The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-07-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 61251 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6125 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT DESIGNATION FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL TO OFFICE, A MASTER 6 PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING 7 DESIGNATIONS FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL TO OFFICE, AND A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A 8 SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP A 7.68-ACRE PARCEL o WITH TWO 42,500-SQUARE-FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO 10 REAL BETWEEN TOWN GARDEN LANE AND CAMINO VIDA ROBLE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 11 ZONE 10. CASE NAME: CARLTAS MEDICAL OFFICE MPA/GPA 12 CASE NO.: GPA 05-15/MP 98-OKGVSDP 05-18/SUP 05-17 13 WHEREAS, Carltas Company, "Developer," has filed a verified application 14 with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Real Estate Collateral Management , fi Company, "Owner," described as 17 Lot 1 of Carlsbad Tract 99-03, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof 18 No. 14543, filed in the office of the County Recorder 19 ("the Property"); and 20 WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said 21 project; and 22 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of July 2006, hold a 24 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 25 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony ^" and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 27 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors 28 relating to the Negative Declaration. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 2 Commission as follows: 3 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 4 " - B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration, 6 Exhibit "ND," dated according to Exhibits "NOI" dated May 23, 2006, and "PII" dated May 17, 2006, attached hereto and made a 7 part hereof, based on the following findings: o0 Findings: 9 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 10 a. It has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Negative Declaration Carltas Medical Office MPA/GPA - GPA 05-15/MP 98-01(G)/SDP 05-18/SUP 05-17 the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project. 13 b. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of 14 the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. 15 , 6 c. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. 17 d. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence 18 the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESON0.6125 -2- 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 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of July 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES:Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN' Commissioner Segall MARTELL B. MONFGOMER^Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PCRESONO. 6125 -3- City of Carlsbad CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Planning Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION CARLTAS MEDICAL OFFICE MPA/GPA GPA 05-15/MP 98-01G/SDP 05-18/SUP 05-17 East side of El Camino Real between Town Garden Lane and Camino Vida Roble. Carlsbad. San Diego County. APN 213-110-01-00. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a General Plan Amendment and Villages of La Costa Master Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use Element from Planned Industrial to Office and the construction of two two-story 42,500 square foot Medical Office buildings (85,000 sq ft total) on a 7.68 acre site. 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: E>\l 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: . pursuant to City Council Resolution Number MARCELA ESCOBAR-ECK Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us City of Carlsbad CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Planning Department NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Carltas Medical Office MPA/GPA GPA 05-15/MP 98-01G/SDP 05-18/SUP 05-17 East side of El Camino Real between Town Garden Lane and Camino Vida Roble. Carlsbad. San Diego County. APN 213-110- 01-00. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment and Villages of La Costa Master Plan Amendment to change the Land Use from Planned Industrial to Office and the construction of two two-story 42,500 square foot Medical Office buildings (85,000 sq ft total) on a 7.68 acre site. 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 City Council. 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 Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD May 23. 2006 through June 12. 2006 PUBLISH DATE May 23. 2006 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY CASE NO: GPA05-15/MP98-01G/SDP05-18/SUP 05-17 DATE: May 17.2006 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: CARLTAS MEDICAL OFFICE MPA/GPA 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Van Lynch (760) 602-4613 4. PROJECT LOCATION: East side of El Camino Real between Town Garden Lane and Camino Vida Roble. Carlsbad, San Diego County. APN 213-110-01-00 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Real Estate Collateral Management Company. 1093 Wright Place. Suite 180. Carlsbad CA 92008 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing Planned Industrial (TD fproposed Office (OV) 1. ZONING: Planned Community (PO (Villages of La Costa Master Planl 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: The project consists of a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use designation of the site from Planned Industrial to Office. A Master Plan Amendment is to reflect the proposed Land Use changes in the adopted Villages of La Costa Master Plan from Planned Industrial Zoning to Office Zoning. A Site Development Plan and Special Use Permit are for the construction of two two-story 42,500 square foot Medical Office buildings (85,000 sq ft total) on an existing 7.68 acre parcel. The Special Use Permit is required because the project site is located within the el Camino Real Scenic Corridor. The site is a previously graded industrial pad with utility services provided. Site access is provided via a shared driveway off of El Camino Real and Metropolitan Street from the north. The surrounding land uses are Planned Industrial to the north. Open Space to the south and east a Community Facilities Site to the southwest and a prime arterial roadway (El Camino Real) to the west. Planned Industrial is to the west of El Camino Real. The project site is located within Village 1.1 of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. Many of the environmental impacts of the project were evaluated in the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-07) for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000) MP 98-01. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad certified EIR 98-07 and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations on October 23. 2001. Mass grading of the project site was authorized as part of the approval of the Master Tentative Map for La Costa Greens (CT 99-03). The project has been reviewed for compliance with EIR 98-07 for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan and has been designed or will be conditioned to incorporate the applicable mitigation measures as required. Rev. 02/22/06 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 ] Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources J Geology/Soils | | Noise Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources J Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Circulation | I Mandatory Findings of Significance I J Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 02/22/06 DETERMINATION. D 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. Date ' f Planning Di II Director's Signature /Date / Rev. 02/22/06 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (ElA) 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-Initial Study", 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 hi 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. 02/22/06 • 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 EIA-Initial Study 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 after each related set of questions. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 02/22/06 I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (#l:Pgs 4.3-1-4.3-48) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 4.3- 1-4.3-48) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (#l:Pgs 4.3-1 -4.3-48) d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (#1 :Pgs 4.3-1 - 4.3-48) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact El D El The project is proposed along El Camino Real, a designated scenic corridor. The project would not have an impact as the project is setback from the roadway which would help preserve distant views and reduce a corridor effect caused by buildings being placed near the roadway. The site is Land Use designated as a Planned Industrial building site and the change of the site to an Office Land Use designation would not have any negative effects above those analyzed with the previous land use designation as the same type, intensity and design of building could be developed under either land use designation. H. 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? (#l:Pgs 4.1-1-4.1-46 and 4.10-1-4.10-25) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D Rev. 02/22/06 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? (#l:Pgs 4.1-1-4.1-46 and 4.10-1-4.10-25) The site is a previously graded industrial pad and does not support agricultural uses and is not under Williamson Act contracts. 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? (#1 :Pgs 4.9-1 - 4.9-21) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 4.9-1 -4.9-21) 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)? (#l:Pgs 4.9-1 -4.9-21) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (#l:Pgs 4.9-1 -4.9-21) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (#1 :Pgs 4.9-1 - 4.9-21) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D D Rev. 02/22/06 a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone (03) and for participate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM]0). 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 hi 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP 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 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: • 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 hi the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located hi an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest ah- quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp Pendleton. Data available for this monitoring site from 2000 through December 2004, indicate that the most recent ah- quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 10 days during the 5-year period). No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with finish grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although ah- pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result hi the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected ah- quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. Rev. 02/22/06 c) Less Than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) No impact. As noted above, the proposed would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. 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? (#l:Pgs 4.4-1-4.4-48) 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? (#l:Pgs 4.4-1-4.4-48) 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? (#l:Pgs 4.4-1-4.4-48) 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? (#l:Pgs 4.4-1 -4.4-48) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D Rev. 02/22/06 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (#l:Pgs 4.4-1 - 4.4-48) 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? (#l:Pgs 4.4-1 - 4.4-48) n The project site is a previously graded industrial pad and does not contain any flora or fauna. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (#l:Pgs 4.6-1 -4.6-5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (#l:Pgs 4.6-1 -4.6-5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (#l:Pgs 4.6-1 -4.6-5) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (#1 :Pgs 4.6-1 - 4.6-5) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D The project site is a previously graded industrial pad and does not contain any cultural resources. 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: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 10 Rev. 02/22/06 11. 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. (#l:Pgs 4.10-1-4.10-25) Strong seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 4.10-1 - 4.10-25) D iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs 4.10-1 -4.10-25) iv. Landslides?(#l:Pgs4.10-1 -4.10-25) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (#l:Pgs 4.10-1-4.10-25) 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? (#l:Pgs 4.10-1 -4.10-25) 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? (#l:Pgs 4.10-1 - 4.10-25) 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? D D D D D D The project site is a previously graded industrial pad which has been graded pursuant to the grading standards of the City of Carlsbad. 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? (#l:Pgs 4.13-1 - 4.13-21) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11 Rev. 02/22/06 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact n n n n n 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? (#l:Pgs 4.13-1-4.13-21) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (#l:Pgs 4.13-1 -4.13-21) 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? (#l:Pgs 4.13-1 -4.13-21) 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 hi a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (#l:Pgs 4.13- 1-4.13-21) 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? (#l:Pgs 4.13-1-4.13-21) 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? (#l:Pgs 4.13-1 -4.13-21) e) The site was reviewed by the San Diego County Airport Authority for consistency with the McCIellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The Authority found the Land Use amendment project is conditionally consistent with the ALUCP. The project has been modified to incorporate the conditions which requires development within this area to be kept free of intensive development and all uses which involve the assembly of large groups of people (more than one hundred (100) persons per assembly area (as defined by the California Building Code Group A Occupancy). n n n a a 12 Rev. 02/22/06 Vni. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (#l:Pgs 4.11-1 - 4.11-31, # Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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)? (#l:Pgs 4.1 1-1 -4.1 1-31) 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? (#l:Pgs 4.11-1 -4.11-31, # 3) 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? (#l:Pgs 4.1 1-1 -4.11-31) 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? (#l:Pgs 4.11-1 -4.11-31) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (#l:Pgs4.11-l-4.11-31,#3) 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?(#l:Pgs4.11-l-4.11-31) h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? (#l:Pgs 4.11-1-4.11-31) D D n n n EI EI n n 13 Rev. 02/22/06 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? (#l:Pgs 4.11-1 -4.11-31) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (#l:Pgs 4.11-1-4.11-31)D Impact. Development of the Proposed Project site would result in an increase in the cumulative amounts of urban pollutants entering San Marcos Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon. Although the cumulative contribution to urban runoff would be minimal and would not result in water pollution and/or contamination that would significantly impact human health and safety or biological communities, impacts are regarded as significant. Finding. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures contained in Section 4.11 of Program EIR 98-07, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced to below a level of significance, but the proposed project's cumulative contribution to cumulative impacts would remain significant and unmitigable. The required mitigation measures include: (1) designing and incorporating the current Best Management Practices and Best Available Technologies (BMPs and BATs) available at that time for pollution control and erosion/siltation control, as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" and meeting all regulatory standards; (2) in conjunction with the sale, rental or lease of business property, all prospective owners and tenants shall be notified in writing of the requirements for properly disposing of toxic and hazardous waste products; and (3) applicable standards of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the San Diego County area shall be met. Factual Support and Rationale. The new storm water point source discharge requirements apply to urban pollutant elimination. In addition, the project applicant will be required to educate occupants as to the need to eliminate or reduce general non-residential pollution entering the storm drain systems. Regulating the source, plus onsite detention and filtering, all consistent with the RWQCB order No. 2001-1, will further reduce urban pollutants from entering the lagoon and ocean. IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (#l:Pgs 4.1-1-4.1-46 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? (#l:Pgs 4.1-1 - 4.1-46 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (#l:Pgs 4.1-1 -4.1-46 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n 14 Rev. 02/22/06 The proposed General Plan Land Use change from Planned Industrial to Office will not have an impact in that the site will be developed as an Office building which could be built under the Planned Industrial land use designation. The difference in the use of the building would be that the Office uses would allow the sales of goods and services to the general public whereas the Planned Industrial office uses are not retail hi nature, do not cater to the general public, and do not generate walk-in or drive-in traffic and are incidental to the industrial uses in the vicinity. The proposed development of an Office Land Use would not have an impact on the Industrial Park in that the site is located along El Camino Real, a prime arterial roadway, and would not bring traffic into the industrial parks. The site is separated from other industrial uses by El Camino Real and would no bias the ability of industrial users to conduct uses allowed in the industrial zone. Other uses in the immediate area are health club facilities, school district offices, professional office uses and light manufacturing uses. 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? (#l:Pgs 6-1 - 6-2) 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? (#l:Pgs 6-1-6-2) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D n n XL 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? (#1 :Pgs 4.8-1 - 4.8-19, #2) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels hi the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (#l:Pgs 4.8-1 -4.8-19, #2) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (#l:Pgs 4.8-1 - 4.8-19, #2) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact n n n n n n 15 Rev. 02/22/06 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? (#l:Pgs 4.8-1 -4.8-19) 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? D Project will not create or be subject ground borne vibration. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. 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)? (#l:Pgs 4.14-1-4.14-6) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (#l:Pgs 4.14-1 -4.14-6) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (#l:Pgs 4.14-1-4.14-6) Potentially Significant Impact D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D Xffl. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result hi 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? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 -4.12-47) ii) Police protection? (#1 :Pgs 4.12-1 - 4.12-47) iii) Schools? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 - 4.12-47) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D El El 16 Rev. 02/22/06 iv) Parks?(#l:Pgs4.12-1 -4.12-47) v) Other public facilities? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 - 4.12- 47) D D 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? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 -4.12-47) 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? (#1 :Pgs 4.12-1 - 4.12-47) Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: 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 hi either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (#l:Pgs 4.7-1 -4.7-53) a) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (#1 :Pgs 4.7-1 - 4.7-53) b) Result in a change in ah- traffic patterns, including either an increase hi traffic levels or a change hi location that results in substantial safety risks? (#l:Pgs 4.7-1-4.7-53) c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 4.7-1-4.7-53) d) Result in inadequate emergency access? (#l:Pgs 4.7- 1-4.7-53) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D n n n n n n Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 17 Rev. 02/22/06 Potentially Significant Impactn Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporatedn Less Than Significant No Impact Impact e) Result in insufficient parking capacity? (#l:Pgs 4.7-1 -4.7-53) f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 4.7-1 -4.7-53) a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 4,250 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 468 peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways: El Camino Real and Town Garden Lane. The Villages of La Costa Master Plan analyzed the traffic for this site as 7.9 acres of Industrial Business Park generating 630 ADT. This increase in ADT is partially offset by the reduction in Day Care building for Neighborhood 1.2 from 21,780 s.f. to 10,000 s.f., saving 942 ADT. Taking that into account, the change of land use to Medical Office increases the traffic generation over the master plan levels by 2,678 ADT. This increase was analyzed by Linscott Law & Greenspan in their letter report dated December 30,2005. Their analysis showed that for "Year 2020 with Project", the El Camino Real / Town Garden Lane intersection still operated at Level of Service (LOS) D or better. Therefore, the proposed changes would not result in any new significant project traffic impacts over those analyzed and mitigated in the Villages of La Costa and Bressi Ranch EIRs. b) 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 SR78 1-5 Existing ADT* 17-35 27-49 10-57 124-142 199-216 LOS "A-D" "A-C" "A-D" "T?" "D" Buildout ADT* 35-56 33-62 30-73 156-180 260-272 * 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 highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of ah- traffic patterns or result hi substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. 18 Rev. 02/22/06 d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. f) No Impact The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. g) No Impact. The project is near public transportation. The project also incorporates bike racks. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (#l:Pgs4.12-l-4.12-47) 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? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1-4.12-47) 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? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 - 4.12-47) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1-4.12-47) 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? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 - 4.12-47) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 -4.12-47) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D a a D 19 Rev. 02/22/06 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and | [ regulations related to solid waste? (#l:Pgs 4.12-1 - 4.12-47) D 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D n n 20 Rev. 02/22/06 The proposed project was evaluated in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000*) MP 98-01 (EIR 98-07), dated July 16, 2001, T & B Planning Consultants, Inc. EIR 98- 07 evaluates the potential environmental effects of the development and operation of the "Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000)" and associated actions. The "Villages of La Costa Master Plan (2000)" is a planning document which will guide the development of 2,390 dwelling units and some non-residential land uses on a 1,866.4 gross acre area consisting of three villages. The Greens Village consists of 660.7 gross acres and provides for a maximum of 1,038 residential units with some non-residential land uses. The Ridge Village consists of 493.1 acres and provides for a maximum of 320 residential units. The Oaks Village consists of 712.5 acres and a maximum of 1,032 residential units as well as a community facilities site. The Greens (Zone 10) portion of the project is generally located approximately 2,500 feet south of Palomar Airport Road, east of El Camino Real, north of Alga Road, and west of Unicoraio Street. The Ridge and Oaks (Zone 11) portion of the project site is located north and east of La Costa Avenue, south of Alga Road, east of El Fuerte Street, and straddles portions of Rancho Santa Fe Road. EIR 98-07 analyzed the following environmental issue areas: Land Use and Community Character, Landform Alteration, Visual Quality, Biological Resources, Archaeological Resources, Paleontological Resources, Transportation, Noise, Air Quality, Geology/Soils, Hydrology, Water Quality and Drainage, Public Facilities and Services, Human Health and Safety Hazards, and Population and Housing. The Initial Study prepared for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan and related action is included in Volume 1 of the Appendices for EIR 98-07 and analyzed additional issues, which were determined not to have a significant environmental impact. The City of Carlsbad City Council certified EIR 98-07 on October 23, 2001. At that time CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were approved. All mitigation measures applicable to this Neighborhood have been completed, incorporated into the project design or are required as conditions of approval for the project. The EIR 98-07 "Statement of Overriding Considerations" applies to all projects covered by the Villages of La Costa Final Program EIR. 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. 21 Rev. 02/22/06 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 Program Environmental Impact Report for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan, MP 98-01 (EIR 98- 07). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. July 16,2001. 2. Interior Noise Study. La Costa Greens Medical Offices. Medlin and Associates, Inc, January 9, 2006. 3. Storm Water Mitigation Plan and Preliminary Hydrology Study. La Costa Greens - Lot 1 City of Carlsbad. San Diego County. California. RBF Consulting, January 31, 2006. 4. VLC Neighborhood 1.1 Land Use Change. Linscott, Law and Greenspan, December 30, 2005 (Traffic Impacts analysis). 5. Bressi Ranch Master Plan EIR. Cotton/Bridges/Associates, December 2001. 22 Rev. 02/22/06