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.