 pg 3 1) c) Affect historical resources? (EIR 80-3 pg 3 1) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (EIR 80-3 e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ix, 35; EIR93-01 pg 5.8-1,2, 8; Pg 31) potential impact area? (EIR 80-3 pg 3 1) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (EIR 93-01 pg Affect existing recreational opportunities? (EIR 93-0 1 5.12.8-5) pg 5.12.8-5) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 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? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporate d 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significa nt Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 No Impact IXI El IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI 0 0 IXIO 0 El0 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. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 /I‘ “7 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project site is located in Phase V of the Carlsbad Research Center, southeast of the intersection of College Boulevard and El Camino Real. The subject lots, Lots 76-81, are contiguous and encompass roughly 50 acres. Each lot is a relatively level pad previously rough- graded in 1988. Small slopes generally less than 10 feet high, separate the lots. Graded slopes, generally to heights less than 35 feet, border the western and norther sides of the property. Natural slopes ascend to the east and south for the remainder of the property. The proposed project consists of the grading and excavation of 150,000 cubic yards of earth to create a building pad to accommodate a 200,000 sq. ft., concrete tilt-up office/manufacturing/ warehouse building, a 4,200 range building, and a 300 yard driving range across Parcels 1,4, and 5. The 150,000 cubic yards of earth will be balanced on site and will result in raising the lower pad elevation to match the higher pad elevation. The Hillside Development Permit processed concurrently with this project indicates that the proposed excavation complies with the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance and will create no adverse impacts. A minor subdivision was processed to reconfigure lot lines and street alignment. Proposed grading will include grading into a natural open space area. Approximately 92,550 square feet of open space are proposed to be relocated and revegetated with a native plant mix. This issue is further addressed under Section VI1 below. The property was previously reviewed under Specific Plan 180 and EIR 93-01 as a site which was designated for industrial and office types of uses. The proposed land uses are consistent with those of the specific plan and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. The property can accommodate the building and driving range while meeting setbacks, lot coverage and other development standards. Due to the nature of this project and its location, the following EIA Part I1 Checklist categories are not relevant or applicable, therefore, the “No Impact” column has been checked. I. 11. 111. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XI1 . XIII. XIV. xv. I. Land Use Planning - a), b), c), d), e); Population and Housing - a), b), c); Geologic Problems - a), b), c), d), e), f),g), h), i); Water - b), 4, d), e), f), g), h), 9; TransportatiordCirculation Biological Resources - d), e); Energy and Mineral Resources - a), b), c); Noise - a), b); Public Services - c); Utilities and Services Systems - a), b), c), d), e), f),g); Aesthetics - a), b), c); Cultural Resources - a), b), c), d), e); Recreation - a), b). Land Use Planning Hazards - a), b), c), dl, e); The proposed project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adoptaed 11 Rev. 03/28/96 by agencies within the jurisdiction of the project. The project is consistent with the General Plan designation of Planned Industrial and the zoning designation of Commercialhianufacturing. 111. Geologic Hazards The subject site is not located within an area previously known for significant geologic hazards. Evidence of ancient landslides or active faulting was not encountered during the geotechnical investigation. Surfkial slope failures were observed in portions of the site not previously graded. Seismic hazards at the site are anticipated to be caused by ground shaking during seismic events on distant active faults. The nearest known fault is the offshore portion of the Rose Canyon fault zone located approximately five miles west of the site. All buildings will be required to comply with current Building Code standards and practices. Ground rupture is not considered to be a significant hazard at the site; the potential for liquefacion to occur is considered remote. The proposed site contains deep fill and may undergo hydrocompressions as a result of the infiltration of water from various sources. The existing site slopes are stable with regard to deep- seated failure. However, surfkial slope failures were observed in poriton of the site not previously graded. In addition, the formational materials underlying the natural slopes showed evidence of slope creep and may be susceptible to surfkial failures. Standard City requirements and practices will be required as part of the grading permit process to ensure slope stability. An additional landscape mitigation measure has been included to further increase slope stability. There will be a slight increase in the amount of surface runoff due to increased impervious surfaces. This runoff will drain into the City’s storm drainage system. The City drainage system was designed to accept surface flow from this property. Prior to occupancy, the developer will be required to comply with best management practices for the elimination of urban pollutants prior to discharge into open waters. V. Air Quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-0 1 , by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. VI. Transportation / Circulation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. VII. Biological Resources As part of the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan, area was preserved as natural open space. 92,550 square feet of that open space is located on the subject site and is proposed for removal and relocation elsewhere on the site. The subject site supports mostly disturbed vegetation of little biological value. Diegan coastal sage scrub, a sensitive habitat, is located on a portion of the property, and a very small amount (approximately 1,530 square feet) will be directly impacted by site grading. The majority of this habitat is beyond the limits of site development being proposed by this application. Because of the very limited amount of sage scrub being 13 Rev. 03/28/96 impacted, and the absence of California Gnatcatchers utilizing that habitat area, the removal of this small area will be specifically exempted from the need for an Interim Habitat Loss Permit pursuant to Special Rule 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act and the Southern California NCCP CSS Process Guidelines. Although this loss will not require specific mitigation (as per the NCCP’s “Coastal Sane Scrub Losses Exempt from 4(d) Review”, the City must still report the loss to the subregional accounting entity, and count the loss towards the subaredsubregional 5% loss allocation. As previously mentioned, the project application proposes to “exchange” two areas which are currently in open space with three new areas to be placed into open space as compensatory mitigation. The biology report indicates that this is acceptable . Mitigation areas will be planted with native horticultural trees and an open understory supporting a native wildflower ground cover and occasional native shrubs. Such measures have been incorporated into the proposed landscape plan. XI. Public Services Although the proposed project will create a slight increased demand for public services, the demand will not be significant and has been addressed through the City’s Growth Management Ordinance and, more specifically, through the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5. These documents ensure that public facilities in this area will be installed either prior to or concurrent with development XII. Utilities and Services Systems Same as XI above. XIII. Aesthetics The proposed project will conform to architectural design commonly found in industrial areas and will not have any demonstrable negative aesthetic effects. The project has been conditioned to restrict night lighting from the test range to prevent negative impacts on planes landing at McClellan-Palomar Airport. SOURCE DOCUMENTS (Note: All the source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92000, (619) 438-1 161. acl . Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994. b2. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad Research Document, Larry Seeman Associates, Inc., May 12, 1980. 3. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Research Center, Phase 5, San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., February 22, 1988. A 4. Biological Report, Vincent N. Scheidt, November 22, 1996. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 e 5. Geotechnical Investigation for TaylorMade Facility, Geotechnics Incorporated, November 8, 1996. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE No short or long term impacts are anticipated because the site is already disturbed. The site is part of Specific Plan 180, Carlsbad Research Center, which is partially developed. Once all of the undeveloped areas encompassing the specific plan area are developed, traffic impacts will increase. The roads, however, are designed to handle the increased traffic. Onsite lunch areas are incorporated into the project to reduce travel to and from the project site. No substantial effects to human beings are anticipated, since the building is not permitted to store materials in any way which would be hazardous to the building’s occupants. 15 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to occupancy and use of the testing range, the applicant shall apply and receive approval fiom the City for an Administrative Permit to take 1530 square feet of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub from the subject site. The removal area shall be replanted and hydroseeded with a plant mix approved by the Planning Director. For a 5 year period, an annual report shall be submitted to the City by January 1 of each year by a qualified biologist to ensure that replaced vegetation is thriving in a healthy manner. a 2. The golf test facility shall not be available for public recreational use. 3. Prior to approval of a building permit for this project the owner of the subject site shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding personal injury and property damage resulting from the use of the test facility. Such agreement shall contain language that requires the applicant to raise netting/fencing, to install additional landscaping, or whatever measures determined by the City to be necessary to protect the public traveling along College Boulevard or proposed Salk Avenue. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a letter from SANDAG indicating approval to construct within the Airport Influence Area. Night lighting of the testing range shall be prohibited to prevent conflicts with night operation of McClellan- Palomar Airport. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits the owner of record of the property shall prepare and record a notice (see Noise, Form #2 on file in the Planning Department) that this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from Palomar Airport. The notice shall be prepared in a manner meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITOmG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 16 Rev. 03/28/96 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 17 Rev. 03/28/96 PROJECT NAME: TavlorMade Golf FILE NUMBERS: HDP 96-14 APPROVAL DATE: December 20,1996 MITIGATED NEG. DEC.: December 26, 1996 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City’s monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). applicant shall apply and receive approval from the City for an Administrative Permit to take 1530 square feet of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub from the subject site. The removal area shall be replanted and hydroseeded with a plant mix approved by the Planning Director. For a 5 year period, an annual report shall be submitted to the City by January 1 of each year by a qualified biologist to ensure that replaced vegetation is thriving in a healthy manner. 2. Prior to approval of a building permit for this project the owner of the subject site shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding personal injury and property damage resulting from the use of the test facility. Such agreement shall contain language that requires the applicant to raise nettinglfencing, to install additional landscaping, or whatever measures determined by the City to be necessary to protect the public traveling along Colleae Boulevard or DroDosed Salk Avenue. Project Planning Planning Explanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agendcy, mitigation measure. responsible for monitoring a particular information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. this column will be initialed and dated. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant I Project I Planning I I I shall submit a letter from SANDAG indicating approval to construct within the Airport Influence Area. Night lighting of the testing range shall be prohibited to prevent conflicts with night operation of McClellan-Palomar Airport. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits the owner of record of the property shall prepare and record a notice (see Noise, Form #2 on file in the Planning Department) that this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from Palomar Airport. The notice shall be prepared in a manner meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agendcy, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. this column will be initialed and dated.