Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 54901 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5490 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM L-C TO P-M AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND HILLSIDE DEVELOP- MENT PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AND MODERNIZATION OF THE NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. CASE NAME: NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER CASE NO.: ZC 03-03/CUP 03-21/HDP 03-04 WHEREAS, the County of San Diego, “Owner/Developer,y’ has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as A portion of Lot G of Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to Map No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California on November 16,1896 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of October 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, according to Exhibits “MND,” the “NOI” dated August 18,2003, and “PII” dated August 25, 2003, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: FindinPs : 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of October 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Montgomery, NOES: None Segall, White and Whitton ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman ABSTAIN: None AKER, Chairperson AD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5490 -2- - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: North Countv Animal Shelter 2481 Palomar Airport Road, west of El Camino Real CASE NO: ZC 03-03/CUP 03-21/HDP 03-04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of the existing 6,000 square foot Animal Shelter over three phases resulting in a new 25,548 square foot Shelter which will accommodate a large range of animals, quarantine rooms, meeting rooms and development of a dog exercise area on the eastern edge of the site. The site is 4.37 acres in size and is currently zoned Limited Control (LC). This project requires a zone change to Planned Industrial, a conditional use permit and a hillside development permit. A mitigation measure is included for less than a half-acre of impacts to Diegan coastal sage and southern mixed chapparal. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above-described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of. the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EM Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. . A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 21 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Enc Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD AUGUST 25,2003 TO SEPTEMBER 25.2003 PUBLISH DATE ' AUGUST 25.2003 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.~~~.US @ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: North County Animal Shelter 2481 Palomar Airport Road; west of El Camino Real on the south side of Palomar Airport Road CASE NO: ZC 03-03/CUP 03-21/HDP 03-04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Animal Shelter with a 25,458 square foot shelter on an expanded 4.37- acre site. Phased redevelopment and modernization of the North County DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: 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. 0 The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 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. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). 0 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 WACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: October 28,2003, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2003-287 ATTEST: \ I--, MICHAEL J. HOLMILLYR Planning Director @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: ZC 03-03/CUP 03-21/HDP 03-04 DATE: AUGUST 18.2003 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Eric Munoz 760.602.4608 PROJECT LOCATION: See attached PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: County of San Diego - see attached GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Planned Industrial ZONING: Limited Control (LC) ProDosed for Planned Industrial (PM) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California DeDartment of Fish and Game PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: See attached 1 Rev. 07/03/02 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 Aesthetics Geology/Soils 0 Noise 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 and Housing IXI Air Quality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Public Services Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources [XI TransportatiodCirculation 0 Utilities & Service Systems u Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. Q7lQ3102 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Ix1 0 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and 3 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 MITIGATED 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 “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 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 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. 8- ZO-Q~ Planner Signature Date 3 Rev. 07/03/02 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 mformation to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. 0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A ‘T\To 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. 0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. 0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but fl potentially significant adverse 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. e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. 0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. e If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse 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. 4 Rev. 07lQ3IO2 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse 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 adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EM-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. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Impact Unless Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Associates, June 3,2003. Mitigation Incorporated 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 2 1,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and hstoric buildings within a State scenic highway? 0 0 o 0 0 0 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1 997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: 0 El a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? o 0 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? OIXI OIXI OIXI OIXI OH OH 111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Impact Unless Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Associates, June 3,2003. Mitigation Incorporated 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, Al3C Acoustics, July 2 1,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City's General Plan Master EIR 0 o a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source Document 5) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 0 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project : I7 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source Document #1) o b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? 0 om 0 0 'w 0 0 IXI 0 0 ow OH OB OH 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Associates, June 3,2003. 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 21,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (Source Document #4) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mu OIXI 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Impact Unless Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Associates, June 3,2003. Mitigation Incorporated 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 2 1,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City's General Plan Master EIR 0 0 I80 i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Source Document #1) 0.0 I7 0 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? 0 0 O 0 a) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? b) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? 0 0 c) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1 997), creating substantial risks to life or property? 0 El d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) 0 0 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 17 0 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? NO 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Impact Unless Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Associates, June 3,2003. 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 2 1 , 2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: 0 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? BO 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Associates, June 3,2003. 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 2 1,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (ie., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation IlUp? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 11 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 I7 0 0 0 El 0 LessThan No Significant Impact Impact om om OM Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Potentially Significant Impact Associates, June 3,2003. 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 2 1,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City's General Plan Master EIR 0 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 17 m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? o n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fiesh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 17 0' c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 a) 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? o b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 OH om om OIXI 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Potentially Significant Impact Associates, June 3,2003. 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 21,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR X. NOISE - Would the project result in: 0 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source Document #2) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? o f) For a project withm the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 0 a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? O b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXIU OIXI OIXI 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Impact Unless Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Associates, June 3,2003. Mitigation Incorporated 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 2 1,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City's General Plan Master EIR XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? 0 OM 0 0 om ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? 0 OM 0 0 ON OM XIV. RECREATION 0 OIXI a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? o 0 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATIONA'RAFFC - Would the project: a) 0 0 Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source Document #5) 14 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Impact Unless Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Associates, June 3,2003. Mitigation Incorporated 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 2 1,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 01 Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 15 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Impact Unless Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Associates, June 3,2003. 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 21,2003 3. Geotechuical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR 0 I7 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? o 0 0 0 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XW. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 0 0 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? (“Cumula- tively 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? 0 0 0 0 UBI OBI Ian XVIII. 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 16 Rev. 07/03/02 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. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foohll areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County’ this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 0 0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. (Add the following text addressing short-term emissions, if there is grading associated with the project.) The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? 18 Rev. 07/03/02 Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.& schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate hes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. TRANSPORT ATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project : a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate less than 500 Average Daily Trips (ADT). Palomar Airport Road is designed to accommodate the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Rancho Santa Fe Road El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road SR 78 1-5 Existing ADT* Buildout ADT* 15-32 “A-C” 28-43 21-50 “A-C” 32-65 10-52 “A-B” 29-77 120 “F’ 144 183-198 “D 219-249 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short- tern and at buildout. a) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. c) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. d) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. (Note whether the project is near public transportation. If not, then state that the project is not served by or not located in an area conducive to public transportation.) (Note bike racks are not necessary for a single- family residential project. Otherwise, condition the project to install bike racks and note here that the project has been so conditioned.) EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Imuact Re~ort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1 Biological Resources 1. The impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral shall be mitigated at a 1:l ratio. The impact to these habitats shall be mitigated through either: 1) The County shall pay an in-lieu fee to the City of Carlsbad for off-site purchase of 0.269 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and 0.088 acres of southern mixed chaparral; or 2) the County shall purchase 0.269 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and 0.088 acres of southern mixed chaparral in an established mitigation bank. 21 Rev. 07/03/02 FAX NO. P, 03 AUG-18-2003 TUE 08:59 AM . AUG-18-2003 floN I0:Ol AI. CITY OF CARISBAD FAX NO, fbu 602 8559 P. 02 21 Rcr, 07K)3/02 1 PROJECT NAME: North Countv Animal Shelter FILE NUMBERS: ZC 03-03/CUP 03-21/HDP 03-04 APPROVAL DATE: OCTOBER 15,2003 Mitigation Measure Impacts to 0.269 acres of Diegan coastal sage and 0.088 acres of southern mixed chaparral shall be mitigated by either fee payment, or offsite purchase, prior to grading permit issuance, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 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). Remarks Monitoring Monitoring Shown on Verified Type Department Plans Implementation One time Planning No; Project payment condition : prior to grading permit. Exdanation of Headinas: 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 this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P.