Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 61641 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6164 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 ZONE 6 CHANGE TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL TO OFFICE, AND A SITE DEVELOPMENT 7 PLAN TO DEVELOP A 3.5-ACRE PARCEL WITH A 40,655-SQUARE-FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 8 GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF o ELCAMINO REAL BETWEEN COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND FARADAY AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES 10 MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. CASE NAME: FENTON CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER 11 CASE NO.: GPA 06-01/ZC 06-01/SDP 06-03 12 WHEREAS, Fenton Carlsbad Research Center LLC, "Developer/Owner" has 13 filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 14 Lot 1 of Carlsbad Tract 00-20, in the City of Carlsbad, County 1 ^ of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof * x- No. 15253, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County January 30,2006 17 ("the Property"); and 18 WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said 20 project; and 21 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of October, 2006, hold 22 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 23 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 24 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 25 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors26 27 relating to the Negative Declaration. 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning 3 Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration, Exhibit "ND," dated according to Exhibits "NOI" 4 dated July 20, 2006, and "PII" dated July 13, 2006, attached hereto and made a <- part hereof, based on the following findings: 6 Findings; 7 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: o a. It has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Negative Declaration, FENTON 9 CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER - GPA 06-01/ZC 06-01/SDP 06-03, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments 10 thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and b. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 13 c. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of 14 Carlsbad; and d. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 6164 -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 4th day of October, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: Chairperson Montgomery and Commissioner Dominguez JSTAIN: Ou. JULIE B^KEgJi Vice Chairperson CARLSBADPLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: 9,71 DONNEU Assistant Planning Director PCRESONO. 6164 -3- FILE COPY City of Carlsbad Planning Department CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Fenton Carlsbad Research Center GPA 06-01/ZC 06-017 SDP 06-03 North side of Salk Ave between El Camino Real and College Blvd. Carlsbad. San Diego County APN 212-020-23-00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 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 Zone Change is to reflect the proposed Land Use changes from Planned Industrial Zoning to Office Zoning. A Site Development Plan is for the construction of a two-story 40,655 square foot Medical Office building on an existing 3.5 acre parcel. The site is a previously graded industrial pad with utility services provided. 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 July 20. 2006 through August 9. 2006 PUBLISH DATE July 20.2006 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: GPA 06-01/ZC 06-01/SDP 06-03 DATE: July 13. 2006 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Fox/Miller Lot 1 GPA/ZC 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Van Lynch (760) 602-4613 4. PROJECT LOCATION: North side of Salk Ave between El Camino Real and College Blvd. Carlsbad. San Diego County. APN 212-020-23-00 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Fenton Carlsbad Research Center. LLC. 7577 Mission Valley Road. San Diego CA 92108 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing Planned Industrial (TO (proposed Office CO)) 7. ZONING: Existing Planned Industrial (PM) (proposed Office CO')') 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 Zone Change is to reflect the proposed Land Use changes from Planned Industrial Zoning to Office Zoning. A Site Development Plan is for the construction of a two-story 40.655 square foot Medical Office building on an existing 3.5 acre parcel. The site is a previously graded industrial pad with utility services provided. Site access is provided via a driveway off of Salk Avenue. The site is surrounded by Open Space General Plan Land Use designated property. Beyond the open space is industrially designated property developed as professional office buildings. The environmental impacts of the development of the site were evaluated in the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Fox Miller project (CT 00-20) which subdivided and graded the project site. 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 J Agricultural Resources J Air Quality | | Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Noise Hazards/Hazardous Materials d Population and Housing Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning J Mineral Resources J Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Recreation Transportation/Circulation Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 02/22/06 DETERMINATION. X\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. 02/22/06 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 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 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. 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 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The project is proposed along Salk Avenue and will be visible from El Camino Real, a designated scenic corridor. The project would not have an impact as the project is setback over 200 feet 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. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D Rev. 02/22/06 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? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D n 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 (O3) and for participate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). 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 9* through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP 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 in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air 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 air 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 air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. 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. 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?) 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n Rev. 02/22/06 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? D The project site is a previously graded industrial pad and does not contain any flora or fauna. The adjacent Brodiaea Filifolia (Thread Leaved Brodiaea) open space preserve area will not be impacted by the project as adequate setbacks, drainage and light shielding are provided. 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 pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D n 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: 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. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n 10 Rev. 02/22/06 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? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste-water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? n n a) - e) 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n D n n n Rev. 02/22/06 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? n D D Dg) 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? a) - d) and f) - h) The project site does not contain nor is adjacent to hazardous materials. e) The site was reviewed by the San Diego County Airport Authority for consistency with the McClellan-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). VIII. 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)? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 12 Rev. 02/22/06 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? D D D D n m 13 Rev. 02/22/06 Impact, a) - j) Development of the Proposed Project site would result in an increase in the cumulative amounts of urban pollutants entering Agua Hedionda Creek and Agua Hedionda 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration of the Fox/Miller project CT 00-20, the identified potentially significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced to below a level of significance. 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? 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a a) - c) 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 in 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 significant open space areas and the proposed Office land use would not bias the ability of industrial users to conduct uses allowed in the industrial zone. Other uses in the immediate area are professional Office and light manufacturing uses. 14 Rev. 02/22/06 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?) a) and b) The site is not known for any significant mineral resources. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially, Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact XL NOISE - Would the proj ect 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n n n n 15 Rev. 02/22/06 a) - f) The project will not create or be subject to excessive noise or ground borne vibration. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project is located outside the 60 CNEL noise contour of the McClellan Palomar airport. 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? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n m a) - c) The project will not induce substantial growth or displace homes or people as none exist on the site. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? D D 16 Rev. 02/22/06 a) The proposed project is in compliance with the City of Carlsbad's Growth Management Plan and is not exceeding the development projections anticipated for the site or the northwest quadrant. As a result the project will have no impacts on public services. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing I I 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 I I require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a) and b) The proposed project will not generate uses that would substantially cause physical deterioration to a regional or existing neighborhood park or require expansion of existing facilities. 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. 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?) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D D D D 13 17 Rev. 02/22/06 g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs I I I 1ST] supporting alternative transportation a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 2,033 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and 224 peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways: El Camino Real, College Blvd and Salk Avenue. The Fox Miller project analyzed the traffic for this site as 47,000 sq ft of medical office development generating 2,350 ADT. The original project incorporated mitigation measures to reduce traffic impacts. 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: Existing ADT* LOS Buildout APT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 "A-D" 35-56 El Camino Real 27-49 "A-C" 33-62 Palomar Airport Road 10-57 "A-D" 30-73 SR78 124-142 "F" 156-180 1-5 199-216 "D" 260-272 * The numbers are in thousands of daily traffic. 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 air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. 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. 18 Rev. 02/22/06 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n n n n D El n a) - 8) The proposed medical office development will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 5 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed with a industrial/professional office uses and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate industrial/professional office uses on the site. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed project will increase the demand for these facilities. However, the proposed 40,655 square feet of office would not result in an overall increase in the City's growth projection in the NW quadrant. Therefore, the project will not result in development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facility supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed subdivision without exceeding landfill capacity. In addition, the proposed development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. 19 Rev. 02/22/06 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 Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D 20 Rev. 02/22/06 a) - c) The proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment. The project site does not contain any sensitive fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. The project site is vacant and graded, currently undeveloped, and is surrounded by open space and office projects under development. The site is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal community. The project will not threaten a plant or animal community. In addition, there are no historic structures on the site and there are no known cultural resources on the site. The project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California History or prehistory. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City's development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standard, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented. The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) 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 CMA had determined, based on the City's growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City's growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impacts from the project to the regional circulation system are less than significant. With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable impacts. Based upon the Professional Office nature of the project and the fact that future development of the site will comply with City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. 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. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 21 Rev. 02/22/06 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. Storm Water Management Plan. Lot 1 Fenton Carlsbad Research Center. Chang Consultants, March 3, 2006. 2. Traffic Impact Analysis Ventana Real Project. Willdan, March 13,2006. 3. Update Geotechnical Investigation. Carlsbad Tract 00-20. Carlsbad. California. Geocon Incorporated. April 22,2004. 22 Rev. 02/22/06