Loading...
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.