The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-06-18; Planning Commission; ; SDP 97-05|CDP 97-09 - DENSO - HAWK PROJECT'me City of CARLSBAD Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. (>Q) P.C. AGENDA OF: June 18, 1997 Application complete date: May 22, 1997 Project Planner: Don Neu Project Engineer: Mike Shirey SUBJECT: SDP 97-05/CDP 97-09 DENSO - HAWK PROJECT - Request for approval of a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for a 77,500 square foot building containing space for office, manufacturing and warehouse uses with at-grade parking on 4.70 acres on the east side of Armada Drive north of Palomar Airport Road within Planning Area 2 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan in the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 13. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4127 and 4128, APPROVING SDP 97-05 and CDP 97-09, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION These applications propose developing Lot 7 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan with a 77,500 square foot building containing space for office, manufacturing and warehouse uses. The project site was graded pursuant to the Carlsbad Ranch Master Tentative Tract Map (CT 94-09) and is located immediately north of the site of the National Association of Music Merchants (NAMM) building. Minor finish grading will be required for the project. The project site has access to Armada Drive which has been completed as well as to Fleet Street on the east that is presently being graded. The proposed land use is permitted by the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (SP 207(A)). The Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit applications are required for the City to determine that the design of the project complies with all City Standards including the requirements of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, and the Local Coastal Program. The project is in compliance with all City requirements. The project was analyzed in the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 94-01) and no new environmental impacts or changed circumstances have been identified for this project. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission approve a site development plan and coastal development permit for the Denso-Hawk project proposed for a 4.70 acre site located on the east side of Armada Drive north of Palomar Airport Road within Planning Area 2 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. Planning Area 2 is located in the central portion of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The project consists of a 77,500 square foot building containing space for office, manufacturing and warehouse uses. The use of the building is broken down into 55,000 SDP 97-05/CDP 97-09 DEiNciO - HAWK PROJECT JUNE 18, 1997 PAGE 2 square feet of office space, 20,000 square feet of manufacturing space and 2,500 square feet of warehouse space. A total of 273 at-grade parking spaces will be constructed for the project. In conformance with the requirements of the specific plan, the building is located parallel to Armada Drive to screen parking areas from view on Armada Drive. The building is setback 30 feet from Armada Drive. Berming is proposed in the front yard setback to further screen the parking area. The main building entrance faces south and the employee entrance faces east to the major parking area. Both indoor and outdoor employee eating areas will be provided. The truck loading area is located on the far northeast corner of the structure. Building height is primarily 30 feet with roof line variations up to 35 feet. Areas of the building contain a sloped metal roof over an architectural feature with a maximum height of 42 feet. The base building color is bone. All elevations will have a coarse textured surface. The building design includes the use of a slate material on selected locations in addition to three accent colors. A bronze glass is proposed to complement the selected building colors. The site will be graded to gently slope from east to west. The project will require cut grading of 12,550 cubic yards, fill of 4,320 cubic yards, and the export of 8,230 cubic yards. The building pad elevation will be 1 foot 8 inches above the elevation of the NAMM pad. The proposed grading is necessary to take the site from a rough graded lot to the finish grades necessary for the site to function properly. Sidewalks are proposed onsite to connect to the sidewalk along Armada Drive. General Plan, Zoning & Existing Land Use for the Site and Adjacent Property The following table lists the general plan, zoning and existing land use for the site and adjacent properties: Site North South East West GENERAL PLAN 0/PI O/PI 0/PI O/PI OS ZONING O-Q/P-M-Q O-Q/P-M-Q O-Q/P-M-Q O-Q/P-M-Q 0-S EXISTING LAND USE Vacant development pad Vacant development pad NAMM 34,000 sq. ft. office building Future development pads Flower fields O/PI (Office/Planned Industrial), OS (Open Space, O-Q/P-M-Q (Office/ Planned Industrial, Qualified Development Overlay Zone), O-S (Open Space) Site Description The project site is a vacant graded development pad. No sensitive vegetation exists on the property. The project has street frontage on Armada Drive on the west and future Fleet Street on the east. SDP 97-05/CDP 97-09 DEixSO - HAWK PROJECT JUNE 18, 1997 PAGE 3 Prior Actions On January 9, 1996, the City Council approved the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment (SP 207(A)) and related applications. The project site is one of 9 lots within Planning Area 2, the Research and Development/Office area. The plan permits office, research and development, related manufacturing, processing, and storage uses. Applicable Regulations The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards as analyzed within the following section of this staff report: A. Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (SP 207(A)); B. Office/Planned Industrial (O/PI) General Plan Land Use Designation; C. Office/Planned Industrial, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (O-Q/P-M-Q); D. Site Development Plan findings required by the Qualified Development Overlay Zone - Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.06, Section 21.06.020; E. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport; F. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Resource protection Overlay Zone - Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.203; and G. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 13). IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation of approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. Therefore, this section will cover the project's compliance with each of the regulations listed above in the order in which they are presented. A. CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan establishes the permitted uses for the site as well as the development standards and design guidelines. The project plans comply with the requirements of the specific plan. The permitted uses for the project site include office, research and development, related manufacturing, processing and storage facilities which are an essential component of principal permitted office, research and development uses. The uses proposed for the site are within the list of permitted uses. SDP 97-05/CDP 97-09 DEiNSO - HAWK PROJECT JUNE 18, 1997 PAGE 4 ' The development standards of the specific plan have also been complied with as demonstrated in the following table: STANDARD Building Height Building Coverage Parking Standards Employee Eating Areas Service/Loading Areas Trash Enclosures Building And Landscape Setbacks REQUIRED 35 ft.; allowed height protrusions to 45 ft. 50 % if all surface parking 273 spaces 4,650 sq. ft. required Architecturally detailed and screened 6 ft. high masonry wall with gates. Color and/or materials similar to the project Armada Drive - 30 ft. Interior side yards - 10 feet Fleet Street - 20 feet PROPOSED 30 ft. to 35 ft.; height protrusions to 42 ft. 34% 273 spaces 4,650 sq. ft. provided Screened by building and landscaping 6 ft. high masonry wall with gates. Color and materials to match the project. Armada Drive - 30 ft. Interior side yards - 1 0 ft. Fleet Street - 20 ft. Design Guidelines The specific plan also contains design guidelines applicable to the project site. The guidelines address building orientation, form and massing, architectural character, building materials, and roofs. The project design complies with the design guidelines of the specific plan. B.&C.GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING The existing General Plan and Zoning designations for the site were adopted concurrently with the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan to achieve consistency. The Office/Planned Industrial General Plan Land Use Designation provides for the proposed use. The specific plan implements the General Plan on the project site and includes required circulation improvements and provisions for alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Zoning for the site is Office/Planned Industrial, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (O-Q/P-M-Q). The zoning designation also permits the use subject to approval of a site development plan. This is consistent with the specific plan which was established with the requirement that each site require approval of a site development plan. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE Q-OVERLAY ZONE The Qualified Development Overlay Zone (Q-Overlay) which is a part of the zoning designation for the property requires that a site development plan be approved for the proposed use prior to the issuance of any building permit. Four findings are required by the Q-Overlay Zone. The required findings with justification for each are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4127. This section summarizes the necessary findings and support for each. SDP 97-05/CDP 97-09 DEiNSO - HAWK PROJECT JUNE 18,1997 PAGES The requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental settings as the project design complies with the requirements of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan as demonstrated in section "A" of this report. All required building and landscape setbacks have been incorporated into the project design. The site is also adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use as all applicable code requirements have been met, 4.1 percent of the parking area will be landscaped while only 3 percent is required, and building coverage is proposed at 34 percent. All features necessary to adjust the use to existing and permitted future uses will be provided. Berming and landscaping are proposed to screen the loading area. Adequate vehicle circulation has been provided to accommodate truck turning movements. Access to the site will be provided by two shared driveways onto Armada Drive and a private driveway onto Fleet Street. The planned street system is adequate to handle all traffic generated by the use. The proposed use is consistent with the use analyzed in the circulation analysis prepared for Program EIR 94-01 for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. E. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR McCLELLAN - PALOMAR AIRPORT The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area for McClellan - Palomar Airport. The site is inside the 60 CNEL noise contour for Palomar Airport. The property is approximately 7,700 feet west of the airport. The airport land use plan identifies the use as being compatible with the noise levels for the site. The project was sent to SANDAG staff and the Palomar Airport Manager for review. F. MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM As designed, the project is consistent with the relevant policies of the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan which serves as partial implementation for the Mello II Segment for the project site, and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Zoning Ordinance Section 21.203). The project site has been graded pursuant to the Carlsbad Ranch Master Tentative Map. No steep slopes or native vegetation exist on-site. The project will not have drainage impacts on coastal resources as the design includes the use of a drainage water filter system. G. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (LFMP - ZONE 13) The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 13 in the northwest quadrant. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows: SDP 97-05/CDP 97-09 DEi^O - HAWK PROJECT JUNE 18,1997 PAGE 6 FACILITY City Administration Library Wastewater Treatment Capacity Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Sewer Collection System Water Distribution System IMPACTS N/A N/A 43EDU $.40/sq. ft. Basin B 643 ADT Station 4 N/A Payment of non- residential school fee at bldg. permit issuance 43EDU 43EDU COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes V.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project was analyzed in the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 94-01) certified for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment and related applications on January 9, 1996, by the City Council. A Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality, agriculture, and traffic which cannot be fully mitigated. The cumulative impacts are regional in nature and occur in areas outside the jurisdiction of the City. Mitigation measures required for the grading plan and final map for Master Tentative Map CT 94-09 have been applied. Mitigation measures incorporated into this site development plan include adequate on-site circulation to reduce vehicle queuing, bicycle parking facilities, showers for bicycling employees' use, pedestrian connections to the site, use of reclaimed water for landscape watering, and preparation of a solid waste management plan for City review and approval, and implementation of that plan. As a result, the environmental analysis for the site development plan included an Initial Study (Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II) focusing on any changes from approved plans and the project contemplated in the EIR to what is proposed with this site development plan. No additional significant adverse impacts were identified in the initial study for the project, therefore, no further environmental review is required. A Notice of Prior Compliance was prepared for the project and published in the North County Times Newspaper. A Notice of Determination will be filed upon the final action being taken on the project. SDP 97-05/CDP 97-09 DEiNSO - HAWK PROJECT JUNE 18,1997 PAGE 7 ATTACHMENTS; 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4127 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4128 3. Location Map 4. Background Data Sheet 5. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form 6. Disclosure Form 7. Prior Environmental Compliance 8. Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II 9. Reduced Exhibits 9. Exhibits "A" - "F", dated June 18, 1997. DN:kr DENSO-HAWK PROJECT SDP 97-05/CDP 97-09 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: SDP 97-05/CDP 97-09 CASE NAME: Denso-Hawk Project APPLICANT: Koll Real Estate Group REQUEST AND LOCATION: 77.500 square foot office, manufacturing, warehouse building on 4.70 acres on the east side of Armada Drive north of Palomar Airport Road LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Lot 7 of Carlsbad Tract No. 94-09. Carlsbad Ranch Unit 1 as per Map No. 13357 filed September 11. 1996. in the Office of the County Recorder as file no. 1996-043214 in the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego. State of California. APN: 211-022-19 Acres: 4.70 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: O/PI (Office/Planned Industrial') Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A Existing Zone: O-O/P-M-Q Proposed Zone: N/A Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning Requirements) Zoning Land Use Site O-Q/P-M-Q Vacant North O-Q/P-M-Q Vacant South O-Q/P-M-Q NAMM Office Bldg. East O-Q/P-M-Q Future development pads West O-S Flower Fields PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 43 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: March 28,1997 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated_ Other, Prior Compliance with EIR 94-01 certified January 9. 1996 CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: Denso-Hawk Project - SDP 97-05/CDP 97-09 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 13 GENERAL PLAN: O/PI ZONING: O-O/P-M-O DEVELOPER'S NAME: Koll Real Estate Group ADDRESS: 4275 Executive Square. Suite 240, San Diego. CA 92037 PHONE NO.: (760)625-3119 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 211-022-19 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 4.70 ac.. 77.500 sq. ft. ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 43 EDU D. Park: Demand in Acreage = $.40/sq. ft. E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A Identify Drainage Basin = B (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) F. Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 643 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4 H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = N/A I. Schools: Non-res, school fee (Demands to be determined by staff) J. Sewer: Demands in EDUs 43 Identify Sub Basin = N/A (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) K. Water: Demand in GPD = 43 L. The project is not proposing any dwelling units thereby not impacting the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. City of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information must be disclosed: 1. APPLICANT List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. 2. 3. Richard Ortwain James Watson Charles Abdi Anthony Badeaux 4343 Von Karman Newport Beach, CA 4343 Von Karman Newport Beach, CA 4275 Executive Sq. #240 La Jolla, CA 4275 Executive Sq.. #240 La Jolla, CA OWNER Carlsbad Ranch Company List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Paul Ecke, Jr. Paul Ecke, III Lizbeth A. Ecke Sara Ecke May If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Richard Ortwein 4343 Von Karman Newport Beach. CA 4343 Von Karman Newport Beach, CA ' 4275 Executive Sq., #240 La Jolla, CA James Watson Charlie Abdi 4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-O694 5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? Yes f^lSlo If yes, please indicate person(s): Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. By ner/dateCgmpany, Limited part _ Cpmpany, a Calfiership, Its GeneraCarltas Management,rnrnnrat.inn. Its Signature of applicant ate Pornia limited1 PartnerCalifornia .Partner Print or type name of owner By: Christopher C. CalkinsPresident Print or type name of applicant c. Disclosure Statement 10/96 Page 2 of 2 City of Carlsbad Planning Department PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Please Take Notice: The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed. Project Title: Project Location: Project Description: Denso-Hawk Project East side of Armada Drive north of Palomar Airport Road within Planning Area 2 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specfic Plan. A Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for a 77,500 square foot building containing space for office, manufacturing and warehouse uses with on grade parking spaces on 4.70 acres. Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of publication. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: MAY 19, 1997 SDP 97-05/CDP 97-09 DENSO-HAWK PROJECT PUBLISH DATE: MAY 19, 1997 MICHAEL J. ROLZM Planning Director ER 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP97-05/CDP 97-09 BACKGROUND CASE NAME: DENSO- Hawk Project 2. 3. 4. 5. APPLICANT: Roll Real Estate Group ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4275 Executive Square. Suite 240. San Diego. CA 92037 ; (760) 625-3119 DATE El A FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 31. 1997 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for a 77.500 square foot building containing space for office, manufacturing and warehouse uses with on grade parking spaces on 4.70 acres on the east side of Armada Drive north of Palomar Airport Road within Planning Area 2 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. 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. | | Land Use and Planning | [ Population and Housing [ | Geological Problems £<] Water M Air Quality 1^] Transportation/Circulation ^ Public Services | | Biological Resources ^ Utilities & Service Systems | [ Energy & Mineral Resources | [ Aesthetics | | Hazards | | Cultural Resources I I Noise I I Recreation [ | Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Q 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. | j I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An 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 environmental impact report (EIR) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date Planning Directors Signature Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMK .C STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to. or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but ail potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • 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. Rev. 03/28/96 • 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 II 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. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 1 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with genera! plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (1; pg. 5.7-1 through 5.7-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1; pg.5.4-5 through 5.4-13, 5.7-1 through 5.7- 18, and 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (l;pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (1; pg. 5.1-1 through 5.1-16) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (1; 5.7-1 through 5.7-18) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated D D a a 'a a II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1; pg. 7-1 through 7-4) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1; pg. 7-8 and 7- 9) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1; pg. 7-8 and 7-9) D D D D D D III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1; Appendix A) b) Seismic ground shaking? (1; Appendix A) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1; Appendix A) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1; Appendix A) e) Landslides or mudfiows? (1; Appendix A) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1; Appendix A and pg. 5.12-6 and 5.12-7) g) Subsidence of the land? (1; Appendix A) h) Expansive soils? (1; Appendix A) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1; Appendix A) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (I; Appendix A)a a a Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Informal._.i Sources). c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) 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? (1; pg. 5.9-13 through 5.9-22 and 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (1; pg. 5.9-13 through 5.9-22) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D otentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact D D D D V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1; pg. 5.2-1 through 5.2-8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1; pg. 5.2-1, 5.2-4, 5.2-6, and 5.2-7) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (1; Appendix A) d) Create objectionable odors? (1; Appendix A) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29 and 5.9-1 through 5.9-4) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (1; pg. 5.5-25 and 5.5-26) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1; Appendix A) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1; pg. 5.7-16) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1; pg. 5.7-1 through 5.7-18) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Informal..,.! Sources). VII. 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? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4- 13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D otentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than Significan t Impact D D D D No Impact VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1; I—I Appendix A) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and I—I inefficient manner? (1; Appendix A) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral i—i resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (1; Appendix A) a) b) c) D D D D IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1; 5.9-1 through 5.9-4) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (1; pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9) D D D D D D D D D D X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-1 through 5.8-7) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-1 through 5.8-7)D D XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1; pg. 5.9-1 and 5.9-2) b) Police protection? (1; pg. 5.9-2 through 5.9-4) c) Schools? (1; pg. 5.9-7 through 5.9-13) D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Informat,~.i Sources). d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1; pg. 5.7-2, 5.7-3, and 5.7-16) e) Other governmental services? (1; pg. 5.7-2 and 5.7-16) XII. 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? (1; Appendix A) b) Communications systems? (1; Appendix A) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7) e) Storm water drainage? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7) 0 Solid waste disposal? (1; pg. 5.10-1 through 5.10-5) g) Local or regional water supplies? (1; pg. 5.9-13 and 5.9-22) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (1; pg. 5.11-1 through 5.11-7) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (1; pg. 5.11-1 through 5.11-7) c) Create light or glare? (1; Appendix A) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8) c) Affect historical resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1; pg. 5.3- 1 through 5.3-8) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D D D D n nn n jtentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D n nnn nn IE! 13 n n n n n nD D Less Than Significan t Impact D D n n D n Dnn n n n n n nn n No Impact 13 13 m 13 13 13 13 D D 13 El m 13 13 -8 H 13 XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1; pg. 5.7-2 through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1; pg. 5.7-2 through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16) D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Informa^on Sources). XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS'OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact .Jotentially Less Than No Significant Significan Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D 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. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Denso-Hawk Project is proposed for a 4.70 acre site located on the east side of Armada Drive north of Palomar Airport Road within Planning Area 2 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The project consists of a 77,750 square foot building containing space for office, manufacturing and warehouses uses. All parking for the project will be constructed at grade. Planning Area 2 is located in the central portion of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The project site fronts on Armada Drive and has views to the west. In conformance with the requirements of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, the building is located parallel to Armada Drive to screen areas of parking from view on Armada Drive. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed project was evaluated in the "Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report, dated November 1995 (EIR 94-01)." EIR 94-01 evaluates the environmental effects of the development and operation of: The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan; improvements to the I-5/Cannon Road Interchange; and the development of a 24.2 acre parcel immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the specific plan site. The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan is a planning document which will guide the development of a 447.40 acre area through the provision of a comprehensive set of guidelines, regulations, and implementation programs. The proposed land uses for the Specific Plan include office, research and development, related light manufacturing, commercial, hotel, destination resort, golf course, agriculture, a vocational school campus, and LEGOLAND Carlsbad. The 24.2 acre parcel adjacent to the northern boundary is proposed as a continuation of the Specific Plan golf course. EIR 94-01 analyzed the following environmental issue areas: Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources, Biological Resources, Traffic/Circulation, Hazardous Waste/Pesticide Residue, Land Use Compatibility; Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Solid Waste, Visual Aesthetics/Grading, and Water Quality. The Initial Study prepared for the Specific Plan Amendment is contained in Appendix A of EIR 94-01 and analyzed additional issues which were determined not to have a significant environmental impact. EIR 94-01 was certified by the Carlsbad City Council on January 9, 1996. At that time Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation and Monitoring Program were approved. All mitigation measures applicable to the Denso-Hawk project proposed for an existing graded lot in Planning Area 2 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan have been incorporated into the project design or are required as conditions of approval for the project. References to the applicable section of EIR 94-01 are provided next to each item on this environmental impact assessment form. A brief explanation is provided in the following section for each item checked as having a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated": 10 Rev. 03/28/96 V. AIR QUALITY a) Air Quality No significant impacts as a result of construction activity are anticipated. Implementation of the air quality mitigation measures will lessen long-term operation air quality impacts to a level less than significant. It was concluded in the analysis for EIR 94-01 that the development anticipated under the proposed specific plan amendment together with the development of other related projects will have a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on the region's air quality. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted for this cumulative impact. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a) Increased Vehicle Trips A series of circulation system improvements are required as part of the development of the Carlsbad Ranch property. With the implementation of the improvements identified in EIR 94-01 all of the analyzed intersections and street segments are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service. It was determined that the Carlsbad Ranch project in conjunction with cumulative build-out forecasts, will result in a significant cumulative impact to the 1-5 freeway and SR-78. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted for this cumulative impact. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES b) Police protection The EIR analysis concluded that the conversion of an agricultural area to an urban area which will attract visitors will require additional law enforcement and crime prevention services. The potential increase in demand on police services is a significant impact. This demand for police protection will be reduced through implementation of a mitigation measure requiring security measures to be incorporated into the proposed developments. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS f) Solid waste disposal The generation of additional solid waste is a potentially significant impact. The mitigation measure identified in EIR 94-01 which has been applied to the project will reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. The mitigation measure requires the submittal of a solid waste management plan to address the project's needs for recycling facilities and diversion programs/measures which can be implemented. g) Local or regional water supplies The project will require the construction of onsite water lines. The impacts of buildout of the Carlsbad Ranch project to water supplies are potentially significant. Implementation 11 Rev. 03/28/96 of the mitigation measures contained in EIR 94-01 will rea^e impacts to a level of less than significant. The mitigation includes utilizing reclaimed water for landscaping on the project site. SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161) 1. "Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report, City of Carlsbad, November 1995." 12 Rev. 03/28/96 FLEET STREET fei^Biii"' n j\ \ ! FT! ' ! m »; ARMADA DRIVE SITE PLAN PUBLICL SERVICE:_ AGENCIES n. tum painter «notv Finn. x»- 9' PROJECT DATA /WtlMl MM OMTACT '»T a e*LT«ear*i t*J» MMM BCMk Ift KW n-tu-i nJM*««v*}0cnuew WCM MCH: FI(MJ'Wd PIC -WCCC ViC*T LOT CMC* 'tMM I/ ' 1M< I*'-*1' v-rt <• ^ > » «p 'v-r' w-r HANDjCAPPiP PARKING DETAIL "lc*U »•- r-r mrnKMnnff--^ !| /" f" /' L-'fx"""ii C HJTf TO WCf 4MLK -. - / ' ''••"!: H '^«.»—.„« i i..-1 - i3wu w*;^ F^W HUM 1[ »-*-c,« ha* I t-ru* t '•*•*)-*.""'ml Hc««;tiai|-oMTH f "f-fi" * f * T.P *KsaKjr* •••'•— i.-.a.....«™.,«,,,.u VICINITY MAP < 3<(J§ OSfil . i, u .53 5 r^ 5 E ,'Q: •tec ;<>;>< '4 V x>0; ;^;<x>x<^ .-,•.•/,•,'), •/•,•/,•:•'///*•,•/,* p r ! ; PART w°w ree AREA) 1 ! ... i . .. QfflCE APEA Sr FLU, OFFICE' AACA JT,IW 8J=II OmCI AACA 7.SW SF TOTAL OFFCf H -- KA U.OOO 3F F= LM OF MEIZAMKSTURE OFFICEIf OFFICE AREA f \+-.\ A.5,B.5 C.5 D.S E.5 F.5 FLOOR PLAN • ( 1 : (18) (.3.) (4) {'5,1 (6.' <6.5' pjs fa:i a. $ tt& 5 ilts tutu«> .^ &V1COI- m\ i. J l If H i 1 !: - 'i —-^ t in- rt t t - j- — -i - ; i -Li1 rrn 'i " i -T L.jf i, V EMPLOYEE BUIOHG ENTRY I % £f =\t_ MECH EQUPMENT /-^ TRASH ENCLOSURE T *» ii •* r-p-r 1 i'4^4: ^-PAMTEDMCTAL ROLL UP DOORS 1' COLOR BOARD DENSO HAWK PHOJfCT CAfKSBAO RANCH - LOT T 0 O..ASS BY -ouwoiAir CB-IO. BRONZE COATWC ON BRONZE OIASS i ""TED TEXTURE COATED CONCRETE: ;. \f ' MITAL BOOF AEP SPAN - •WEATHERHO COPftr / 1 PAWTED TEXTURE COATED CONCRETE PANEL; " (±! STOREFRONT COLOR - PPG DURANAR - -STATUARY BRONZE' / / t aATE TILE ACCENT '~li / (T» ACCtNT COtOft 1 - SNCLAM - CMSSI (OVER TEXTURED TMOHOCOATI ~ * L ^ ..».) ACCENT COLOR I FRAZEE - IMS A -BASQUE SHOWN" IOVER TEKTURED ? T FT * t, .'. - i i " -T f"wiw""1 1 1 i . ; i j;] 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ COURSE TEXTURE * jj i - — - • j|] j •- - -4 - - -j 0 ' SLATE ENTRY WAWSCOT MTS MUHCOIW* , ' ' •:] [ j 1 j 1 j1 (•1 ACCttlT COLOR 3 - SWCLAR - SWUM UVER TEXTURED TMOROCOATI „. . . ^- ^ - — r 1 • ;.•' -t-JsrJr 4UJ=all- ^ ACCENT COLOR! J !TEXTURE CO*TELT ^.-i „;_ * ll I"-) H3JIL-!\ 3 j 3 r- • r t i i - 1 1 ; - [ I ! !,J .JQIull.! •p::,! iii • - ' 1 gjj ~~ '^' y ijjjf: gj,^^ J'EDI i -)-;":V-m ' -n . rr 1 ifffll: \\ \\ \ - - ; • ;; •- j | [ 1 4 I \ i L r|'-¥ ¥ -4 i « i HAM BULDHG ENTRY j PAtllED ACCENT CONC 4 VSSSXSi**-,, «».»«,.,.,-», / / A PAHTEO TEXTUW TYPICAL All OlAZMQ =—7, f / f\ COATED CONCRETEfV) f\ J / / \ ~~ / \/ / \ r—PAMTED ACCENT / \/ / \ 1 1RW TEXTURE COATED^) / " ' : fii ill s ; : til LTJ ; \ .1 ) i." : ill: fflt\l I ..{ L- — BASE TRW COLOR •'• 1 \ TEXTURE COATED \ 3lTlrr4rS'iffl ijf 1 i! j , i 1? ! — v i^irr • IrrTiT I LJliLJi PAWT1D TEXTURE 'COATED CONCRETE ri) EAST ELEVATION tCMI !*• - r-r -'- T pr, T --r [ .. .^1 ].,.,_.. . •;• j •;•• ry NORTH ELEVATION j ''i|| j..:-i .-..-• ! | iCEtiJlJ if n*r - r-»- gj fj-jjj ' - -- -4 Ji-T- i i - i i SOUTH ELEVATIpN , gTANOWIr; i i ' 1 : j i ' . ™}jLI4t:j! : a: — • — ' "• ::;; «••«• MW.n-COLOWD-^ ..,,-SLATE TIE, , , WE V tetti ^ SLAIE TIE ACCENT , , NOTE All G CARL d SCAM METAl , kCTAL CAP TO HATCH(,'\ \ 8TANOWQ SEAM HOOP ; r ^ 1 f jrt— nJi[ i i »-T- ST ELEVATION UHDMa ELEVATIONS COMF1 f WITH 1 WAD HEIGHT ORDNANCE 21.0406! 1 H^^S^D•^QB^n P^^^^^^^Q •™ [gfNSODEMO MmNAnOMM AMBCA MCHAWK PROJECTLOT 7 - CARLSBAD RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA- num ' CASM 2»Kia iif 3