Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-08-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 6991 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 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (PI) AND OPEN SPACE (OS) TO OFFICE (O) AND OPEN SPACE (OS), A ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL, QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (P-M-Q) AND OPEN SPACE (OS), TO OFFICE (O) AND OPEN SPACE (OS) AND A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT ON A 7.5 ACRE SITE WITH AN EXISTING 50,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING AND VACANT LOT WITH APPROVALS FOR ANOTHER 50,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. CASE NAME: KELLY CORPORATE CENTER CASE NO.: GPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 WHEREAS, The Allen Group, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Kelly Corporate Center, LLC & IIA, LLC, “Owner,” described as Parcels 1, 2 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 19207, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, April 9, 2003 as file no. 2003-0402795 of Official Records (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on August 7, 2013, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6991 PC RESO NO. 6991 -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 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 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, Exhibit “MND,” according to Exhibits “Notice of Intent (NOI),” and “Environmental Impact Assessment Form – Initial Study (EIA),” attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Kelly Corporate Center – GPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 1. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Kelly Corporate Center – GPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Specifically, the mitigation measures associated with the land use change and zone change shall be required to be implemented by the developer prior to the issuance of any future grading or building permits on the property. . . . . . . I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PAS SED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on August 7, 2013, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Black, Commissioner L'Heureux, Commissioner Schumacher, Commissioner Scully and Commissioner Segall b !< s~MAA, KERRY K. SIEKMANN, Chairper~on CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ~LL DONNEU City Planner PC RESO NO. 6991 -3- «~~ C I T Y OF ~CARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Kelly Corporate Center CASE NO: GPA 12-01/ZCA 12-01/LCPA 12-02 PROJECT LOCATION : Southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Hidden Valley Road. Carlsbad. San Diego PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment to change the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use designation from Planned Industrial (PI) to Office (0) and to change the Zoning and LCP Zoning from Planned Industrial (P-M) to Office (0) on 7.5 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Hidden Valley Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. The site consists of two .75 acre development pads with a common 6.0 acre site that includes parking, associated access and parking driveways and site landscaping. The western pad has been developed with a 48,000 square foot office building. The second easterly pad has been graded and is vacant and has approvals (SDP 97-25) for a similar office building. The site is located adjacent to and southerly of Palomar Airport Road. To the east is an existing three story office building and to the south is Encinas Creek that has been land use designated open space and has existing open space easements for the preservation and maintenance of the open space. To the west is Hidden Valley Road with an office building located on the west side of the road. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: [8:1 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 the attached sheet have been added to the project. D 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 lega l standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). D Although the proposed project cou ld have a significant effect on the environment, there WI LL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and {b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: [CLICK HERE date! . pursuant [CLICK HERE Administrative Approval. PC/CC Resolution No .. or CC Ordinance No.I ATIEST: DON NEU City Planner Planning Division 1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8558 fax to NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Kelly Corporate Center CASE NO: GPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, San Diego County PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment to change the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use designation from Planned Industrial (PI) to Office (O) and to change the Zoning and LCP Zoning from Planned Industrial (P-M) to Office (O) on 7.5 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Hidden Valley Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. The site consists of two .75 acre development pads with a common 6.0 acre site that includes parking, associated access and parking driveways and site landscaping. The western pad has been developed with a 48,000 square foot office building. The second easterly pad has been graded and is vacant and has approvals (SDP 97-25(A)) for a similar office building. The site is located adjacent to and southerly of Palomar Airport Road. To the east is an existing three story office building and to the south is Encinas Creek that has been land use designated open space and has existing open space easements for the preservation and maintenance of the open space. To the west is Hidden Valley Road with an office building located on the west side of the road. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 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 Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Pursuant to Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines, in reviewing Mitigated Negative Declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) identify the specific effect; (2) explain why they believe the effect would occur; and (3) explain why they believe the effect would be significant. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Division 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 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 Division at (760) 602-4613. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD May 24, 2013 – June 13, 2013 PUBLISH DATE May 24, 2013 ENVffiONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM-JNJTIAL STUDY (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION) BACKGROUND I. CASE NAME:· Kelly Corporate Center CASE NO: GPA 12,.01/ZC 12::01fLCPA 12-02 DATE: May 8, 2013 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad A 92008 3, CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: VanLynch.(7(j0l 602-4<\13 4. PROJECT LOCATION; SouJheast corner o(J'alomar Airport Road and Hidden Valley Road 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS;. The Allen Group. 11943 El Camino Real. ~uite200.San Die1;9 CA; 9213Q. 6, GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing Planned Industrial (Pil. Proposed Office (0) 7. ZONING: Existing Planrt~d Industrial . Qnalifi<!d Devetm?lnent Overlay Zone <P~M-Ol. Proposed Office (0) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (LCPAl 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: A tequest for a. General Pfan Amemlment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendiriern; to =change lire General Plan and Lecal· Coastal Program Land Use· designation from Planned Industrial (PI) to Office (Q) and to change the Zoning and LCJ> Zoning from Planned industria!JP-Ml to Office (0) iln 7.5 acres of land located on the sputh~ast corner of Pa!omgr Airport Road and Hidden Val!e;y R.o<!d in LQ!)al FacilitieSMailagemen! 4\m!)5. The7.5 acre site consists or twa , 75 acre·<levetolmlent pads "With ,a .cc;mmQll 6,0 acre. site ·th!it incltides par!dng, asso~ialed .access and.· parking driveways and site landscaping.. The. wesiem pad .lias 'belllri ilevelf.lo¢ With a 48.600 sguare foot office building. The second easterly. pad lfas bcim gl'aded and is vacant and has .awravals {SDP 97-25) for a shnilar afflc!l buflding. i'he siteis localed adiacefli to and sr>u!berly of Palomar Aiigort Read. TM!te east i~ an <lxisfingthree story ofiice buflding and to ll•e sonth is Encinas Grt!eR tllat has bjjen land usede,~ignllted opensW!¢ and has existing open space ease!)Wnts for the prns!irviltion and maintenance of the ooert space. To. the west is Hidden Valley Road with an office. building located on tljewestside oftlJe toad. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: GPA 12-0IJZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER 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. D Aesthetics [2J Greenhouse Gas Emissions D Population and Housing 0 Agricultural and Forestry 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 Public Services Resources D AirQuality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality D Recreation 0 Land Use and Planning [2J Transportation!rraffic 0 Biological Resources D Mineral Resources D Utilities & Service Systems 0 Cultural Resources 0 Noise D Mandatory Findings of 0 Geology/Soils Significance 2 Rev. 10/18/10 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) GPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12..02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER 0 I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [8) 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 MffiGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared . . 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRO:t\'MENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant irnpact(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. 0 I fmd 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 C'!flier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures .that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. City Planner's Signature S/2o/tJ • Date 3 Rev. 10/18110 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS GPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER 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 fuctors that might be impactnd by the proposed project and provides the City with information 1ll 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 sowce cited in the parentheses following each question. A 1'NO Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one invoJved. A ''No Impact" answer should he explained when there is no source document to refer to~ or it is based on project·speclfic fuctors as well as general standards. • ·~Less Than Significant Impact:' appftes where there ls supporting evidence that the potential impa~t 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 l!)! potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative fkclaration pursuant to applicahle 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 projcct1 and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental ElR are present and all the mitigation measures required by 1he 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 ElR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" bas been made pursuant to 1hat earlier EJR. • A Negative Declaration rnay be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence thallhe 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 ifthere 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 "Potential1y Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 10/18/10 GPA 12-01/ZC 12-0IILCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER • An EIR must be prepared if"Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the fu!lowing circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect bas no! 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 EJR; (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 fur a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effuctiveness 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, whicb would otherwise be dererrnined significant. 5 Rev. 10/18/lO 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 ofthe 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? Potentially Significant Impact D D D D OPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Pol.entially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D 0 Less llmn Significant Impact D D D. D No Impact [gl [gl [gl [gl a-d) No Impacts. The site is located in the Encinas Creek valley and will not impact scenic vistas. The present land use, zoning and development entitlemenls allow for the development of an office building on the currently graded and vacant development pad. The proposed project would allow for office uses similarly to the existing professional office uses of the Planned Industrial Zone and similar to what is developed on either side of the vacant site. 6 Rev. 10118/10 II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources~ including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the F ores! and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Projeol; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the Califurnia Air Resources Board.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Fannland, or Fannland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califumia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b} Conflict with existing zoning fur agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for. or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code seotion 51!04(g))7 d) Result in tbe loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, ~ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricutturai use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Porential1y Significant Impact D D D D D GPA 12-0!IZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Potentially Significant Unless Miligation lncorpomted D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D 0 0 0 No Impact •·•) No Impacts. The project site consists of one developed and one previously graded lot proposed to be land use designated and zoned for office uses. Tbe site does not contain forest land, prime farmland, unique filrmlaod, or furmland of statewide importance. The site has not been recently used fur farmlaod. The subject site is not encumbered by any Williamson Act contracts. The project would not result in other changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of filrmland to non-agricultural uses. Given the existing development of the property, surrounding office development, and lack of existing agricultural uses, it is unlikely that agricultural operations would be viable at this location. Any future development of the site would not adversely affect agricultural resources. No impact assessed. 7 Rev. 101!8110 III. AIR QUALITY · (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be reJied 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 quaHty 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 0 0 0 0 0 GPA 12-0l/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 D 0 0 Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D 0 0 0 0 a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a stnte non-attainment area for ozone (03) and for respirable particulate matter (less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMw)) and fine particulate matter (equal to 2.5 microns in diameter ((PM 2.5)).. 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 pol1ution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through l01h 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 and subsequently approved the San Diego Plan (SIP revision) in 2007. 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. 8 Rev. I 0/18/10 GPA 12-()1/ZC 12-Ql/LCPA 12·02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Section 15125(d) 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 fuderal 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 pmjeci area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located ln an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growih assumptions in the regional air quality plan and will in no -way conflict with or obstruct implementation of tim 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 2008 through September 2012, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 1 day (September 26, 2008) during the 4-year period) and for the state 8-hour standard for ozone (a total of 12 days during the 5 year period). No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. Long-term emissions associated with 1ravel to and from the project will be minimal. A1though 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)1 nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than signjficant. c) Less Than Significant Impaet. 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 cQnsidcrable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, howeverl 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 15064(h)(3), the proposed project's incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. Any impact is assessed as tess than significant. d) No impact. As noted above, the proposed would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors {e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) No ImpAct. The site is presently an office building and V<Want graded development ped that does not generate objectionable odors. The proposed use of the site as an Office use would also not generate objectionable odors as the allowed uses are primarily office uses. The construction of the proposed project oould generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short .. term or transient (n addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. 9 Rev. 10/18/10 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES· Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effec~ 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 ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effuct on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, poUcies, 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 rem ova~ filHng. hydrological interruption~ or other means'? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory ftsh or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant lmpll<l D D D D D D GPA 12.01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12·02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [] D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D D No Impact •-1) No Impscts. The project site consists of one developed and one previously graded lot proposed to be land use designated and zoned for office uses and does not contain any flora or fauna. The southerly adjacent open space preserve will not be impacted by the General Plan designation change as it will remain an open space preserve pursuant to the previous mitigated negative declaration for SDP 97-25. 10 Rev. 10/18/10 y_ CULTURAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a) Cause • 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 Jrnpaet 0 D 0 GPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Porentially Significant Unless Mitigmion Incorporated 0 D D D Less Than Significant Impact D 0 0 0 No Impact [gJ [gJ ~. a-d) No Impact. The project site consists of one developed and one previously graded lot proposed to be land use designated and zoned for office uses. The General Plan designation change from Planned Industrial to Office will not impact any cultural resource because a mitigation progmm from SDP 97-25 was implemented for the previous grading of the site. No cultural impacts will occur as result of the change in land use. As requested by the local Native American tribe, cultural resource reconnaissance is requested to ensure no cultural resources are impacted during future construction projects. Cultural Resource measures are included (See MMRP Cultural I and Cultoral 2) to provide archeological monitoring, recovery and curstion. II Rev. 10/18110 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential subs!antial adverse effectst including the risk of Joss, 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. il. 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 uns1able 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 scils, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating subs!antial risks to life or property? c) 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? Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D GPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Potentially SigniJlcant Unless Mitigation Jncorpomted D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D D D D No Impact a-e) No Impacts. The project site consists of one developed and one previously graded lot proposed to be land use designated and zoned for office use which has been graded pursuant to the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation for SDP 97-25, dated April 1997, bY Robert Prater Associates and the grading standards of the City of Carlsbad. 12 Rev. 10118110 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS . Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable pllln, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Potentially Significant Impact D D GPA !2-01/ZC 12·01/LCPA 12·02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Inoorpomted ~· Less Than Significant Impact 0 D No Impact D D a-b) Potenti:!lly Slgnlll<ant Unless Mitigation ln<orporated. Combining all regulatory measures such as the Pavlcy, Low Carbon Fuel Standards and both the EPA Energy Star compliance standards and Cal Green standards, existing project design features such as sidewalks and bike paths, in eddition to implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, Estimated Annual Emissions for the Kelly Corporate Center Medical Offices, March 25, 2013, Hofman Planning and Engineering, C02e emissions would be expected to be reduced by 1,291.74 tons compared to business as usual. A reduction of this size would reduce the projects emissions from business as usual by 51.0 percent which will meet and exceed the requirements of CEQA and emissions would be less than significant. Therefore, the project confonns to the goals of AB 32 and direct impacts and cumula1ive impacts would be reduced to a level that is less than significant with incorporation oftbe mitigation measure GHG-1 below. GHG-1: a) Water active grading sites a minimum of two times daily. b) Water unpaved roads a minimum of two times daily. c) Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible. d) Architectural coatings applied to interior and exterior surfaces will be required to meet !be Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) limitations ofSDAPCD Rule 67.0. e) Provide long term bicycle parking. t) Provide shower/changing facilities. 13 Rev. 10118110 VIII. 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 ofh¥ardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one--quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) Por 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? l) for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard fur people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of Joss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intennixed with wildlands? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OPA 12..01/ZC 12..01/LCPA 12-02 KELL Y CORPORATE CENTER Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 D D D D D 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 D 0 No lmpllct 0 a-d) and f-h) No Impact. The project site consists of one developed and one previously graded Jot proposed to be land use designated and zoned for office uses and the sites do not contain nor are they adjacent to any hazardous materials. The change in use would not change the surrounding environment nor would the existing environment impact the site as an Office General Plan Land Use designation. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The site developed as either industrial or professional office uses would be consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The project FAR would be .29 where .64 is determined to be compatible. The maximum lot coverage is 70% where the existing approved project is currently permitted at 15%. 14 Rev. 10118110 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe 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) Substantia11y 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 mte 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 runofl? 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? 15 Potentially Significant Impact D D D. D D D D D D D GPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D D D D D Less Thwt Significant lmpact D D D D D D D D D D No Impact Rev. 10/18110 GPA 12-01/ZC 12·01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER a·J) No Impact. The project ske consists of one developed and one previously graded lot proposed to be land use designated and zoned for office uses and the proposed land use designation change would not impact the existing dminage fucilities. Federal, state and local agencies have established goals and objeetives for storm water quality in the region. There is no construction proposed as part of the proposal and any future development will have to comply with all federal, state and local permits including the Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) required under the County of San Diego Watershed Protection, Stormwater Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance (WPO) (Section 67.871), the City of Carlsbad's Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the projects previous "Hydraulic Analysis of Encinas Creek for Kelly Corporate Center," dated November 7, 1997, Crosby Mead, Benton & Associates and "Preliminary Drainage Report Kelly Corporate Center," dated November 7, 1997, Crosby Mead, Benton & Associates. 16 Rev. 10/18/10 X. LAND USE 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 ovar 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 tnittgating an environmental etrect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natureJ community conservation plan? Pot~ntially Sig11ificant Impaet 0 D D GPA 12..()1/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12..()2 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D 0 l.ess Than Significant Impact D 0 D No Impact a-c) No Impact. The proposed professional office land use designation and future professional office building project is compatible with the existing and surrounding uses. The project does not physically divide an established community. The proposed project does not conflict with any existing or proposed land use plans or policies of the City of Carlsbad as the existing profussional office building is consistent with either the existing or proposed land use designation as most of the pcnni!ted office type uses are the same. The proposed Office land use designation is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan in that it will allow office, professional and related commercial uses that are compatible with existing surrounding office and planned industrial uses. A Local Coastal Program Amendment will be processed to reflect the land use and wning changes. The previously graded project site is compatible with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan as determined by the previous entitlement for SDP 97·25(A). 17 Rev. 101!8/lO XI. 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? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 GPA 12-0l/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 No Impact ~ a-b) No Impact. The project site consists of one developed and one previously graded lot proposed to be land use designated and zoned for office uses. Based on the 1994 Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update there is no indication that the subject property contains any known mineral resources that would be of future value to the region or the residents of the State. No impact assessed. 18 Rev. 10118110 GPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIL NOISE-Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels 0 0 [gJ 0 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 .0 0 0 [gJ groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient nolse D D levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in D D 0 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan D D 0 rgj 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, D D 0 would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels'? a-1) Less than significant impacts. The project site consists of one developed and one previously graded lot proposed to be land use designated and zoned for office uses. Changing the land use designation will not: create any noise levels in excess of standards; generate any excessive groundbourne vibration or noise levels; or, generate any permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project viclnity. The project area is within the McClellan Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and is located within the 60 to 65 dB CNEL noise contour and is categorized as a compatible use and therefore will not have any noise impacts. Standard construction methods will sufficiently attenuate exterior noise levels to an acceptable interior community noise equivalent level ( 50 CNEL). Any office located within the 65 to 70 dB CNEL noise contour must be sound attenuated to 50 dB CNEL interior noise level. A notice of potential noise impacts from airport operations has previously been recorded against tbc property. 19 Rev. 10/18/10 XIIL 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 homilng else\Vhere? POlentially Sig~tificant bnpa<:t 0 0 D GPA 12-0l/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELL Y CORPORATE CENTER Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation [ncorporated D 0 Less ThWI Significant Impact D D D No Impact a-c) No Impacts. The project site consists of one developed and one previously graded lot proposed to be land use designated and zoned fur office uses. The land use change will not induce any substantial growth because tbere is no development proposed. All lots have been previously subdivided and approved by Parcel Map 19207. The project will not displace any existing housing as none exists or necessitate the construction of replacement housing. The project also will not displace any people therefOre no impact is assessed. 20 Rev. lOll !l/1 0 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government lllcilities, 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) Pollee protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public lllcilities? Pot<ntially Significant Impact D D D D .D GPA 12-Ql/ZC 12-QJ/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D No Impact a) No Impacts. The project site consists of one developed and one previously graded lot proposed to be land use designated and zoned for office uses and the use is in compliance with the City of Carlsbad's Growth Management Plan and is not exceeding tho development projections anticipated for the site or the southwest quadrant. There is no change to impacts of public facilities as the change in land use does not change the impacts associated with development of office buildings. As a result there will be no impact on any of the public services or fucilities. 21 Rev. 10/18/10 XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational fucilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational fucilities or require the constructjon or expansion of recreational facilities, which migbt haVIl an adverse physical ef'lbct on the environment? Potentially Significant Impact D D GPA 12·01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Potentially Signifie4!lt Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Thllll Significant Impact D No Impact a&b) No Impact. The project does not include a component that would increase demand for regional or neighborhood parks {such as a residential development). Future projects will be conditioned with future entitlements to pay a park fee. The proposed project does not propose construction or expansion of recreational facilities. As a result, no impact will occur. · 22 Rev. 10118/10 XVL TRANSPORT A TION!TRAFFIC -Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account aU modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict wlth an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and trm'el demand measures. or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designa~ roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase ln 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) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities .. or otherwise decrease the performance or safely of such fucilitics? Potentially Signiticant Impact D 0 0 0 0 0 OPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact D 0 a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Traffic Impact Analysis for the Carlsbad Medical Offices, Urban Systems Associate, Inc., December 17, 2012 states that once all buildings are occupied with medical office the project will generate 2,840 net new Average Daily Trip;: (ADT's) and 273 net new peak hour trips resulting in a total of 4,800 trips and 528 peak hour trips. The traffic generated will primarily utilize Palomar Airport Road, Aviara Parkway and Hidden Valley Road. Existing traffic on these arterials are 42,108 ADT for .Palomar Airport Road, 4,021 ADT for Hidden Valley Road and 13,112 for Aviara Parkway. All street segments are currently at a level of service of A. The 2012 peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection(s) impacted by the project is Cor greater. Neither the street segment nor the intersections will be impacted significantly enough by the project traffic to lower the level of service grade. Wllile the increase in traffic ftom the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. Street segntent and intersection levels of service are expected to be within the Growth Management Program requirements of Level of service "'D.,. during the peak hours so that no street segment or intersection mitigation is needed or recommended. 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 project will provide !he following mitigation which results in an acceptable level of service of "D" or better during both peak hours: 23 Rev. I 0/181!0 GPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE Ch"NTER T-L At the build-out Year 2030 volumes, the project's peak hour traffic will contribute to a Level of Service (LOS) Eat the intersection of PAR and Paseo del Norte (PDN), which is higher than the city's requirement of LOS D or better. In order to mitigate for this potential impact, a dedicated right-tum IWle needs to be constructed from eastbound PAR to southbound PDN. The project will be required to pay a proportional fair share contribution towards the construction of the right~turn lane. b) Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roeds (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and one highway segment in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The existing LOS on these designated roads and highway in Carlsbad is: Rancho Santa Fe Roed El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road SR 78 l&S. "A-D" "A-D" "A-D" "F" 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 · roeds and highway 78 is currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "E" standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on tbe design capacities of the designated roads and highway and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. e) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, McClellan-Palomar Airport. !t 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 nOI 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 satiszy !he emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. I) No Impact. The project is near public transportation. The project is required to install bike racks pursuant to the Green Building Code. 24 Rev. I 0/18/10 XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements. of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require Or result in the construction of new storm water drainage faciUties or expansion of existing filcilities, 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 projecCs projected den1and in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's soHd waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Po~entially Significant Impact 0 D D D D GPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/l..CPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation 1ncorporated D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D 0 D D D D l>io Impact -~- a-g) No Impacts. The future office development as a result of a land use change will be required to comply with aU Regional Water Quality Cuntrol Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 5 LFtvW anticipated that the project site would be developed with industrial/professional office uses and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate industrial/professionaJ office uses on these sites. All public facilities~ including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned aod designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. Therefure, the project will not result in development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facility suppUes1 wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed office uses as a result of a land use change without exceeding landfill capacity. In addition, any proposed development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. No impact assessed. 25 Rev, 10/!8/10 XVHI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Doos the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or 'Ni1dlife 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 prehU,tory? b) Docs 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 effucts of other current projects, nnd 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 D D D GPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D 0 Less 11lWJ Significant Impact D No Impact D 0 a) No Impacts. 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 wildlifu species. The project site consists of one existing 48,000 square foot offie<: building and one development pad fur another office building. The project is for a land use and zoning change from planned Industrial to Office. Tbe existing site is used for professtonal office uses and the change in land use will be a very subtle difference in the u.se of the property. The development site is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endllllgered plant or animaLcommunity. The project is a land use change and therefore 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. b.) Less Than Signillcant 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 staodards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public fucility 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 Carlsbed 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 26 Rev. !0118/10 GPA 12-Q1/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-Q2 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbed 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. c) Less Than Significant Impact. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area aed 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. AU of the City'ts 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 fucility standards ensure that development within the City will not resuh in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There arc two regional issues that development within fhe City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are Green House Gas emissions and regional circulation. As described above, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions \vith the mitigation measures proposed. The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roeds (Rancho Santa Fe Rd .• El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad "" part of fhe regional circulation system. The C.\.IA had determined, based on the City's growtb projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways wm function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build~out. Tbe project is consistent witb the City's growth projections, and therefore~ the cumulative impacts ftom the project to the regional circulation system are Jess than significant. 27 Rev. 10fl8110 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES GPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program ElR, 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. IdentitY 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 effi:cts were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are uLess Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated;" describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earner document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the projecL 28 Rev. 10118110 GPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER 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 Division located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. !, Final Master Envjronmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-0I). City of Carlsbad Planning Division. March 1994. 2; Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, dated March 1994. 3. City of Carlsbad M•nicipal Code, Title 21 Zoning; City of Carlsbad Planning Division, as updated. 4. Habitat Management Plan far Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, final approval dated November 2004. 5. Estimated Annual Emissions fur the Kelly Corporate Center Medical Offices, March 25, 2013, HofuJan Planning and Engineering. 6, Traffic Impact Analysis for Carlsbad Medical Offices, December 17,2012, Urban Systems Associates, Inc. 29 Rev. 10118/10 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES f!F APPLICABLE) Gl'A 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-Q2 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER Green House Gas-! The project shall implement the Green House Gas reduction measures as identified in the report titled Estimated Annual Emissions for the Kelly Corporate Center Medical Offices, March 25, 2013, Hofman Planning & Engineering. g) Water active grading sites a minimum oftwo times daily. h) Water unpaved roads a minimum of two times daily. i) Replace ground cover in disturbad areas as soon as possible. j) Architectural coatings applied to interior and exterior surfilces will be required to meet the Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) limitations of San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rule 67.0. k) Provide long term bicycle parking. I) Provide shower/changing facilities. Trans:portation~L Developer shall, prior to building permit issuance, pay a proportional fair share contribution towards the construction of a dadicated right-tum lane from eastbound Palomar Airport Road to southbound Paseo del Norte to the satisfuction of the City Engineer. If construction of the right-turn lane is incorporated into the City's Traffic Impact Fee (T!F) program, the payment ofTIF will satisfY this condition. CUltural-1 -. Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project developer shall retrun a qualified archaeologist to monitor ground-disturbing activities. The qualifiad archaeologist shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the archaeologist and city staff. The City shall verifY that the archaeological monitor has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. In the event any potential cultural resource is uncovered during the course of the project construction, ground- disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find shall be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by the archaeological monitor. If cultural resources are encountered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect gradingftrenching while the cultural resources are documented and assessed. If archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or grading, the archaeological monitor shaH direct the contractor to avoid all work in the immediate area for a reasonable period of time ro allow the archaeologist to evaluate the significance of the finding and detennine an appropriate course of action. The appropriate course of action may include, but not be limited to avoidance, recordation, relocation, excavation. documentation~ curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. The Project Contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for pursuing the appropriate activities, including salvage of discovered resources. Salvage operation requirements pursuant ro Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. Recovered artifact materials and data shall be cataloged and analy7.ed. A report shall be completed describing the methods and results of the monitoring and data recovery program. Artifacts shall be curated widt accompanying clllalog to current professional repository standards or the collection will be repatriated to the appropriate Native Americ.an Tribe(s), as specified in the pre- excavation agreement If any human remains are discovered, all construction a1,..1ivity in the immediate area of the discovery shall cease immediately, and the Archaeological monitor shall nolicy the County Medical Examiner pursuant to California Health and Sarety Section 7050.5. Should the Medical Examin.er determine the human remains to be Native American; the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Native American Monitor (pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL TURAL-2), in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, shall inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the City of Carlsbad. and the project contractor. actions for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. The project contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for salvage of discovered human remains before resuming construction activities. Cultural-2 -Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall retain the services of a Native American monitor. The purpose of this monitoring will be to allow for tribal observation of trenching excavation including formalized procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains and burial, ceremonial, or cultural items tbat may be uncovered during any ground disturbance activities. The City shall verity that the Native American monitor has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to implementation of the monitoring, a pre-excavation agreement shall be developed between the appropriate Native 30 Rev. 10/IS/10 GPA 12-01/ZC 12-01/LCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER American Tribe and the developer. The Native American representative(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain the requirements of the progrnm. The Native American monitor shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the monitor and city staff. Noise -Any office located within the 65 to 70 dB CNEL noise contour must be sound attenuated to 50 dB <.."NEL interior noise level. 31 Rev. 10118/JO APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATIOJ:i MEASURES GPA 12-0l/ZC 12-0liLCPA 12-02 KELLY CORPORATE CENTER THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES Ac"'D CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. ~d-··· Date Signature 32 Rev. 10/18/10 Page 1 of 3 Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. 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 information. RD - Appendix P. PROJECT NAME: Kelly Corporate Center FILE NUMBERS: GPA 12-01/ZC12-01/LCPA12-02 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). Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks GHG-1 The project shall implement the Green House Gas reduction measures as identified in the report titled Estimated Annual Emissions for the Kelly Corporate Center Medical Offices, March 25, 2013, Hofman Planning and Engineering. a) Water active grading sites a minimum of two times daily. b) Water unpaved roads a minimum of two times daily. c) Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible. d) Architectural coatings applied to interior and exterior surfaces will be required to meet the Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) limitations of San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rule 67.0. e) Provide long term bicycle parking. f) Provide shower/changing facilities. Project Planning/Engineering Inspection Yes Traffic -1. Developer shall, prior to building permit issuance, pay a proportional fair share contribution towards the construction of a dedicated right-turn lane from eastbound Palomar Airport Road to southbound Paseo del Norte to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If construction of the right-turn lane is incorporated into the City’s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program, the payment of TIF will satisfy this condition. Project Engineering No Cultural-1 -. Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor ground-disturbing activities. The qualified archaeologist shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the archaeologist and city staff. The City shall verify that the archaeological monitor has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. In the event Project Planning/Engineering Inspection No Page 2 of 3 Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. 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 information. RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks any potential cultural resource is uncovered during the course of the project construction, ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find shall be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by the archaeological monitor. If cultural resources are encountered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading/trenching while the cultural resources are documented and assessed. If archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or grading, the archaeological monitor shall direct the contractor to avoid all work in the immediate area for a reasonable period of time to allow the archaeologist to evaluate the significance of the finding and determine an appropriate course of action. The appropriate course of action may include, but not be limited to avoidance, recordation, relocation, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. The Project Contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for pursuing the appropriate activities, including salvage of discovered resources. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. Recovered artifact materials and data shall be cataloged and analyzed. A report shall be completed describing the methods and results of the monitoring and data recovery program. Artifacts shall be curated with accompanying catalog to current professional repository standards or the collection will be repatriated to the appropriate Native American Tribe(s), as specified in the pre-excavation agreement. If any human remains are discovered, all construction activity in the immediate area of the discovery shall cease immediately, and the Archaeological monitor shall notify the County Medical Examiner pursuant to California Health and Safety Section 7050.5. Should the Medical Examiner determine the human remains to be Native American; the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Native American Monitor (pursuant to Mitigation Measure CULTURAL-2), in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, shall inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the City of Carlsbad, and the Page 3 of 3 Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. 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 information. RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks project contractor, actions for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. The project contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for salvage of discovered human remains before resuming construction activities. Cultural-2 - Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall retain the services of a Native American monitor. The purpose of this monitoring will be to allow for tribal observation of trenching excavation including formalized procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains and burial, ceremonial, or cultural items that may be uncovered during any ground disturbance activities. The City shall verify that the Native American monitor has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to implementation of the monitoring, a pre- excavation agreement shall be developed between the appropriate Native American Tribe and the developer. The Native American representative(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain the requirements of the program. The Native American monitor shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the monitor and city staff. Noise - Any office located within the 65 to 70 dB CNEL noise contour must be sound attenuated to 50 dB CNEL interior noise level. Project Planning/Building No