The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-04-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 58731 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. 5873 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ESTABLISH A 52,000 SQUARE FOOT HEALTH CLUB FACILITY WITH A 2,251 SQUARE FOOT OUTDOOR LAP POOL AREA WITHIN A PORTION OF AN EXISTING OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 621 5 EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. CASE NAME: PUREFITNESS CENTER CASE NO.: CUP 04-24 WHEREAS, PureFitness Holding, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by CalWest Industrial Holdings, LLC, “Owner,” described as Lot 8, inclusive of Carlsbad Tract No. 98-07, Lincoln Northpointe, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 13716, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of April, 2005, 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 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 ADOPTS the Negative Declaration, Exhibit “ND,” dated April 6, 2005 according to Exhibits “NOI” dated February 24, 2005, and “PII” dated February 18, 2005, 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 Negative Declaration for CUP 04-24 PureFitness Center and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and b. the 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 I1 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 20th day of April 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez YTAIN: CAIUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5873 -2- - City of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: PureFitness PROJECT LOCATION: CASE NO: CUP 04-24 North Pointe Tech Center south of Palomar Airport Road and west of El Camino Real PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Establishment of a 54,25 1 square foot PureFitness health club facility within an existing vacant industrial building located at the North Pointe Tech Center on El Camino Real south of Palomar Airport Road 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, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: Ix] 0 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. 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. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). 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. 0 A copy of the initial study (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: April 20.2005, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5873. ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director 49 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us nu copy City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: PureFitness North Pointe Tech Center south of Palomar Airport Road and west of El Camino Real CUP 04-24 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Establishment of a 54,25 1 square foot PureFitness health club facility within an existing vacant industrial building located at the North Pointe Tech Center on El Camino Real south of Palomar Airport Road 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 (EIA Part 2) did not identifl any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration is 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 20 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption 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 Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD FEBRUARY 24,2005 THROUGH MARCH 16,2005 PUBLISH DATE FEBRUARY 24,2005 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.cje&@%us @ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 CASE NO: CUP 04-24 DATE: February 18,2005 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: PureFitness LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Chster Westman 760-602-4614 PROJECT LOCATION: North Pointe Tech Center south of Palomar Aimort Road and west of El Camino Real PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Michael London, PureFitness Holding. 501 West Broadwav, San Diego, CA 92101 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Planned Industrial (pn ZONING: Planned Industrial (PM) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): N/A PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SE'ITING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Establishment of a 54,251 square foot PureFitness health club facility within an existing vacant industrial building located at the North Pointe Tech Center on El Camino Real south of Palomar Aimort Road. Tenant immovements include the addition of an outdoor ~ool redacinv the loading dock, addition of a 7.200 square foot mezzanine, construction of an indoor pool and division of the remaining floor area into offices, locker rooms, and workout areas. 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 0 Geology/Soils 0 Noise Agricultural Resources 0 Hazardshlazardous Materials 0 and Housing [7 Air Quality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality Public Services 0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources Ix] TransportatiodCirculation Mandatory Findings of 0 Utilities & Service Systems Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. Ix1 0 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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 sipficant 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. 2 -Z2-O-s- Assistant Planning Director’s 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 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 ‘Wo 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 llke the one involved. A ‘Wo 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 significantly adverse, 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 fiom “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 significantly adverse. Based on an “EM-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but &I 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. 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. 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. 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. Rev. 07/03/02 4 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 Em, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 5 Rev. Q7lQ3lQ2 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. 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-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 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? 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: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 0 0 om OH 0 0 om 0 0 OH 0 0 UBI 0 OH 6 Rev. 07IQ3lQ2 ~ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 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? 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? 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact Ixl Ixl IXI Ixl IXI Ixl Ixl Ixl IXI Ixl 7 Rev. 07/03/02 ~~ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? Cause a Substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance 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? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI IXI [XI IXI VI. 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: 0 UIXI i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 OH 0 0 UIXI iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? 0 0 OIXI o 0 om 0 0 OIXI b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating Substantial risks to life or property? c) 0 0 OB 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) 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? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? 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, with 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? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mi tigation Incorporated 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 No Impact IXI 9 Rev. 07/03/02 ~ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially . Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or o 0 OH 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 (i.e., 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)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 om d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 0 0 OB site or area, including through the alteration of the come of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 0 0 OB 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? f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would 0 OIXI exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 OH o OB 0 OIXI 0 0 UIX] h) 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 0 map? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, 0 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? j) k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 OIXI 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface 0 0 OB waters. m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, o 0 OB 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)? 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 OIXI 0 OIXI n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? El 17 DEI 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 0 0 0 0 0 IXI (XI 0IxI c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 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? 0 0 OIXI o 0 ON 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? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: 0 0 ON 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? 0 0 ntxl b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 0 0151 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? El 17 OB d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the proiect vicinity above levels existing without the project? 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 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? 0 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. 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? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES 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? ii) Police protection? 0 0 0 iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant No Impact Impact OBI OBI 0 OIXI 0 ON 0 ON XN. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing 0 0 ON neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 12 Rev. 07/03/02 ~ ~~ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? 0 0 UIXI XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in trafic, 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)? 0 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 c) 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? UIXI d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 0 f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) 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 a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 b) 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 c) 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 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project fiom existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? 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 Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“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?) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation [ncorporated 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 cl 0 0 0 No [mpact Ixl IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI 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. 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. b) 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. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project is the establishment of a 54,251 square foot PureFitness health club facility within an existing vacant industrial building located at the North Pointe Tech Center on El Camino Real south of Palomar Alrport Road. Tenant improvements include the addition of an outdoor pool replacing the loading dock, addition of a 7,200 square foot mezzanine, construction of an indoor pool and division of the remaining floor area into offices, locker rooms, and workout areas. Because the building and all surrounding parking and landscaping exist, it is clear that associated potential environmental impacts are very limited. In ths case the change of use increases the anticipated traffic generation from what was previously analyzed in the Negative Declaration for the existing development. Therefore the following discussion is limited to transportation and traffic. TRANSPORTATION/”RAF’FIC-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. A traffic study was prepared for the project titled “PureFitness Sports Club Traffic Study Report” by RBF Consulting dated January 7, 2005. The project will generate 1,628 Average Daily Trips (ADT) which is 1,064 ADT above the 564 ADT what was previously analyzed for this building in the North Pointe Tech Center. Because peak hours are different for a health club versus an office building, it is projected that the project will generate 8 fewer AM peak hour trips and 74 additional PM peak hour trips. Project traffic will utilize the following major roadways: El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. Existing traffic on these arterials are approximately 33,000 and 34,000 ADT (2004) respectively and the 2004 peak hour level of service for the roadway segments near the project site impacted by the project are LOS A. Roadway intersections near the project site are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service, Los D or better, at buildout with the project. The design capacities of the arterial roads affected by the proposed project are over 54,000 vehicles per day. The additional traffic created by the project would represent approximately 3% and 2.5% of 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* Los Buildout ADT* 17-35 “A-D” 35-56 27-49 ‘‘A-C” 33-62 10-57 “A-D” 30-73 124-142 “F” 156-180 199-216 “D” 260-272 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. 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 hghways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short- term and at buildout. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 c) 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 project includes tenant improvements for an existing building. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Aqort. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements are designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, have not resulted 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. e) 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. 9 Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. A parking study was prepared for the project titled “PureFitness Sports Club Parking Study Report” by RBF Consulting dated March 2, 2005. A parking study, previously prepared for the City of Carlsbad by RBF Consulting dated November 2003, regarding the general parking demand for health club facilities was also referenced. The proposed project parking requirement, 272 parking stalls, is higher than what can be provided on the project site, Lot 8. There are 236 parking stalls on Lot 8. With the inclusion of 35 parking stalls required for the existing tenant on Lot 8, the Union Tribune, there is a shortfall of 7 1 required parking stalls on Lot 8. An inventory of existing tenants and a projection of future tenant buildout of the North Pointe Tech Center was analyzed in the parking study prepared for the project and staff has determined that because of alternating parking demand peak times, and varying hours of operation, the project qualifies for joint use of parking facilities pursuant to C.M.C 21.44.050(4). Peak time parking demand for the proposed use is 6:OO p.m on weekdays. Other times during the day the parking demand may be approximately 75% or less. Typical business hours for the office development on adjacent parcels are between 8:OO a.m and 5:OO p.m with peak demand in the late morning. The studies make it clear that all uses do not have a 100% parkmg demand all of the time. Because of the fluctuations in peak parking demand periods, authorization of joint use of parking facilities pursuant to C.M.C 21.44.050(4) can mitigate the inability. to provide all 272 required parking stalls onsite. Evidence of a recorded reciprocal parkmg agreement will be required prior to the issuance of building permits for tenant improvements. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The project is located on El Camino Real which is part of the NCTD bus route 309. The project is conditioned to provide bicycle racks. 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. 2. 3. Final Master Environmental bact Re~ort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. PureFitness Sports Club Traffic Study Report prepared for PureFitness by RBF Consulting. October 6, 2004. PureFitness Sports Club Parking Study ReDort prepared for PureFitness by RBF Consulting. March 2, 2005 16 Rev. 07/03/02 4. 5. Citv of Carlsbad Fitness Center Parking Rate Study prepared for the City of Carlsbad by IU3F Consulting, dated November 2003. CT 98-07 - Lincoln Northpointe Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted August 19, 1998. 17 Rev. 07/03/02