HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIP 97-04; Cornerstone Corporate Centre; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (20)-.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: PIP 97-04RUD 97- 1 OIHDP 97-07
DATE: September 10,1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Cornerstone Corporate Center
2. APPLICANT: Newport National Corporation
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5050 Avenida Encinas. Suite 350,
Carlsbad California 92008
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: September 10.1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development on approximatelv 11 previouslv disturbed acres with
three administrative/professional office buildings for a total of approximately 338.000 sauare
feet in three phases. The first phase includes gradinp of the entire site and the development of
“Building D” which is approximately 52.000 square feet.
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 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
IXI
0
0
0
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. An EIR 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 pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier Environmental Impact Report, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has
been prepared.
"\o, Iw-7 Planner Signature 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.
0 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.
a “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.
0 “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.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &l 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 (Prior Compliance).
a 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.
0 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
0 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.
0 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
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (EIR 8 1-06, EIR 93-01)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
(EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
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 81-06, EIR
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
0
93-01)
housing? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01) 0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (EIR 8 1-06, EIR 93-0 1)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (EIR
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (EIR 81-06, EIR
e) Landslides or mudflows? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (EIR 81-
8 1-06, EIR 93-0 1)
93-01)
06, EIR 93-01)
g) Subsidence of the land? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
h) Expansive soils? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01 j
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (EIR 81-06, EIR
93-01)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff! (EIR 81-06, EIR
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
93-01)
such as flooding? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o El o
0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 IXI
0 IXI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
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 81-06, EIR 93-01)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (EIR
Impacts to groundwater quality? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-
01) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (EIR 81-
body? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
8 1-06, EIR 93-0 1)
06, EIR 93-01)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (EIR 81-06,
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (EIR 81-06,
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
d) Create objectionable odors? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
EIR 93-0 1)
EIR 93-0 1)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (EIR 81-
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
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 81-06,
06, EIR 93-01)
(EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
81-06, EIR 93-01)
8 1-06, EIR 93-0 1)
81-06, EIR93-01)
EIR 93-0 1)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
0
0
0
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significan
t Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6 Rev. 03/28/96
n
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (EIR
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (EIR 81-06,
8 1-06, EIR 93-01)
(EIR 8 1-06, EIR 93-0 1)
EIR 93-01)
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 81-06, EIR 93-01)
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 81-06, EIR 93-01)
81-06, EIR93-01)
IX. 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 81-06, EIR 93-01)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (ElR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (EIR 8 1-06, EIR 93-0 I)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (EIR 81-06, 01)
EIR 93-01)
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 81-06, EIR 93-01)
b) Police protection? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
C) Schools? (ElR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
(XI
IXI
IXI
(XI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
(XI
IXI
Ix1
IXI
IXI
IXI
7 Rev. 03/28/96
fi
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (EIR
e) Other governmental services? (EIR 8 1-06, EIR 93-01)
81-06, EIR 93-01)
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 81-06, EIR 93-01)
Communications systems? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
Sewer or septic tanks? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
Storm water drainage? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
Solid waste disposal? (EIR 8 1-06, EIR 93-01)
Local or regional water supplies? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-
01)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (EIR 8 1-06,
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (EIR 81-
Create light or glare? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
EIR 93-01)
06, EIR 93-01)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (EIR 8 1-06, EIR 93-
Disturb archaeological resources? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-
Affect historical resources? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (EIR 81-06,
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (EIR 81-06, EIR 93-01)
01)
01)
EIR 93-0 1)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (EIR 81-06, EIR
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (EIR 8 1-06,
93-01)
EIR 93-01)
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 CI 0
0.
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
T
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
IXI IXI IXI
IXI IXI IXI IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI IXI
IXI
0 IXI
0 Ix1
8 Rev. 03/28/96
-. rc”
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0
0 0 0
[XI
[XI
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):
a) Earlier analyses used: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the
Carlsbad Airport Centre. An Environmental Impact Report was completed for the
update of the City of Carlsbad General Plan. Both documents are on file with the
Carlsbad Planning Department.
b) Impacts adequately addressed: The project falls entirely within the scope of both
of these documents which have been previously certified in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act. The Carlsbad Airport Centre
Environmental Impact Report analyzed: safety and crash hazards, traffic
circulation, topography and visual aesthetics, archeological resources, biological
resources, agricultural resources, air quality, noise, geology, hydrology/water
quality, land use, and community services and public utilities. Mitigation
measures were required and have been completed through the initial development
of the Carlsbad Airport Centre. The project is proposed within an existing
subdivided and graded area. The project is a permitted use within the Planned
Industrial Land Use designation of the General Plan and therefore is a
“subsequent project” consistent with the General Plan as analyzed with the Master
Environmental Impact Report for the update to the General Plan.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AIR OUALITY:
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. Provisions to encourage
alternative modes of transportation including carpooling is included as a condition of project
approval and the Uniform Building Code requirements for the design of an energy efficient
building have been incorporated into the design of the project.
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 93-01, 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
Wher environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
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 1)
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
10 Rev. 03/28/96
7 7
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.
GENERAL
As an administrative office development, the project is consistent with the Zoning and the
General Plan land use designations of Planned Industrial. The site has been reviewed under
previous CEQA documents, an EIR for the Carlsbad Airport Centre and the update to the
Carlsbad General Plan.
The project site was previously disturbed according to development approvals consistent with the
previous CEQA certifications. Development of the site with the current proposal will not have
an adverse impact on the environmental factors listed within the environmental impact
assessment form.
11 Rev. 03/28/96