Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 60441 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6044 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN 4 EXISTING 83,000 SQUARE FOOT MANUFACTURING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 159,000 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY BUILDING CONTAINING: 6 APPROXIMATELY 8,000 SQUARE FEET OF CUSTOMER LOUNGE AND RECEPTION AREA, 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF 7 PARTS AND STORAGE, APPROXIMATELY 50,000 SQUARE FEET HOUSING 72 SERVICE BAYS, AND NEW SERVICE 8 WRITER RECEPTION BOOTH AREA WITH A CANOPY 9 COVER ALL ON THE GROUND FLOOR, 7,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND AN APPROXIMATELY 70,000 10 SQUARE FOOT PARKING DECK FOR APPROXIMATELY 265 PARKING STALLS ALL ON THE SECOND FLOOR, A 11 ROOF PARKING DECK OF APPROXIMATELY 70,000 SQUARE FEET FOR APPROXIMATELY 265 PARKING 12 SPACES, AND VEHICLE RAMPS TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO 13 THE SECOND FLOOR AND ROOF PARKING DECKS ON A 9.76 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 6030 AVENIDA ENCINAS IN 14 THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 15 3. 16 CASE NAME: TOYOTA CARLSBAD SERVICE CENTER CASE NO.: CUP 05-09/CDP 05-19/SDP 91-12(A) 17 WHEREAS, Toyota Carlsbad, "Developer," has filed a verified application with 18 the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Stellar Properties, LLC, "Owner," described 20 M 21 Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 1310, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of 22 the County Recorder of San Diego County, February 16,1973, __ Recorder's file No. 73-042619 of official records 24 ("the Property"); and 25 WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said 2" project; and 27 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of March 2006, hold 28 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 2 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 3 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors 4 ,. relating to the Negative Declaration. 6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 7 Commission as follows: o A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 9 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning 10 Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration, Exhibit "ND," dated March 15, 2006 according to Exhibits "NOI" dated February 15, 2006, and "PII" dated January 23, 2006, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 13 Findings: 14 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and 17 b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of 18 the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 20 c- it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and 21 d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence 22 the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6044 -2- 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of March 2006, by the 3 following vote, to wit: 4 f. AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall and Whitton 6 NOES: 7 ABSENT:8 9 10 11 MARTELL B. MONTdbMERY,ftlairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 1 j-t 13 ATTEST: 14 n DON NEU 15 Assistant Planning Director 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6044 -3- City of Carlsbad CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION Toyota Carlsbad Service Center CUP 05-09/CDP 05-19/SDP 91-12(A) 6030 Avenida Encinas Planning Department PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request to adopt a Negative Declaration and approve a Conditional Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Site Development Plan Amendment for the demolition of an existing 83,000 square foot manufacturing building and construction of a 159,000 square foot two-story building containing: approximately 8,000 square feet of customer lounge and reception area, 20,000 square feet of parts and storage, approximately 50,000 square feet housing 72 service bays, and new service writer reception booth area with a canopy cover all on the ground floor, 7,000 square feet of office and an approximately 70,000 square foot parking deck for approximately 265 parking stalls all on the second floor, a roof parking deck of approximately 70,000 square feet for approximately 265 parking spaces, and vehicle ramps to provide access to the second floor and roof parking decks on a 9.76 acre site located at 6030 Avenida Encinas in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 3. 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 identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: IXI The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. I I 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). I I 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. 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: ATTEST: March 15, 2006, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6044 DON NEU Assistant Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us FILE COPY City of Carlsbad Planning Department CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Toyota Carlsbad Service Center CUP 05-09/CDP 05-19/SDP 91-12(A) 6030 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad CA 92011 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Demolition of an existing 83,000 square foot sales and manufacturing building and construction of a 159,000 square foot two-story building containing: approximately 8.000 square feet of customer lounge and reception area. 20.000 square feet of parts and storage, approximately 50,000 square feet housing 72 service bays, and new service writer reception booth area with a canopy cover all on the ground floor, 7,000 square feet of office and an approximately 70.000 square foot parking deck for circa 265 parking stalls all on the second floor, a roof parking deck of approximately 70.000 square feet for circa 265 parking spaces, and vehicle ramps to provide access to the second floor and roof parking decks. 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 identify 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 15. 2006 through March 8. 2006 PUBLISH DATE February 15. 2006 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 CASE NO: CUP 05-09/CDP 05-19/SDP 91-12(A) DATE: 01/23/2006 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Toyota Carlsbad Service Center 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Christer Westman (760)602-4614 4. PROJECT LOCATION: 6030 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad CA 92011 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Peggy Kelcher c/o Toyota Carlsbad 5424 Paseo Del Norte Carlsbad CA 92008 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Planned Industrial (PD 7. ZONING: Industrial (M) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Demolition of an existing 83,000 square foot sales and manufacturing building and construction of a 159,000 square foot two-story building containing: approximately 8,000 square feet of customer lounge and reception area, 20,000 square feet of parts and storage, approximately 50,000 square feet housing 72 service bays, and new service writer reception booth area with a canopy cover all on the ground floor, 7,000 square feet of office and an approximately 70,000 square foot parking deck for circa 265 parking stalls all on the second floor, a roof parking deck of approximately 70,000 square feet for circa 265 parking spaces, and vehicle ramps to provide access to the second floor and roof parking decks. Rev. 01/11/06 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. [ | Aesthetics I | Agricultural Resources I | Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources I I Geology/Soils Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance J Transportation/Circulation J Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 01/11/06 DETERMINATION. 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 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. 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 "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not 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 from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all 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. 01/11/06 • 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 ElA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 01/11/06 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? 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-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? III. 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 Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D n D [x] D Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 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? 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? 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? d) 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D Kl D D El El Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 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: 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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) 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 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D n n n Rev. 01/11/06 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: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) 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? e) 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? f) 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) 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 Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact D n n n n n n n n n n n IE1 Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) 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 (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) 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? d) 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? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) 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 map? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) 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) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact No Impact n D D n EI n n n n n EI 10 Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? 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: 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact D No Impact n n n n 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? 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: 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? n n Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D D 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. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 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? D D D D D D 12 Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 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: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D n n D 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? n n 13 Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("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? D n m D 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 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. 14 Rev. 01/11/06 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 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? d) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? e) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact - This potential impact has been previously addressed in the General Plan EIR, which states that the aesthetic character of Carlsbad will be substantially altered from implementation of the General Plan, and that the aesthetic quality of scenic corridors such as Interstate 5 will be degraded. However, there currently is no view of significance through, to, or from this property. The project is most visible from the Interstate 5 corridor and from Palomar Airport Road. The project has been designed with materials that add texture and shadow character to the building elevations. A parapet wall will screen all roof parking and security lighting for the roof parking deck. New landscaping will be provided along the eastern elevation that fronts the freeway corridor. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - 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? No Impact - The site is not and has not been in use for agricultural production. The proposed development does not propose or affect any policy or standard that could: a) result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use since the site is fully developed and no farm land is present; b) conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract since the site is fully developed and no agricultural operations exist onsite; or c) result in changes to the existing city environment that would cause the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. AIR QUALITY—Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact - All properties within the city are located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non- attainment area for ozone (O3), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMi0). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill 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 15 Rev. 07/03/02 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding air sheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. Future development projects relate to the SIP and/or 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 to the RAQS, which include the following: • 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 proposed amendments are consistent with the growth assumptions of the General Plan. Future development projects that are subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be required to be 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. b) 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 properties within the city 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. The proposed amendments do not involve the physical development of any site nor air quality planning/standard changes. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. c) 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? Less Than Significant Impact - The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed amendments do not propose or affect any policy or standard that would result in a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. Additionally, the project does not include a proposal for physical development of any site. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended Car Country Specific Plan will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact - The project site is located within an Industrial Zone. Anticipated development within the zone is for industrial and heavy commercial uses. Schools, residences, churches and other uses that might be considered sensitive are not located in the general vicinity. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact - The proposed operations of the project are typical for automobile service and will not create odors that will be carried significant distances so as to affect people who are not part of the project operations. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 16 Rev. 07/03/02 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? 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? 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? d) 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact (a,b,c,d,e & f) - The site has been previously developed and is fully surrounded by other properties that are fully developed. The proposed project does not include any habitat, riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat, and does not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in an adverse effect on any sensitive habitat or species, or interference with any native or migratory wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery site. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact - The site is fully developed. There is no cause to suspect that the site may have significant cultural resources. 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: 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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? 17 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active of potentially active faults within the City. However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. Landslides are also a potential threat in parts of the City. All development proposals in Carlsbad are subject to requirements such as the Uniform Building Code earthquake construction standards and soil remediation that when necessary ensure potential adverse effects are not significant. The proposed project does not include significant alteration to the existing contours. The site historically has been stable since there is no evidence of effects from earthquake fault, ground shaking, seismic- related ground failure or landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) 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 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 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? No Impact (b,c,d, & e) - Since the site has been previously developed and, other than specific areas of landscape, is otherwise completely paved, there is no likelihood that there will opportunity for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Unstable or expansive soils have not been identified onsite. The project will connect to existing City sewer systems. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) 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? e) 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? f) 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) 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? No Impact (a,b,c,d,e,f,g & h) — The project does not involve the use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials. The project site is not on the State Hazardous Waste and Substances List. The project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project site is within two miles of the McClellan-Palomar Airport and in the Airport Influence Area. Significantly, however, the project is located in the 60-65 CNEL airport noise contour and is not within the flight path or within the flight activity zone. The site has been previously developed and is fully surrounded by other 18 Rev. 07/03/02 properties that are fully developed. The proposed operations of the project are typical for automobile service and do not involve the release of hazardous emissions or involve handling of acutely hazardous materials. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) 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 (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) 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? d) 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? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) 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 map? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) 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) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact (a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,&j) - Based on information provided in the Water Quality Technical Report for Toyota Carlsbad Service Facility prepared by BHA, Inc dated November 2005, the project is designed, with the incorporation of suitable onsite storm water measures and best management practices for water quality and will not result in significant adverse impacts to water quality or drainage. The site has been previously developed and is fully surrounded by other properties that are fully developed. The property is not in a floodplain or flood hazard area. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact - The site has been previously developed and is fully surrounded by other properties that are fully developed. All surrounding development is industrial in nature and therefore the project will not have the effect of dividing an established neighborhood. 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? No Impact - The proposed use is allowed within the General Plan and Zoning designations of Planned Industrial (PI) and Industrial (M) with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The property is located within the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP). The land use and zoning designations within the LCP are the same as the City of Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Consequently the proposed project is consistent with the land use and development regulations of the LCP. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No Impact - The site has been previously developed and is fully surrounded by other properties that are fully developed. All surrounding development is industrial in nature and therefore the project will not have the effect of conflicting with any habitat or natural community conservation plans. 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? 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? No Impact - The site has been previously developed and there are no known mineral resources onsite. NOISE - Would the project result in: 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 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? 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? 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? No Impact (a,b,c,d,e,&f) - The site is far enough away from the McClellan-Palomar Airport that it falls within the 60-65 CNEL noise contours and will not be significantly impacted by noise generated by airport operation and use. The use is designated as a compatible use in the McClellan-Palomar Comprehensive Land Use Plan Compatibility Matrix. According to the General Plan Noise Element Noise Guidelines Manual, interior noise levels for industrial uses must be attenuated to an Leq(h) dB(A) of 65 or less and for commercial to 55 or less. The site is adjacent to Interstate 5, which is the generator of the greatest levels of noise (approximately 70 dB CNEL) affecting the project. Typical construction techniques will provide satisfactory attenuation for both the service bay area and the customer lounge/service area on the ground floor as well as the office area on the second floor. However, the noise generated from the service bays in some instances will be greater than the noise from the freeway. The upper floors of the project will primarily be used for parking and that part of the building will not be affected by freeway noise. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 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)? No Impact - All public facilities (roads, infrastructure, etc) necessary to accommodate this project have been provided and no substantial new roads or infrastructure will be necessary. Therefore, the project will not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 20 Rev. 07/03/02 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact - The project is the redevelopment of an existing commercial industrial site with an industrial and commercial use. There will not be any impact to existing housing. 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? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities? No Impact. Although the size of the proposed building increases significantly over the size of the existing building, it is predominantly a parking structure so the increase in habitable area is limited to the customer reception space, office area and the ground floor service bays. The existing building included approximately 80,000 square feet of manufacturing area and 3,000 square feet of office. The proposed building will have approximately combined 15,000 square feet of customer service and office areas. The new area will not have a significantly greater need for public services than the existing building. Therefore it can be concluded that all of the public services necessary to serve the existing building are in place and will be adequate to service the new building. RECREATION - Would the project: 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? 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? No Impact. As an industrial project, local recreation will not be affected. TRANSPORTATION/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? 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 (a&b) - The project will increase the number of daily trips to and from the site, however, the findings of a traffic impact analysis prepared for Toyota Carlsbad by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, dated November 2006, are that there will not be a significant adverse impact to existing roadways and intersections as a result of this project. 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? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 21 Rev. 07/03/02 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact (c,d,e,f&g) - The project is the redevelopment of an existing industrial property and will therefore not affect air traffic or conflict with adopted policies regarding alternative transportation. The onsite circulation will remain significantly the same as the existing condition and therefore emergency access to the site will not be compromised. All required parking is provided onsite. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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? No Impact - Although the size of the proposed building increases significantly over the size of the existing building, it is predominantly a parking structure so the increase in habitable area is limited to the customer reception space, office area and the ground floor service bays. The existing building included approximately 80,000 square feet of manufacturing area and 3,000 square feet of office. The proposed building will have approximately combined 15,000 square feet of customer service and office areas. The new area will not have a significantly greater need for water or wastewater treatment than the existing building. Therefore it can be concluded that all of the utility services necessary to serve the existing building are in place and will be adequate to service the new building. The project will be required to connect to existing storm water and sewer systems. Because of the nature of the proposed use, it is not anticipated that solid waste disposal needs will be greater than what was required during the occupancy of the existing building. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact - The site has been previously disturbed and developed and no new significant areas of habitat or conservation will be affected. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? No Impact - The project is the redevelopment of an existing industrial site. No impacts have been identified that may have a cumulative significant adverse effect. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact - None. 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 Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Traffic Impact Analysis For The Proposed Toyota of Carlsbad Toyota Service and Parts Center prepared for Toyota of Carlsbad by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, dated November 2005. 3. Water Quality Technical Report for Toyota Carlsbad Service Facility prepared by BHA, Inc., dated November 2005. 23 Rev. 07/03/02