HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIP 97-07; Newton Business Center; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (36)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: PIP 97-07
DATE: November 7,1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: NEWTON BUSINESS CENTER - LA COSTA PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL
2. APPLICANT: Hill Pinkert Architects
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 16969 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 230,
Irvine, California 92606
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Aumst 2 1.1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 175,932 sauare foot ofice and distribution building on a 16.1 1 acre
site located north of the Carlsbad Research Center and south of Camino Hills Mobilehome Park
in the P-M (Planned Industrial Zone)
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 8 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
Population and Housirig Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Water
Air Quality
0 Hazards
0 Noise
0 Cultural Resources
0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
-.
DETERMINATION.
(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 pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or ,mitigated pursuant to that earlier , including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Date
AH:vd
2 Rev. 03/28/96
h
:- .
h
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.
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
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 11”, 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 puxuant 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).
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
h
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.
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
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (Source #I)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?)
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?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 IXI
0 Ixi
0 0
0 0
IXI
0
0
IXI
IXI
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #1) 0 0 0 IXI
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an 0 0 0 Ixi
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source #1)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? 0 0 0 IXI
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Sources #I and 2)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source # 1 and 2)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Sources #1 and 2)
0 0 0
0 0 0
IXI IXI 0
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #1)
e) Landslides or mudflows?(Source #2)
0 Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 0 0 IXI
(Source #2)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #2)
h) Expansive soils? (Source #2)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #2)
0 0 Ixi o 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 Ixi
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
the rate and amount of surface runoff! (Source #2) 0 0 Ixi o
hazards such as flooding? (Source #1) I7 0 0 IXI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
I
h
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
V.
VI.
VII.
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?(Sources # 1 and 2)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (Source #I)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?(Sources #I and 2)
f) 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?(Sources # 1 and 2)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(Sources #I and 2)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Sources #I and
2) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (Sources #I and 2)
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
d) Create objectionable odors?
cause any change in climate?
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUATION. Would the
proposal result in: '
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source #1)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or baniers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?(Source #1)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #I)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (Source #3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
IXI
0 0 o
w
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
-
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
o
w
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 IXI
0 IXI o w
0 Ix1
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
IXI w
IXI
0
0 0
0 IXI
0 El
0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI
0 IXI
0 0
6 Rev. 03/28/96
h
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Sources
(Source #3)
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #3)
pool)? (Source #3)
#3 & 4)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(Source #1)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
ineficient manner? (Source #1)
c) 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? (Source
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)? (Source
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source #1)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards?(Source #1)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fm hazard in areas with flammable brush,
health hazards? (Source #1)
grass, or trees? (Source #1)
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existino, noise levels? (Source #1)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source
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? (Source #1)
b) Police protection? (Source #1)
c) Schools? (Source #1)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (Source #1)
(Source #1)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
.. -
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
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 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 €4
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 .IXI
IXI 0 0 €4
7 Rev. 03/28/96
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source #I)
b) Communications systems? (Source #1)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #I)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #I)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #I)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #I)
facilities? (Source #I)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? 0 n
c) Create light or glare?
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source # 1)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #5)
c) Affect historical resources? (Source #5)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(Source #5)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (Source #5)
U 0
0 0 0
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
parks or other recreational facilities? (Source #1) 0
I 0
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce 0
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?
0
0
0 CI 0 0
0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI
0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI
0 0 El 0 0 IXI 0 0 Ixl
0 0 IXI
cl 0 IXI
0 0 lx
0 IXI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
J
,”--
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? IXI
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0 0
0 0 IXI
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and, state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. LAND USE:
b. The project is located in the coastal zone and is subject to the Mello I1 segment of
Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the implementing zoning ordinances regulating
development in the coastal zone (Chapters 2 1.201 and 21.203) . Applicable policies include
avoidance of 25%+ slopes possessing coastal sage scrub habitat, a -prohibition from grading
during the rainy season (October 1 to April 1 of each year), and adherence to erosion and
sediment control standards and the City’s Master Drainage plan. Although the project does
result in disturbance to coastal sage habitat which will be mitigated, the habitat is not located on
steep slopes. The project will be conditioned to receive a grading permit which will require the
construction of all necessary drainage facilities and installation of the necessary erosion control
to avoid runoff.
c. The site is designated by the General Plan for industrial use and abuts existing industrial
development to the south and east, however, it is adjacent to existing residential development to
the north and vacant residentially designated property to the west. To ensure compatibility with
adjacent existing and future residential uses, structural setbacks, which are a minimum of 85’
from the northwestern property line and 278’ from the northern and northeastern property lines
(Camino Hills Mobilehome Park), will include landscaping and provide adequate buffers
between land uses. The Camino Hills MHP located north of the site is approximately 70’ lower
than the proposed development, and the residentially designated parcel to the west is
approximately 20’ higher along the shared northern and western property boundaries. The
project is designed so that all truck loading areas are located along the eastern portion of the site
and truck circulation will occur along the eastern and southern driveways away from the
residentially designated parcel to the west.
d) No agricultural operations are currently conducted on the site; therefore, no impact to
agricultural resources will occur.
e) The site is cunently vacant and adjacent to existing industrial developmient to the south
and east . The site will receive access from an existing industrial road (Newton Drive) and
adequate separation from residential uses to the north and west will be provided; therefore, no
disruption or division of an existing communify will occur.
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project is an industrial facility which will not directly increase the population, however, the
proposed facility will provide employment for approximately 400 employees. The site is located
to the north of the Carlsbad Research Center, an existing planned industrial park, which provides
the required infrastructure (roads and utilities) to accommodate this development. The site is
vacant; therefore, no existing housing will be directly impacted .
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
No significant geologic problems were identified by GeoSoils, Inc. in their preliminary
geotechnical feasibility evaluation. They indicate that the site appears suitable for the intended
10 Rev. 03/28/96
h
industrial use provided that the recommendations of the “Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility
Evaluation” prepared for the site by GeoSoils, Inc. dated April 15, 1997 are incorporated into the
final design. The project will be conditioned to require compliance with the geotechnical report.
IV. WATER
a) Existing rates of surface runoff would be increased by impervious surfaces created by parking lots and the proposed tilt-up structure. However, the storm drain system in Newton
Drive, which reaches the southwestern boundary of the subject property, will be extended into
the proposed project. It would be fed by drainage inlets placed periodically throughout the
industrial site. The issuance of a grading permit for the project will ensure short term erosion
control methods and slope landscaping in accordance with City Standards to avoid runoff during
. construction.
b) The project is not located within a floodplain and proper drainage throughout the site will
avoid onsite of off-site flooding.
c-e) Drainage from the project will not directly impact surface water in that drainage from the
site will enter a storm drain system that discharges into natural drainages that lead to Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. Additionally, the project must comply with NPDES permit requirements to
reduce pollutants from runoff prior to entering the storm drain system. Surface water is not
anticipated to affect site development provided that the recommendations of the “Preliminary
Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation” prepared for the site by GeoSoils, Inc. dated April 15, 1997
are incorporated into the final design.
f-h) No impact to ground water is anticipated, with the possible exception of the addition of
ground water on a highly localized basis due to the irrigation of landscaped slope banks around
the east and northeast perimeter of the central portion of the site. Site analysis performed by
GeoSoils, Inc. indicate that the depth to groundwater is approximately 100’ below site grade.
Subsurface water is not anticipated to affect site development provided that the recommendations
of the “Preliminary Geatechnical Feasibility Evaluation” prepared for the site by GeoSoils, Inc.
dated April 15, 1997 are incorporated into the final design .
i) The project has no significant recharge potential for the regional ground water supply nor will it utilize ground water.
V. AIR OUALJTY:
Although the project itself would not have a significant negative impact on ambient 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 sulk, 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.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
..i
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.
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
Mer environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
Air emissions from the light industrial operations, which may include office, manufacturing and
warehouse uses, must meet the standards for the San Diego County Air Quality Control Board.
In addition, in accordance with the P-M (Planned Industrial) zone performance standards, all uses
shall be operated so as not to emit particulate matter or air contaminants which are readily
detectable without instruments by the average person while on the lot containing such uses.
The potential for fugitive dust generation during construction to temporarily reduce air quality
will be mitigated through the issuance of a grading permit requiring compliance with City
Standards (project condition of approval).
c) The project will .occupy less than 4 acres of the 16 acre site with the remaining acreage
dedicated as open space; therefore, air movement or changes in climate are unlikely.
d) The project must comply with all performance standards required by the P-M (Planned
Industrial) zone including odor emission. The uses proposed are unlikely to result in unpleasant
odors, however, the project will be conditioned to comply with this standard.
VI. 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)
12 Rev. 03/28/96
.. ., : d. , ... . .
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-traffk 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 areincluded 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 93-0 1, 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.
a b-c) Construction of the proposed project would not result in the creation of any hazards to
safety from design features in that no sharp curves or dangerous intersections, or incompatible
land uses would result from project construction. The Newton Drive cul-de-sac will be
constructed to provide access to both the proposed project and the adjacent vacant, residentially
zoned parcels currently utilized for agricultural operations.
d) According to the breakdown of uses identified on the site plan, parking proposed onsite
would exceed the required parking standard by 82 spaces.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
%b,d,@ A biological survey has been performed for the property by RBRiggan and Associates in which a total of five vegetation types are identified and the proposed development
would result in disturbance to only one threatened habitat which is considered significant unless
mitigated. The five vegetation types include: a) .78 acres of coastal sage scrub listed as a
threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act; b) 6.60 acres of southern mixed
chaparral with no evidence of Wart-stemmed Ceanothus or Del Mar Manzanita; approximately
6.15 acres of ruderal vegetation; approximately 1.74 acres of horticultural plantings on
manufactured slopes; disturbed native grassland located outside the area proposed for grading;
and a wetland area of approximately 100 square feet which is so limited in size and artificial in
nature that it is not considered significant. Two sensitive plant species were identified (adolphia
californica and brodiaea filifolia), however, these lie outside the area proposed for grading. The
brodiaea is located within a fenced preserve which will be buffered from proposed grading by an
approximate 100 feet buffer. Due to the presence of coastal sage scrub habitat, a field survey
was conducted for the California Gnatcatcher. No Gnatcatchers were found nor anticipated due
to the low quality and disturbed condition of the habitat.
The only biological disturbance deemed significant is the .78 acres of disturbed coastal sage
scrub habitat. The applicant proposes to mitigate this loss through the purchase .78 acres at a 1:l
ratio for preservation off-site in the Manchester Environmental Land Bank in Encinitas. The
proposed “take” will require approval from the City under the 4(d) interim habitat loss rule
13 Rev. 03/28/96
requiring findings that the loss will not exceed the City’s 5% cumulative loss nor preclude
implementation of the Habitat Management Plan or the regional MHCP. The loss of habitat is
considered de minimus by virtue of its size, location and lack of connectivity by the wildlife
agencies. The habitat fragment proposed for disturbance is isolated from lands addressed in
either plan and is not part of a habitat fragment large enough to require preservation.
c) The project is subject to and consistent with. Mello I1 LCP policies and implementing
ordinances regarding disturbance to 25% slopes possessing, 25% slopes with chaparral and
coastal sage scrub plant communities (dual criterion). Disturbance to a very small area of
isolated 25% slopes containing southern mixed chaparral will result from the proposed project,
however, LCP policies permit an encroachment not to exceed 10% of the steep slope area if the
application of this policy would preclude any reasonable use of the property. Due to the location
of the isolated slopes along the property’s southeastern boundary preservation of these isolated
steep slopes would preclude circulation around the proposed office and distribution facility
thereby precluding a reasonable use of the property.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
a-c. The project’s compliance with Building Codes, Title 20, and .Chapter 17 of the Municipal
Code in accordance with the MEIR mitigation measures to reduce impacts (Electricity and
Natural Gas Section 5.12.1 of the MEIR) associated with the use of non-renewable resources in a
wasteful manner will ensure implementation of energy conservation measures.
The MEIR has identified mineral resources within the City of Carlsbad boundaries, and no
mineral resources are located within the project area.
IX. , HAZARDS
a and c) The City’s Fire Protection Code prohibits the storage of explosive materials
within the City Limits. The project is located immediately to the north of the Carlsbad Research
Center industrial park in which hazardous materials may be utilized for manufacturing processes.
Chapter 6.03 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires disclosure and restricts the usage of
hazardous materials in accordance with the San Diego Code of Regulatory Ordinances as
amended through December 1, 1982. The usage of greater quantities of hazardous materials
require conformance with the Uniform Building. Code specifications for “H’ occupancy
construction. To avoid the use of greater quantities of hazardous materials at the proposed site
which is adjacent to residential uses, the project will be conditioned to prohibit the “H’
occupancy building classification within any portion of the structure.
b) The project site is located at the bulb of an existing cul-de-sac street from which it will
receive access. The project would provide onsite circulation aisles and parking to satis@ the
projected demand thereby enabling unobstructed circulation through the site for any necessary
emergency response vehicles.
d) There are no existing health hazards on the site per the Phase I Site Assessment
conducted for the property by GeoSoils, Inc. (1997). Construction of the proposed project is
immediately adjacent to the airport influence area and outside the “crash hazard zone”; therefore
the potential for accidents is minimal. The project is not located within the airport noise
contours and therefore not subject to higher noise levels.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
. .: ,.. .
e) The project would not increase fire hazards in that the development would reduce the
amount of flammable native and non-native vegetation in the area and replace it with irrigated
landscaping, a concrete tilt-up structure, and parking lots. The proposed structure would be a
minimum of 85’ from native and non-native vegetation existing on adjacent sited
X. NOISE
a) The project is subject to the performance standards of the P-M zone; therefore it will be
conditioned to restrict noise levels to 65 Ldn at the property line to avoid potential increases in
existing noise levels. The vertical and horizontal separation from existing residential uses to the
north will reduce and avoid noise impacts, however, future residential uses to the west could be
subject to higher noise levels (65 Ldn) at the property line.
XI. & XII. PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES
In accordance with the City’s MEIR, the project must be consistent with and will be conditioned
to comply with the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards for public
facilities and services to ensure that adequate public facilities are provided prior to or concurrent
with development. The project is located within the Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan
(LFMP) thereby ensuring that performance standards for public facilities will be met through
build-out of the zone. The project is conditioned to require the payment of a $.4O/square foot
park fee as required by the LFMP.
XIII. AESTHETICS
a-b) . The project will not impact a scenic vista or highway. The development conforms to the
design criteria and development standards required by the P-M zone to avoid negative aesthetic
effects. The structure is designed with loading bays and truck circulation located along the
eastern elevation abutting similar industrial properties and away from the residentially zoned
properties to the north and west. Architectural enhancement along the western elevation along
with a lower building pad will somewhat reduce the perception building mass from the adjacent
residentially zoned parcel. A 10’ - 30’ high crib wall is required at one location along the
northern boundary, however, the wall will not be visible from any adjacent property.
c) The project will be conditioned to require a parking lot lighting plan to avoid illuminating
the adjacent residential sites, however, facility lighting
Mv. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A Cultural Resource Survey conducted on the site by Gallegos and Associates identified no
cultural resources. Although no direct significant impacts were identified and no mitigation
required, the report recommends that the intact portion of site W-122 situated adjacent and west
of the project area be flaggedstaked for avoidance of secondary impacts. This recommendation
will therefore be required as a condition of project approval.
In accordance with General Plan MEIR mitigation measures, the project will be conditioned to
require a paleontologist to survey and inspect the site prior to and during grading operations.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
c
XV. RECREATIONAL
In accordance with the Zone 5 LFMP, a $.40/square foot park fee will be assessed at building
permit issuance to ensure the provision of park facilities in accordance with Growth Management
parks performance standard.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the
Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA
92009, Phone (760) 438-1161.
1. MEIR - 1994 General Plan Update of the Carlsbad General Plan.
2. “Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation” performed by GeoSoils, Inc., dated
April 15,1997.
3. “Report of a Biological Survey of the Newton Drive Industrial Facility Site” performed
by RBRiggan and Associates dated May 25, 1997 and revised August 16, 1997 and
including letter from Industrial Developments International dated November 25, 1997.
4. ’ City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan.
5. “Cultural Resource Survey Report” prepared by Gallegos & Associates dated April,
1997.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the developer
shall receive City of Carlsbad approval of a 4d Permit and provide evidence of the purchase
for preservation of .78 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat in the Manchester Environmental
Land Bank in Encinitas or alternate location approved by the City of Carlsbad.
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
ADDENDUM.TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
DATED DECEMBER 24.1997
CASE NO.: PIP 97=07/HDP 97-1 81CDP 97-35
CASE NAME: NEWTON BUSINESS CENTER
In response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration public noticing, the USFWS and
CDFG disagreed with the findings of the project's biological survey and analysis
performed by RB Riggan & Associates. The agencies disagreed with the classification
of a 6.60 acre chaparral plant community located on the site and identified additional
thread leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) outside of an existing preserve area. RB
Riggan identified the existing chaparral plant community as southern mixed chaparral
while the USFWS and CDFG identified it as southern maritime chaparral. Southern
maritime chaparral requires mitigation for disturbance and the applicant has
subsequently agreed to mitigation based on the USFWS and CDFG determination and
offered to purchase credits for the disturbance of 4.98 acres of southern maritime
chaparral in an off-site habitat mitigation land bank at a 1.5:l ratio. While the surveys
conducted by RB Riggan in the spring of 1997 revealed no evidence of Brodiaea within
or outside of the existing fenced preserve, surveys conducted during the winter and
early spring 1998 by USFWS and CDFG agency staff and RB Riggan have revealed
several thousand Brodiaea individuats within the preserve area, several hundred
individuals just outside the fenced preserve but within the area proposed as open
space, and approximately seven individuals located within the area proposed for
development. Brodiaea filifolia is listed as an endangered plant species by the State of
California. To mitigate this impact, the applicant must obtain from the CDFG a Section
2081 permit or other appropriate entitlement to allow any necessary recovery and
transplantation of the seven individuals of Brodiaea filifolia from within the bounds of the
proposed development, locate and expand the fence around the existing Brodiaea
preserve to include all of the individuals on the eastern part of the project site along with
all of the adjacent clay soils on that part of the property, and the entire fenced preserve
shall be transferred in fee title to The Environmental Trust along with an appropriate
endowment. The fence must be of identical material to the one presently in place and
constructed prior to any grading of the property.
PROJECT NAME: NEWTON BUSINESS CENTER FILE NUMBERS: HDP 97-18KDP 97-35
APPROVAL DATE: MAY 6,1998 CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.:
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).
Mitigation Measure
1. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever
occurs first, the developer shall:
a. provide evidence of the purchase for preservation of .78
acres of coastal sage scrub habitat in the Manchester
Environmental Land Bank in Encinitas or alternate location
approved by the City of Carlsbad and approval of a 4d
Permit from the City of Carlsbad and responsible agencies:
Section2081 permit or other appropriate entitlement to
allow any necessary recovery and transplantation of the
seven individuals of Brodiaea filifolia from within the
bounds of the proposed development and locate and
expand the fence around the existing Brodiaea preserve to
include all of the individuals on the eastern part of the
project site along with all of the adjacent clay soils on that
part of the property. This fence shall be of identical
material to the one presently in place and shall be
constructed prior to any grading of the property. The
Brodiaea filifolia preserve shall be transferred in fee title to
The Environmental Trust along with an appropriate
endowment.
c. provide evidence of the purchase for preservation 4.98
acres of southern maritime chaparral habitat at a 1.51 ratio
less credit for the Brodiaea filifolia preserve as approved
by the responsible agencies.
b. obtain from the Department of Fish and Game a
Explanation of Headinqs:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agency, 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.
Monitoring
TY Pe
Biological
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
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.
Mitigation Measure
2. Paleontology:
J a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
Prior to-any grading of the project site, a paleontologist
shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site
and to review the grading plans to determine if the
proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of
the paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning
Director prior to issuance of a grading permit;
A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform
periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed
fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to
collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through
fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic
reports to the Planning Director during the grading
process;
The paleontoglist shall be allowed to divert or direct
grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate
evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit
institution with a research interest in the materials, such as
the San Diego Natural History Museum;
Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and
the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the
Planning Director and City Engineer.
Monitoring
TY Pe
Biological
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agency, 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.