Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 62961 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6296 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4 AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND OPEN 6 SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT DESIGNATIONS FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AND UNPLANNED AREA 7 TO OPEN SPACE, A ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL- 8 QUALIFIED OVERLAY ZONE TO OPEN SPACE, A LOCAL 9 COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND A SITE DEVELOPMENT 10 PERMIT TO DEVELOP A 5.9-ACRE PARCEL WITH A 84,894 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND AVIARA PARKWAY IN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE 12 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES ! 3 MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. CASE NAME: KELLY JRM OFFICE BUILDING 14 CASE NO.: GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-037 SDP 03-01is 16 WHEREAS, Kelly/JRMC Palomar Airport Road I, LLC, "Developer/Owner," 17 has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 18 A portion of Parcel "C" and all of Parcel "D" of Parcel Map No. 2993, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State 1 of California, according to map thereof no. PM 2993, filed in 2Q the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, August 23, 1974 as file number 74-230326 21 ("the Property"); and 22 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and 24 Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and 25 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of May 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by .law to consider said request; and 27 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 28 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 2 Program. 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 4 Commission as follows: 6 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 7 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, according to 9 Exhibits "NOI" dated November 18, 2004, and "PII" dated November 9, 2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 10 Findings; 11 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 13 a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Kelly/JRM Office 14 Building and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; 15 and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 17 Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental 18 Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of 20 Carlsbad; and 21 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. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6296 -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 16th day of May, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Boddy, Cardosa, Dominguez, Douglas, Montgomery, Whitton JULIE CARLSB ATTEST: Chairperson ANNING COMMISSION DON NEU Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6296 -3- o City of Carlsbad Planning Department CASE NAME: CASE NO: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Kelly/JRM Office Building SDP 03-01/CDP 03-03/PIP 01-01 PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to clarify, refine, and adjust the generalized land use boundaries of Planned Industrial (PI) and (OS) and eliminate the erroneous Unplanned Area (UA) designation on a portion of the property, a Zone Change to rezone the area designated as Open Space from the P-M-Q and E-A zones to the Open Space (O-S) zone, and a Site Development Plan, Planned Industrial Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a three-story, 85,000 square foot office building. 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) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated 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 Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD NOVEMBER 18. 2004 to DECEMBER 17. 2004 PUBLISH DATE NOVEMBER 18.2004 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.usJanuary 30,2003 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP 03-01/PIP 03-01/CDP 03-03 DATE: November 9. 2004 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. 1635 Faradav Avenue 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Anne Hvsone. (760) 602-4622 4. PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Smith Consulting Architects. 12220 El Camino Real. Suite 200. San Diego. CA 92130 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PI/OS 7. ZONING: P-M-O/O-S 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): Airport Land Use Commission 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The relatively flat 6.06 acre parcel is vacant and previously disturbed by past agricultural activity, construction of adjacent roadways, and temporary seasonal sales uses. The Encinas Creek bisects the property along the southern boundary. Surrounding parcels to the east, south, and west are vacant. The site is bounded on two sides by circulation arterial roadways: to the north bv Palomar Airport Road and to west by Aviara Parkway. The project consists of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to clarify, refine, and adjust the generalized land use boundaries of Planned Industrial ( PD and (OS) and eliminate the erroneous Unplanned Area (UA) designation on a portion of the property, a Zone Change to rezone the area designated as Open Space from the P-M-Q and E-A zones to the Open Space (O-S) zone, and a Site Development Plan. Planned Industrial Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a three-story. 85.000 square foot office building. The office building is 45' tall with entry tower that extends to 52' in height. The project requires 6.250 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill and the proposed pad elevation approximates the existing elevation within^ the eastern portion of the site. The site is encumbered by easements for SDG&E transmission lines, public utilities, open space, vehicular access and drainage. The proposed office is within McClellan Palomar Airport's 65 -75 dBA CNEL noise contour lines and is impacted by up to 73 dBA CNEL noise levels from the adjacent circulation arterial roadways. Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [~1 Aesthetics I I Agricultural Resources D Air Quality 1X1 Biological Resources d Cultural Resources [~| Geology/Soils IXI Noise I I Hazards/Hazardous Materials I I Population and Housing O Hydrology/Water Quality d Public Services 1X1 Land Use and Planning l~~l Recreation [D Mineral Resources Q Transportation/Circulation £3 Mandatory Findings of O Utilities & Service Systems Significance Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] 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. 1 I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [H 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 I 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. Planner Signature (/ r\ Date II Planning Director 'signature Date Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative( Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. • If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, Rev. 07/03/02 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. • 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-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Mode 1-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency; to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant Impact D D No Impact D D D n D D D a a a Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Impact D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net [U 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 l~~l pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a d substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either I I 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 H] 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 l~l 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 D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Interfere substantially with the movement of Q |~1 I I , IXI 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 I I I I I I IX| protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted [~1 l~l l"~1 153 Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Impact tributary areas that are Q l~l CH Kl environmentally sensitive? Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? a) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? c) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Impact D Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Significant Impact Impact D D D D d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting l~l the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or f~l environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle I I hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list l~l 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, I I 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? D D D D D D 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? 8) h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact D No Impact D D D D D b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or I I interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? CD d) Substantially alter the existing drainage d 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? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage I I 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? D D D D D 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially Potentially Less Than No f) 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? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) 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? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen- demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Significant Impact D D D D D D D D Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Significant 1 Impact D Impact D D D D D D D D D n n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, l"~] fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? o) Increase in any pollutant to an already C] impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or [~| groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? D n n n 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? MINERAL RESOURCES project: Would the 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? NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourae vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n n D D D D n n n n n n n n n n n n n n 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? X. 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact n n D D n n n n n n n n n n n 14 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Potentially Significant Impact D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D n Less Than Significant Impact D D D No Impact b) Does the project include recreational facilities [~| or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is |~1 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 I"! 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, [~1 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 f~1 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? [~l D D D D D D D D D 15 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND Would the project: SERVICES SYSTEMS - a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Impact D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D No Impact D D D e) Result in a determination by the wastewater I I 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 I I permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes I I and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS OF D D D D 16 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D D n n n n 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? ("Cumulatively 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? 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:I 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. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact (a, b & c)- The project site is undeveloped and partially disturbed by past agricultural activity. There are no scenic resources on the site. The proposed land subdivision and grading will occur within the previously disturbed area and will not degrade the visual character or quality of the site. There are no significant trees or vegetation within the development footprint that could be damaged from future development of the site. The proposed office building will be consistent with the City's Planned Industrial development standards that ensure high quality design and compatibility with the surrounding office development. Therefore, the project will not damage scenic resources or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) > Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact - The project site is not considered Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and the site is designated for Planned Industrial land use. Therefore, the proposed project will not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use or interfere with a Williamson Act contract. AIR QUALITY—Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non- attainment area for ozone (0$), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMio). 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 (ARE) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. ) 18 Rev. 07/03/02 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 Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: • Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? • Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City's General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) - Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed 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. a) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 19 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. ( b) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 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. 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: The direct impacts associated with the project occur on 5.12 acres of non-sensitive vegetation consisting of .33 acre of exotic species, 4.57 acre of disturbed (bare dirt), and .22 acre of developed (paved road). Impacts to wetland resources due to the Encinas Creek roadway (Laurel Tree Road) improvement crossing that will provide vehicular access to both the adjacent project and the proposed Kelly/JRM office project were previously analyzed as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment and subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration approved for the adjacent Pacific Enterprises property on July 5, 2001 for a project entitled Pacifica Palomar Office Building. The roadway improvements include installation of a 140' x 65' triple box culvert under the improved roadway within the creek area. Permanent impacts resulting from construction of the roadway improvements include approximately 0.02 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.04 acre of freshwater marsh, and 0.05 acre of culverted waters of the U.S. under the joint jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the California Dept. of Fish and Game (CDFG). The proposed roadway improvement will also permanently impact 0.06 acre of southern willow scrub and 0.03 acre of disturbed southern willow scrub under the jurisdiction of CDFG only. Proposed mitigation for permanent impacts includes the onsite creation and enhancement of a total of 0.41 acre of jurisdictional wetlands. Impacts to 0.05 acre culverted waters of the U.S. will be mitigated 1:1 through the replacement of the existing pipe culverts onsite with a new triple box culvert. The impacts resulting from the roadway improvement and proposed mitigation measures have been authorized through the issuance of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (File No. 02C-047), 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game (No. R5-2002-0128), and 404 Nationwide Permit from the Army Corp of Engineers, incorporated herein by reference. The applicant, Kelly/JRM Palomar Airport Road ILLC, is the co-permittee for the above referenced permits; therefore, the project is subject to the mitigation measures required by those permits. The project will also be required to comply with the Final Wetland Mitigation/Buffer Plan, dated 11/15/05. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 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? Less than Significant Impact - The proposed development will occur on 6.06 acres, the majority of which has been previously disturbed. Although disturbance to wetland vegetation within Encinas Creek is necessary for the construction of the Laurel Tree Road improvements, the required improvements and mitigation measures to restore wetlands impacted by the roadway improvements will not interfere with the movement of wildlife through this corridor. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact - The project is consistent with the preservation and mitigation requirements of the City's Draft Habitat Management Plan which is used as a standard of review for biological impacts. 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? Less than Significant Impact - Encinas Creek is identified as an existing hardline area in the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The proposed Laurel Tree Road crossing improvements and associated wetland mitigation measures within the hardline area are consistent with the HMP. g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Encinas Creek contains wetland resources and is tributary to the Pacific Ocean. The proposed Laurel Tree Road crossing improvements will be mitigated as required by the ACOE 404 Nationwide Permit, CRWQCB 401 Water Quality Certification and CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement issued for the project. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact (a, b, & d) - The project site is an undeveloped infill site that has been previously disturbed by agricultural operations. There are no known historical or archeological resources or human remains on the project site. 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: 21 Rev. 07/03/02 i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a.iii.) - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active of potentially active faults within the City. However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992). In addition, the Geotechnical Hazards Analysis identifies the project site to be in an area of low to moderate risk from ground shaking. The risk from ground shaking is not significant when structures are built pursuant to the Uniform Building Code (earthquake standards). Because the site is located in an area of stable soil conditions, and any future dwelling constructed on the site must comply with the UBC earthquake construction standards, the proposed project will not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects from the risks associated with earthquakes. iv. Landslides? No Impact - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is in an area of stable soil conditions that are not subject to landslides. There are no unique geologic or physical features present on the site. The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. revealed that no significant geotechnical problems exist that could result in exposure to unsafe conditions. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact - The project's compliance with standards in the City's Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent erosion through slope planting and installation of detention/desiltation basins or other temporary means will avoid substantial soil erosion impacts. 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? Less Than Significant Impact - The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. revealed that unstable soils are present that could result in exposure to unsafe conditions without remediation; however, the site is favorable for the proposed development provided the recommendations summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report are followed. d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact- The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. revealed that geotechnical problems exist with respect to a stable base for the proposed structure; however, the site is favorable for the proposed development provided the recommendations summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report are followed. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site surrounded by urban development. Existing sewer facilities are located near the site and are available and adequate to support the project. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project consists of an office building; therefore, no hazardous materials would be used or generated by the project. The site is not identified as a hazardous materials site. 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? No Impact (e & f) - The project is located within the McClellan Palomar Airport influence area. The Carlsbad Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) specifies the areas subject to safety hazards, i.e., the flight activity zone and the crash hazard zone. The development is not located within either of these zones; therefore a significant safety hazard would not result from the office development. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact - The project does not interfere with the City's emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact - The project site is surrounded on three sides by roadways and vacant land, and the Encinas Creek and associated riparian habitat abut the development along the southern boundary. The project consists of an office building and surrounding parking lot; therefore no risk of wildland fires resulting from adjacent wildlands will result. 23 Rev. 07/03/02 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? d) 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? e) 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? f) 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? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The infill project will rely on an existing public storm drain system and is subject to City standards regarding water quality, drainage and erosion control, including storm water permit (NPDES) requirements and best management practices. The project is conditioned to require a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that will ensure that it is designed and constructed in compliance with the City's NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the San Diego NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit issued to San Diego County and Cities by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is located in an area where development will not have a significant impact to groundwater. Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial erosion or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage systems. h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact (h & i) - The proposed office building and parking lot are not located within the 100-year flood hazard area according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed development will not result in structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. j) 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? 24 Rev. 07/03/02 k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact (j & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area, or area subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the project will not result in exposing people or structures to significant risk from flooding as a result of a dam failure, or from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? o) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Less Than Significant Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project site is located adjacent to Encinas creek, however, drainage from the site is subject to the City's drainage and storm water pollution control standards (NPDES and best management practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants from any development of the site will not discharge into any downstream receiving surface waters. Also, the City's drainage and storm water pollution control standards ensure that development does not reduce water quality of any marine, fresh or wetland waters or groundwater. The project is designed to drain through a grassy swale prior to entering Encinas Creek. The project will be conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to ensure that City standards are met. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Potentially Significant Without Mitigation: The proposed office building is entirely consistent with the underlying PI General Plan designation and P-M zoning, and will result in office development that is consistent with office development approved on surrounding sites. The office project, which extends into the 70 - 75 dBA airport noise contour, was deemed not consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority acting as the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The CLUP land use compatibility matrix does not allow office uses within the 70 - 75 dBA CNEL contour. It does, however, specify that office buildings can be located within the 65 - 70 dBA CNEL airport noise contour if interior noise levels are mitigated to 50 dBA CNEL. Only a portion of the office building extends into the 70 - 75 dBA CNEL noise contour and the project is subject to the 50 dBA interior noise standard by Title 24 CFR adopted by the City of Carlsbad. The acoustical analysis performed for the project indicates that the 50 dBA interior noise level can be achieved. Therefore, prior to final approval of the project, the City must overrule the ALUC inconsistency determination by a two-thirds vote of the City Council at a public hearing where 25 Rev. 07/03/02 findings are made that the action is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act. Mitigation required to avoid conflict with the CLUP consists of City Council overrule of the ALUC inconsistency determination prior to final approval of the project. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact (a & b) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources; therefore, the project will not result in the loss of availability of a know mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site. NOISE - Would the project: 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? Potentially Significant unless mitigation incorporated: An acoustical analysis performed for the project by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. revealed that exterior noise levels adjacent to the proposed office building along Palomar Airport Road will be 73dBA. The proposed office project is also located within the McClellan Palomar Airport 65 - 75 CNEL noise contours. The Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) compatibility matrix allows office buildings in areas up to 70 dBA CNEL with interior noise levels mitigated to 50 dBA. The City's noise guidelines limit interior noise in office uses to 55 dBA; however, the City's has adopted The California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards. These standards limit interior noise for office uses to SOdBA consistent with the CLUP requirement. The acoustical analysis indicates that interior noise levels can be attenuated to 50 dBA CNEL by incorporating specific structural acoustical requirements. Therefore, mitigation to attenuate noise levels to SOdBA CNEL shall consist of compliance with the acoustical analysis recommendations. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, an interior noise analysis compliant with City standards will be required to demonstrate that the proposed design would limit interior noise to the City's 50 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact - The project is located on an infill site that is surrounded by existing and/or approved development and served by existing infrastructure. I 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? No Impact (b & c) - The project site is currently vacant. 26 Rev. 07/03/02 PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities?, No Impact (a.i to a.v.) -The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 5. The provision of public facilities within LFMZ 5, including fire protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of that area. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 5, all public facilities will be adequate to serve office development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional government facilities. 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? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact (a & b) - As part of the City's Growth Management Program (GMP), a performance standard for parks was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special Use Area per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided. The project site is located within Park District #1 (Northwest Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to achieve the GMP standard (3 acres/1,000 population) for Park District #1 has been achieved; therefore recreational facilities are adequate to accommodate the project. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 1,700 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 238 peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways: Palomar Airport Road, Aviara Parkway and College Boulevard. Existing traffic on these arterials is 46,286 ADT on Palomar Airport Road (2003 data), 12,287 ADT on College Boulevard (2003 data) and 9,800 on Aviara Parkway (2002 data) and the 2003 peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection(s) is currently B or higher. The only intersection which would change the Level of Service due to the project is the Palomar Airport Road/College Boulevard/Aviara Parkway intersection during the P.M. peak hour. The Level of Service is expected to drop from a B to a C. The design capacities of the arterial roads effected by the proposed project are 40,000 or more vehicles per day for Palomar Airport Road and 20,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day for Aviara Parkway and College Boulevard. The project traffic would represent 1%, 14%, and 3% of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from the 27 Rev. 07/03/02 proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing APT* LOS Buildout ADT* 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 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. a) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport except that it exceeds noise levels allowed for office development. The proposed office land use is consistent with the designated land use on the property and would not result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. c) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. 28 Rev. 07/03/02 d) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The project is located at the intersection of two circulation arterial roadways where bus service is available. The project located adjacent to two circulation arterial roadways that provide bike lanes; therefore it is conditioned to install bike racks to support alternative transportation. 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? No Impact (a & b) - The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 5 which is served by the Encina wastewater treatment facility. Wastewater treatment capacity has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of Zone 5. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 5, wastewater treatment capacity will be adequate to serve residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional wastewater treatment facilities. 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? No Impact (c, d & e) - All public facilities, including water facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed official project will not result in growth that exceeds the City's growth projections. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact (f & g) - Existing waste disposal services contracted by the City of Carlsbad are adequate to serve the proposed residence without exceeding landfill capacities. 29 Rev. 07/03/02 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? Potentially Significant Without Mitigation: The project will not degrade the quality of the physical environment in that although jurisdictional waters of the U.S. including wetlands will be disturbed due to the Laurel Tree Road crossing improvements, impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (File No. 02C-047), 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game (No. R5-2002-0128), and 404 Nationwide Permit from the Army Corp of Engineers. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively 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?) Less than Significant Impact - 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 standards, 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 discussed above, the proposed development would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with residential development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with a residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the residential development is implemented. Therefore, the impact is assessed as less than significant. / Also, as discussed above, 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 has 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 impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than significant. With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that residential development on the site will not result in a significant cumulative considerable impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 30 Rev. 07/03/02 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Development of the site will comply with City development standards designed to avoid substantial adverse environmental effects to employees working in Carlsbad industrial areas. The project site is located in an area where human beings could be exposed to excessive noise levels; however, interior noise levels will mitigated to SOdBA in accordance with City standards and the CLUP. 31 Rev. 07/03/02 EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. San Diego Regional Authority ALUC Consistency Determination - PAL 03-002, Resolution No. 03-059, dated September 12,2003. 3. "Structural Acoustical Analysis/CCR Title 24 Survey Kelly/JRM Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, CA ISE Report #03-044" prepared by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., dated May 15,2003 and "Accoustical Addendum Letter" dated June 2,2003. 4. Section 401 Water Quality Certification (File No. 02C-047), California Regional Water Quality Control Board; 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement (No. R5-2002-0128), California Department of Fish and Game; and 404 Nationwide Permit (File # 200300033-KIC), Army Corp of Engineers. 5. "Preliminary Vegetation Assessment of APN 212-04-64, Carlsbad, CA" prepared by Planning Systems dated January 7, 2003, and Letter from Merkel Associates, Inc., dated August 27, 2004. 6. "Report of Soil Investigation and Geologic Reconnaissance - Proposed JRM/Kelly Commercial Property Southeast of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway Intersection, Carlsbad, California", prepared by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc., dated October 27, 2000. 32 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Biology: Compliance with the Section 401 Water Quality Certification (File No. 02C-047), California Regional Water Quality Control Board; 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement (No. R5-2002-0128), California Department of Fish and Game; and 404 Nationwide Permit (File # 200300033-KIC), Army Corp of Engineers, and the Enhanced Buffer alternative in the Final Wetland Mitigation/Buffer Plan dated 11/15/05. The pedestrian trail shall be located in the outer 15 feet of the 70 foot wetland buffer. No maintenance of the bioswale within the buffer is allowed. Drain inlet filters and development side filter maintenance shall be required. 2. Land Use: City Council overrule of the ALUC inconsistency determination prior to final approval of the project based on findings that the project is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act. 3. Noise: Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, an interior noise analysis compliant with City standards will be required to demonstrate that the proposed design would limit interior noise to the City's 50 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. 33 Rev. 07/03/02 ^NOV-15-2004 MON 01:59 PM CITY OF CARLSBAD FAX NO. 760 602 8559 P. 36 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MBASURKS AND CX3NCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THB PROJECT. Date 35 Rev, 07/03/02 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT NAME: KELLY/JRM OFFICE BUILDING FILE NUMBERS. GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03- 03/SDP 03-01 APPROVAL DATE: The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). ps^^^1{^^%'|^y|nn!|eiltiS|- ^-- ..s - -*" ^il?^ Compliance with the Section 401 Water Quality Certification (File No. 02C-047), California Regional Water Quality Control Board; 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement (No. R5-2002-0128), California Department of Fish and Game; and 404 Nationwide Permit (File # 200300033-KIC), Army Corp of Engineers, and the Enhanced Buffer alternative in the Final Wetland Mitigation/Buffer Plan dated 1 1/15/05. The pedestrian trail shall be located in the outer 15 feet of the 70 foot wetland buffer. No maintenance of the bioswale within the buffer is allowed. Drain inlet filters and development side filter maintenance shall be required. City Council overrule of the ALUC inconsistency determination prior to final approval of the project based on findings that the project is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, an interior noise analysis compliant with City standards will be required to demonstrate that the proposed design would limit interior noise to the City's 50 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. .jjipoijttoffgfec' * *-~-^ * -jff^eSJif?-^ ^~;ii-. Project - Grading Permit Project - Grading/ Building Permit Project - Building Permit *-;*;|/lonJtpnni|t;^" s-t'-afiBWirtTOiftt,, '- PLANNING/ ENGINEERING Planning Planning/ Building '"• Shown' Qjlij** Yes No No " liifHfSlenjMittfliofr >r lit- Remarks 41•"•"• Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P.