Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-28; City Council; 17361; North County Animal Shelter Zone ChangeDEPT. PLN Administrative Approvals CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL TITLE: NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER ZONE CHANGE -2C 03-03 Reviewed by and Final at Planning Commission Reviewed by and Final at Council DEPT. HD. CITY ATTY CITY MGR 2@ RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-679 03-03, and ADOPT Resolution No. 2003-287 for Zone Change ZC 03-03, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. , APPROVING Zone Change ZC ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration, ITEM EXPLANATION: Project application(s) Mitiaated Neaative Declaration I Zone Chanae/ZC 03-03 I Conditional Use PermiKUP 03-21 I Hillside DeveloDment PermiVHDP 03-04 X X X X The North County Animal Shelter site is located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road, west of El Camino Real and has been used as a shelter by the County of San Diego for over 40 years. The County has submitted land use applications (CUP 03-21 and HDP 03-04) for the proposed nodernization of the use and redevelopment of the site. The Planning Commission unanimously approved those entitlements on October 15, 2003. The property is designated with the City’s interim holding zone, the Limited Control (L-C) zone, Nhich is required to undergo a zone change to be consistent with the underlying General Plan jesignation prior to any land use approvals. The North County Animal Shelter property has a 3eneral Plan designation of Planned Industrial (PI); therefore, the zone change that accompanies :he Animal Shelter’s land use entitlements is to change the L-C zone to the Planned Industrial (PM) zone. With the PM zone in place, a Conditional Use Permit can be implemented for the Shelter’s nodernization. The October 15, 2003 Planning Commission action and approvals are based on the 3ty Council approval of this companion zone change request to remove the existing and outdated --C zoning designation. This site is not in the City’s Coastal Zone so an amendment to the Local Zoastal Program is not necessary. The Planning Commission vote of October 15, 2003 was 6-0 (Heineman absent) to approve CUP 13-21 and HDP 03-04 and to recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and .ecommend approval of ZC 03-03. INVl RON M ENTAL: 3ased on an environmental impact assessment conducted by staff, the Planning Director prepared 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration which was recommended for adoption on October 15, 2003. No written comments were received during the 30-day public review period. Mitigation is required for ess than I-acre project impacts to coastal sage and mixed chaparral vegetation on the site. I PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. l7 361 FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impacts are associated with this zone change since the use already exists and is a County- operated facility. EXHl B ITS: 1. City Council Ordinance No. NS-679 2. City Council Resolution No. 2003-287 3. Location Map 4. 5. 6. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5490 and 5491 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 15, 2003 Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 15, 2003. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Eric Munoz, (760) 602.4608, emuno@ci.carlsbad.ca.us 1 L - 4 L “ t c I E 5 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. NS-679 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE FROM PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. CASE NAME: LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (P-M) ON NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER CASE NO.: ZC 03-03 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Section 21.050.30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the City’s zoning map, is amended as shown on the map marked Exhibit “ZC 03-03” attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5491 constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill \ 3 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 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad Cib Council on the 28th day of October 2003, and thereafter. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City 01 Carlsbad on the day of 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) Ordinance No. NS-679 -2- PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE Legal Description(s): ZC: 03-03 draft 5 final 0 A portion of Lot G of Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to Map 823 as recorded on May 15, 1915, in San Diego I Countv I I I Attach additional pages if necessary I I 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2003-287 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE TO C, TO PLANNED INDUSTRIAL, PM ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. CASE NAME: REZONE A 4.37-ACRE PARCEL FROM LIMITED CONTROL, L- NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER CASE NO.: ZC 03-03/CUP 03-2l/HDP 03-04 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on October 15, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration, for a Zone Change 03-03 to rezone 4.37 acres of land from Limited Control (L-C) to Planned Industrial (PM) and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5490 and 5491 recommending to the City Council that they be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 28th day of October , 2003 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Zone Change; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Zone Change. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as follows: 1. 2. That the above recitations are true and correct. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5490 and 5491 constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council in this matter. 3. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adopted for the Zone Change, ZC 03-03, Conditional Use Permit, CUP 03-21 and Hillside Development Permit, HDP 03-04 as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5491, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. b 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 AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 28th day of October 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: (SEAL) Resolution No. 2003-287 -2- -- Property: A. 21 3-020-1 8(por) PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE From: To: Limited Control Planned Industrial ZC: 03-03 draft final Project Name: North County Animal Shelter Legal Description(s): I Related Case File No@): CUP 03-21 / HDP 03-04 A portion of Lot G of Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to Map 823 as recorded on May 15,1915, in San Diego Countv ~~ - Zone Change Approvals ~~ Council Approval Date: Ordinance No: Effective Date: Signature: I I Attach additional pages if necessary I 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 , PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5490 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITOIiING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM L-C TO P-M AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND HILLSIDE DEVELOP- MENT PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AND MODERNIZATION OF THE NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. CASE NAME: NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER CASE NO.: ZC 03-03/CL.JP 03-21/HDP 03-04 EXHIBI1 WHEREAS, the County of San Diego, “OwnerDeveloper,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as A portion of Lot G of Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to Map No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California on November 16,1896 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of October 2003, 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 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 9 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 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 Exhibits “MND,” the “NOI” dated August 18,2003, and “PU” dated August 25, 2003, 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, 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 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 EL4 Part 11 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of October 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Montgomery, NOES: None Segall, White and Whitton ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman ABSTAIN: None AKER, Chairperson AD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5490 -2- - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: North Countv Animal Shelter 2481 Palomar Airport Road; west of El Camino Real on the south side of Palomar Airport Road CASE NO: ZC 03-03/CL.JP 03-21/HDP 03-04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Animal Shelter with a 25,458 square foot shelter on an expanded 4.37- acre site. Phased redevelopment and modernization of the North County 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 Ordinarlce of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EL4 Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: 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. 0 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. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). 0 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 MEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed . upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director J9 @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: North Countv Animal Shelter 2481 Palomar Airport Road, west of El Camino Real CASE NO: ZC 03-03/CUP 03-21/HDP 03-04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of the existing 6,000 square foot Animal Shelter over three phases resulting in a new 25,548 square foot Shelter which will accommodate a large range of animals, quarantine rooms, meeting rooms and development of a dog exercise area on the eastern edge of the site. The site is 4.37 acres in size and is currently zoned Limited Control (LC). This project requires a zone change to Planned Industrial, a conditional use permit and a hillside development permit. A mitigation measure is included for less than a half-acre of impacts to Diegan coastal sage and southern mixed chapparal. 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 (EL4 Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts 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 are 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 21 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval 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 Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD AUGUST 25,2003 TO SEPTEMBER 25,2003 PUBLISH DATE AUGUST 25,2003 la 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 (760) 6024600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.~fpjp$@a.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: ZC 03-O3/CUP 03-2 l/HDP 03-04 DATE: AUGUST 18.2003 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Eric Munoz 760.602.4608 PROJECT LOCATION: See attached PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: County of San Diego - see attached GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Planned Industrial ZONING: Limited Control (LC) Proposed for Planned Industrial (PM) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Department of Fish and Game PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: See attached 1 Rev. Q7103IQ2 13 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. 0 Aesthetics GeologyISoils 0 Noise 0 Agricultural Resources 0 HazardsKIazardous Materials 0 and Housing rn Air Quality Biological Resources 0 HydrologyfWater Quality 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 Mineral Resources rn TransportatiodCirculation Mandatory Findings of Significance 0 Utilities Service Systems 0 Cultural Resources 2 Rev. Q7lQ3lO2 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) IXI 0 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL WACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. Bc 20--3 Planner Signature Date Planning Director's Siwre c/ Date 3 Rev. 07/03/02 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. Ths checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be qacted 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 sipficant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EN-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 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 I1 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. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Impact Unless Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Associates, June 3, 2003. Mitigation Incorporated 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, AE3C Acoustics, July 21,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR I. 11. 111. 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? 0 0 OH 0 0 om 0 0 om c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 OH d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: 0 0 om 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? 0 OB Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 om Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 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: 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Associates, June 3,2003. 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, ,July 2 1,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source Document 5) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project : 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? (Source Document #1) 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? 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 intemption, or other means? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 CI 0 0 No Impact IXI Ix1 IXI nn OIXI OIXI 7 Rev. 07/03/02 I9 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Associates, June 3, 2003. 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 2 1,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR 0 0 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? 0 0 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? O 0 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? I7 0 g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (Source Document #4) 0 0 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to 9 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? c) 0 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred I 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: 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 IXI Ixl 0 0 0 NO Impact IXI Ixl 0 0 0 Ixl Ixl IXI 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Impact Unless Impact Significant Significant significant Impact Associates, June 3, 2003. Mitigation Incorporated 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 21,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR 17 !an 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. (Source Document #1) 0 0 1xIo 0 0 mu ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? MU 0 0 IxIn iv. Landslides? a) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 mu 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? 0 c) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? 0 0 BO d) 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? IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: 0 0 IxIn a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine trahsport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 0 0 Ian 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? 9 Rev. 07103102 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Associates, June 3,2003. 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 2 1, 2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site whch 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? 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? 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? 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact IXI IXI IXI Ixl IXI IXI IXI No Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and impact Unless impact Associates, June 3,2003. Mitigation Incorporated 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 21,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR 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 whch permits have been granted)? Impacts to groundwater quality? 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? 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? 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! Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 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? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 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? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 om 0 OIXI 0 ON 0 OB 0 ON 0 OH 0 0 0 ON 11 Rev. 07/03/02 a3 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and impact Unless impact Associates, June 3, 2003. Mitigation Incorporated 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 2 1,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City's General Plan Master EIR 0 0 om 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 0 0 OB 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)? o 0 UIXI n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) 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? 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? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 IXI' 0 UIXI 0 0 0 OB 12 Rev. 07/03/02 a4 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Potentially Significant Impact Associates, June 3,2003. Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 2 1,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR X. NOISE - Would the project result in: 17 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? (Source Document #2) 0 I80 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundboume noise levels? 0 0 0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 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? POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 0 0 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)? o b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than NO 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Impact Unless Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Associates, June 3,2003. Mitigation Incorporated 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 2 1,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES 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? 0 om ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? 0 0 oIx1 XIV. RECREATION 0 0 OH 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? 0 0 om 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) 0 IXIU Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source Document #5) 14 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Associates, June 3,2003. 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 2 1,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic pattern, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (eg, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? 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? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact Ix1 IXI IXI IXI 0 I7 cl o 0 0 No Impact 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI Ixl Ixl IXI Kl 15 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 1 .Biological Resource and Impact Assessment, Marquez and Associates, June 3, 2003. 2.Acoustal Analysis Report, ABC Acoustics, July 2 1,2003 3. Geotechnical Investigation, Kleinfelder, March 7,2002 4. Cultural Resources Survey, ASM Affiliates, June 2002 5. City’s General Plan Master EIR e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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 hstory or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable fkture projects?) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 No Impact IXI IXI 0 IXI XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) b) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the a8 16 Rev. 07/03/02 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 whch they address site-specific conditions for the project. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 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 (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM,,). 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 (SNAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP andor 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. Sectior, 15 125(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: 0 0 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. a) 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. (Add the following text addressing short-term emissions, if there is grading associated with the project.) 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. b) 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? 18 Rev. 07/03/02 30 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 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 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. d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fiunes from the operation of construction equipment, whch 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. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFC-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 less than 500 Average Daily Trips (ADT). Palomar Airport Road is designed to accommodate the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from 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. 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: Existine ADT* Los Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43 El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C” 32-65 Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77 SR 78 120 ‘ ‘F” 144 1-5 183-198 “D 2 19-249 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 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. Achlevement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes lmplementation 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 proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. 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. 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 parkmg 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. (Note whether the project is near public transportation. If not, then state that the project is not served by or not located in an area conducive to public transportation.) (Note bike racks are not necessary for a single- family residential project. Otherwise, condition the project to install bike racks and note here that the project has been so conditioned.) 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 ImDact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 3a LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) Biological Resources 1. The impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral shall be mitigated at a 1:l ratio. The impact to these habitats shall be mitigated through either: 1) The County shall pay an in-lieu fee to the City of Carlsbad for off-site purchase of 0.269 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and 0.088 acres of southern mixed chaparral; or 2) the County shall purchase 0.269 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and 0.088 acres of southern mixed chaparral in an established mitigation bank. 21 Rev. 07/03/02 33 AUC-I~-~OO~ TUE oe: 59 AM FAX NO, , AUCi-18-2003 10:Ol At. CITY OF CARLSBAD FAX NO, 7bu 602 8559 P, 03 P, 02 21 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 1 B c3 0 n n v c3 0 n 3 0 9 I 4 7 4 c3 c3 0 0 N cn E W rn 2 3 Z .. li H 9 w z d 2 > a a a Q,* .E s 'E 3Q m C 5 s 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5491 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRF’ORT ROAD, WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. CASE NAME: CONTROL (L-C) TO PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (P-M) ON NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER CASE NO: ZC 03-03 WHEREAS, the County of San Diego “Owner/Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as A portion of Lot G of Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to Map No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California on November 16,1896 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on Exhibit “X” attached hereto and on file in the Planning Department, NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER - ZC 03-03 as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of October 2003, 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Change. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission ZC 03-03 based on the following findings: RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER - 36 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 Findings: 1. 2. 3. That the proposed Zone Change from L-C to P-M is consisten. with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that the site’s General Plan designation is PI (Planned Industrial) and the proposed Planned Industrial (P-M) zone is consistent with that designation. The L-C zone is intended to be an interim holding zone and no entitlements can be issued until a zone change is approved. The existing shelter pre-dates City annexation so this proposed redevelopment of the site results in the need to change the interim zone to an operational zone consistent with the General Plan. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element, in that the proposed P-M zoning is consistent with the existing General Plan designation of Planned Industrial. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that the site has been in use as County Animal Shelter for over 40 years and this Zone Change will allow entitlements to be issued so that the redevelopment of the Shelter can commence. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or ‘annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5491 -2- 37 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, held on the 15th day of October 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Montgomery, Segall, White and Whitton ATTEST: MICHAEL J. I%%ZMb!,LER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5491 -3 - 38 EXHl8lT 5 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: October 15,2003 Application complete date: August 30,2003 Project Planner: Eric Munoz Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle SUBJECT: ZC 03-03/CUP 03-21/HDP 03-04 - NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, recommendation of approval of a Zone Change from Limited Control (LC) to Planned Industrial (P-M), and approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Hillside Development Permit to redevelop and operate a County Animal Shelter on a 4.37-acre County site on property generally located south of Palomar Airport Road, west of El Camino Real, within Local Facilities Management Zone 5. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5490 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 549 1 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of ZC 03-03, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5492 and 5493 APPROVING CUP 03-21 and HDP 03-04, respectively, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The County of San Diego has owned and maintained a 2.4-acre animal shelter site at 2481 Palomar Airport Road just west of El Camino Real, as shown on the Location Map (Attachment 5), for over 40 years. There are currently 120 kennels and meeting/administration rooms within the approximately 18,500 square foot facility which provides 3 1 parking spaces. The proposed improvements are detailed below in the Project Description and Background section of this report, and can be summarized as modernizing the Shelter facility to accommodate more types of animals and community services. To the east of the site is an unused 1.97-acre County property, which is proposed for inclusion with the Animal Shelter project for a total site area of 4.37 acres. East of the 1.97 acre area is the golf driving range of the Olympic Resort. To the south and west of the site are industrial office buildings and a self-storage facility, respectively, and north of the site is Palomar Airport Road. The site currently has an interim, holding zone designation of Limited Control (L-C) making a Zone Change (ZC) to Planned Industrial (PM) necessary. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required to permit public buildings in the PM zone (the site is not under a CUP since the property was annexed into the city with the use already in existence). Due to the hillside nature of the site, it requires a Hillside Development Permit (HDP) for a proposed 20 high slope adjacent to Palomar Airport Road with a retaining wall ranging in height from 3-8 feet. lg 39 ZC 03-03/CUP 03-21kIDP 03-04 - NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER October 15,2003 Pape 2 The ZC, CUP and HDP comply with all City regulations and policies; staff recommends approval of the North County Animal Shelter as depicted on Exhibits “A” - “L.” 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The County is proposing a three-phased expansion and redevelopment of the Animal Shelter. The existing 2.4-acre site will merge eastward with 1.97 acres of unused and currently vegetateddisturbed County property. The project will replace the existing 6,000 square foot structure with a 25,548 square foot facility. The existing eastern exit driveway to Palomar Airport Road will be replaced with a new entrance/exit approximately 220 feet to the east. The building pad will remain approximately 20 feet below the centerline elevation of Palomar Airport Road and the site’s balanced grading will involve approximately 6,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. There are some patches of native vegetation on site that will be impacted by the project as reviewed and summarized in this project’s environmental documents, resulting in the project’s mitigated negative declaration. The zoning ordinance does not specify a parking ratio for animal shelters so the project proposes 68 parking spaces based on two other County shelters, one of which also contains administrative and headquarter offices for uses and organizations not associated with the North County Animal Shelter in Carlsbad. The other shelters have 282 and 188 kennel spaces with 148 and 66 parking spaces provided, respectively. This generates ratios of 1.9 and 2.8 parking spaces per kennel space. This project proposes 1 1 1 kennels with 68 spaces providing for a lower ratio of 1.6 which comparatively provides more parking. In addition, the project will distinguish between stawfleet parking and public parking as shown on the project exhibits. The Shelter is proposing hours of operation of 9:30 am to 5:30 pm Tuesdays through Saturdays and will offer specialized rooms designed for many types of animals such as large, small, cats, exotic animals and corrals; as well as “interactive” rooms and quarantine rooms for sick animals. Grooming, surgery, and project wildlife and multi-disciplinary classroom space will be included in’this modernization of the North County Animal Shelter. The project is subject to the following: A. Zoning Ordinance; B. General Plan; C. D. E. F. Growth Management. Conditional Uses (Chapter 21.42 of the Zoning Ordinance); Hillside Development Permit (Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance); Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for Palomar Airport; and IV. ANALYSIS The staff recommendation for approval was developed by analyzing the proposal’s consistency with applicable policies and regulations. Compliance is summarized below. ZC 03-03/CUP 03-21/HDP 03-04 - NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER October 15,2003 I ELEMENT Land Use A. Zoning Ordinance The site's zoning designation is L-C, whch is an interim designation. The L-C me does not allow -for land use entitlements to be issued without a zone change to be consistent with the underlying General Plan designation, which is Planned Industrial (PI) for the subject property. Zone Change 03-03 will designate the site's zoning as PM and therefore will achieve consistency with the General Plan. The Animal Shelter has operated at this site without any adverse impacts to adjacent uses or properties; per Section 21.42.010 (2) (I), a CUP can be issued in the PM zone to formalize the use and public buildings of the North County Animal Shelter and approve the proposed improvements. USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM Site is designated for PI. Policy C.9 allows ancillary uses by CUP in the Planned Industrial zones of B, General Plan Open Space & Conservation The site's General Plan designation is PI which is primarily intended for industrial, office, manufacturing and warehouse uses, however, the site has been the location of the North County Animal Shelter for over 40 years with no adverse community impacts. The proposed zone change and land use entitlements will achieve consistency with the General Plan and will not adversely impact other General Plan elements, policies or implementation programs. The use is consistent with the General Plan given the zone change and CUP approvals. The following Table A identifies General Plan goals and objectives relevant to the proposed project and indicates if the proposed project is in compliance with the goal or objective. development . Utilize Best Management Practices for control of Circulation the City. New development shall dedicate and improve all public right-of-way for circulation facilities needed to serve the I I RAL PLAN COMPLIANCE PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS Animal Shelter use has been in City for 40+ years; proposed modernization will not create impacts to other allowed PI uses in the area. Access to site is via new driveway approach from Palomar Airport Road that improves safety and meets City standards. The project will conform to all "DES and storm run-off requirements. Impacts to coastal sage and mixed chaparral mitigated by fee payment or offsite purchase. (See Environmental Review section of this report) COMPLY? Yes Yes Yes ZC 03-03/CUP 03-21/HDP 03-04 - NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER October 15,2003 ELEMENT Public Safety USE, PROPOSED USES & COMPLY? CLASSIFICATION, IMPROVEMENTS GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM Review new development No new safety service facilities are Yes proposals to consider needed to service the subdivision. emergency access, fire Fire hydrants will be accessible as hydrant locations, and fire well as physical access by safety flow requirements. personnel and their vehicles/equipment. C. Conditional Uses A CUP is required for the proposed improvements and all of the required findings for a CUP can be made. Below is a summary of the required findings as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5492. The requested use is necessary and desirable for the development of the community in that it will modernize a longstanding use within the city. The North County Animal Shelter project will provide a variety of uses and facilities necessary to adequately service.the growing needs of the city and area’s population. With the proposed zone change, the use is consistent with the General Plan, and will not impact existing or future permitted uses in the area since the site is already accommodating the animal shelter and there is much community support for this County facility and its proposed improvements. The Shelter has performed a necessary function for the City by providing dog and animal care and storage for several years. This site, with the modernization and improvements proposed, will continue to be necessary and desirable for the development and well being of the community. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use without impacting other existing or future planned improvements to the site. The existing 2.4-acre site will merge with a 1.97-acre portion of adjacent, unused County property for total project site area of 4.37 acres. There will not be any visual impacts since the proposed building pad is approximately 20 feet below Palomar Airport Road as depicted on the project exhibits. All development standards can be met with the proposed project; no variances or deviations from City standards are being requested. All of the yards, setbacks, walls, landscaping and other features necessary to adjust this use to existing and/or future permitted uses in the area will be provided and maintained, such as landscaping and maintaining service vehicle and delivery access to the site. The site will be used by the public and will provide 68 parking spaces, of which 13 would be located in a separate area designated for fleet and staff as shown on the project’s site plan, Exhibit “A.” ‘ The Palomar Airport Road street system will be adequate to handle the traffic generated by this project since the project’s total traffic generation is approximately 268 ADT, which is under the threshold of 500 ADT for a congestion management plan to be filed. Palomar Airport Road is a ZC 03-03/CUP 03-21/HDP 03-04 - NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER October 15,2003 STANDARDS City Administration Library Waste Water Treatment prime arterial in the City, and development of the project will not result in a failed level of service at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. IMPACTS COMPLIANCE 0 sq. ft. / 0 dwelling units NIA Yes 0 sq. ft. IO dwelling units Yes 5.13 EDU Yes D. Hillside Development Permit Since the site has a hillside condition, compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance and issuance of an HDP is required. The subject slope is adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and requires the HDP for the manufactured slope shown on the projects hillside and grading exhibits “H’ - “J.” The slope has a maximum height of 20 feet and the ordinance allows up to 40 feet. The proposed grading quantities for the project are estimated at 6,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. Given a 4.37- acre site, the proposed grading of 1,373 cubic yards per acre is within the acceptable range of hillside grading volumes (0 - 7,999 cubic acres per acre). The grading will facilitate the modernization of the site by providing safe vehicular access to the site, compliant with City standards, given the approximately 20-foot elevation difference between Palomar Airport Road and the building pad. All of the required hillside findings can be made and supported for the HDP. E. Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan The proposed project is located within the Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). While the approval of the CLUP occurred in 1994, the existence and operation of this use for the past 40+ years indicates its compatibility with the other uses in the vicinity and Planned Industrial zoning district. The noise contours contained in the CLUP relate to the allowance for various types of land uses. The project site straddles the 65 CNEL (community noise equivalent level) noise contour line. Nature preserves, livestock farming and neighborhood parks and playground are allowed and considered a compatible use between the 60 and 65 CNEL noise levels. considered a compatible use between the 65 and 70 CNEL noise levels. Therefore, the continued operation and modernization of this long-standing use within the City at this location is consistent with the Palomar Airport CLUP. Prior to application submittal by the County, compliance with the County-operated Airport and related CLUP was reviewed and confirmed. Riding stable, regional parks and outdoor spectator sports are allowed and . F. Growth Management The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 5 in the southwest quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table B below. The modernized Animal Shelter will be adequately served by the City’s public safety services and range of public facilities summarized below. ZC 03-03/CUP 03-21kIDP 03-04 - NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER October 15,2003 V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project had been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff prepared an initial stuffy for the project and concluded that a potentially significant environmental impact could result to biological resources onsite. The project is not located in the Coastal Zone nor are the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA’s) involved. However, the project will impact 0.269 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and 0.088 acres of southern mixed chaparral, which will be mitigated via a fee payment or offsite purchase consistent with the City’s Habitat Management Program. Please see the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II for a detailed description of the mitigation measure and the expanded justification for the recommendation to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. In consideration of the foregoing, on August 25, 2003 the Planning Director issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration in conjunction with this project. A thirty-day public review period commenced and combined California Department of Fish and Game/US Fish and Wildlife Service comments were received about the timing of grading and construction relative to nesting seasons. The project’s conditions of approval reflect these agency timing comments dated September 19,2003 and are included as Attachment 8 to this report. ATTACHMENTS : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5490 (Mitigated Negative Declaration) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5491 (ZC) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5492 (CUP) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5493 (HDP) Location Map Background Data Sheet Disclosure Statement California Dept. of Fish and GamehJSFWS combined comment letter dated September 19,2003 Reduced Exhibits “A” - “L” dated October 15,2003 4Ll BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: ZC 03-07LCPA 03-08/CuP 03-1 5/CDP 03-23 CASE NAME: TWIN D RECYCLED WATER PUMP STATION APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD REQUEST AND LOCATION: RECYCLED WATER PUMP STATION AND FORMALIZE THREE EXISTING WATER TANKS EAST SIDE OF BLACK RAIL COURT SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Office of the County Recorder of San Dieno County, State of California on July 21, 1958. Parcels 1, 2 and 3 of Deed Document No. 116507, filed in the AI": 2 15-080-05/23 Acres: 4.4 Proposed No. of LotsAJnits: n/a GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: RLM Density Allowed: 0-4 ddac Density Proposed: n/a Existing Zone: Limited Control (L-C) Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Proposed Zone: R-1 Single Family Zoning General Plan Site L-c RLM North R-1 RLM South L-C RLM East R- 1 RLM West Collector Street Collector Street Current Land Use Water District Tanks Approved Church Single Family Approved Church Black Rail Road PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 5.13 EDU ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued October 1,2003 0 0 Other, Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated 45 - City of Carlsbad DISCLOSURE STATEMEST Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applicadons which will requre discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. \-our project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defmed as “Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association. social club. fiatem& organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county. city and county, city municipality, dismct or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit“ Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and prom owner must be provided below. 1 APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names md addresses of & pmocs .h;,?g a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a cornration or DmershiD. include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO APPLICABLE (N/A) M THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned cornmion, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separatebpage may be artached if necessary.) INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- PcrsonCounty of San Dieno CorpPart Fee Ownership Title Dept. of General Services Titie Address 5555 Overland Avenue Address OWNER (Not the owner’s agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons haling any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the lesa1 ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a cornoration or uartnershiu, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE TH_I\_v 10°+O OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE v/A) IN THE SP-ACE BELOW. If a publiclv- owned coruoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (-4 separate page may be attached if necessary.) San Diego, CA 92123 2. Person COrpPm~ Title Title Address Address #be 1635 Faraday Avenue 0 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 3. NON-PROFIT 0 e If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonmofit orcranization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profiflrust Non Profiflrust Title Title Address Address 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? Yes Eo If yes, please indicate person(s): NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of owner/date Signature of applicantldate County of San Diego Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant - / 7/28/03 SigyGre o /” qpplicant’s agent if applicablddate Jod McTighe, Director Pr$t or type name ofowner/appIicant’s agent Department of General Services for County of San Diego H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 a Page 2 of 2 47 From: <Kurt-Roblek@ rl .fws.gov> To: <DrideQci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 9/19/03 8:26AM Subject : Comments on North County Animal Shelter Draft MND Dear Mr. Rideout, The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) (collectively, "Wildlife Agencies") have reviewed the above-referenced draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), received by the Wildlife Agencies on August 22, 2003. The Wildlife Agencies have some concerns regarding the potential effects of this project on biological resources and regional conservation planning. The comments provided herein are based on the ,information provided in the draft MND; the Wildlife Agencies' knowledge of sensitive and declining vegetation communities in San Diego County (County); and our participation in regional conservation planning efforts. We offer our recommendations and comments to assist the City in minimizing and mitigating future project impacts to biological resources on the North County Animal Shelter site. The final MND should be adjusted to incorporate mitigation for breeding birds. The breeding season for nesting birds occurs approximately February 15 through August 31, however raptors may begin breeding as early as January. Because several bird species may nest in the habitat on the project site, we recommend that all clearing and grubbing occur outside the bird breeding season. If sensitive nesting birds are observed prior to construction, no activity will occur without noise attenuation (e.g., noise barriers) to ensure that noise levels, within habitat occupied by sensitive birds, do not exceed 60 dBA Leq (or documented ambient levels, if above 60 dBA Leq). Additionally, if construction occurs during the raptor breeding season, a qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey of the project site and surrounding habitat to determine whether there are active raptor nests within that area. If an active nest is observed, we recommend that a buffer be established between the construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. The buffer should be a minimum width of 500 feet and should be in effect as long as construction is occurring and until the nest is no longer active. If you have any questions concerning the contents of this letter, please contact Nancy Frost (Department) at 858-637-551 1 or Kurt Roblek (Service) at 760-431 -9440. cc: cnfrost @ dfg .ca.gov> Planning Commission Minutes FXHlBlT 6 DRAFT Page October 15, 2003 2. ZC 03-O3/CUP 03-21/HDP 03-04 - NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, recommendation of approval of a Zone Change from Limited Control (LC) to Planned Industrial (P-M), and approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Hillside Development Permit to redevelop and operate a County Animal Shelter on a 4.37-acre County site on property generally located south of Palomar Airport Road, west of El Camino Real, within Local Facilities Management Zone 5. Mr. Neu introduced Item 2 and stated that Senior Planner, Eric Munoz, would make the presentation. Chairperson Baker opened the public hearing on Item 2. Senior Planner, Eric Munoz, presented the Staff report stating that this Item involved the existing site for the North County Animal Shelter located south of Palomar Airport Road and west of El Camino Real. The site is currently being used as an animal shelter and has been used as such for over 40 years. The site is being proposed for modernization of the use with a new building and more uses within the structure itself. The site plan includes a new entrance and exit located east of the existing secondary one. This access point will be about 1,500 feet to the west of El Camino Real. The site requires a CUP and HDP, which can have final action with the Planning Commission. The Zone Change is to go from Limited Control to Planned Industrial and a recommendation by the Planning Commission would go on to the City Council for final consideration. The CUP and HDP would not. The City Council wyuld consider the Zone Change and the Environmental Review for this project. Chairperson Baker invited the applicant to make a presentation and asked if he wished to continue minus one Commissioner. He agreed. Mike Haas, Director of the Department of Animal Services for the County of San Diego, stated that they are excited about replacing this facility. It is the smallest of the three animal shelters in the County, but is the most active and has the highest save rate for the animals taken in. This 70% rate is a National leading statistic. The financing is in place and the new facility will be more inviting and will allow better general and medical care to be provided to the animals. Mr. Haas introduced one of the Project Mangers from the County, Darlene Cervantes. Darlene Cervantes stated that there were some minor corrections she wanted to note. She explained that although the airport's property extended to El Camino Real, Olympic Resort is on the corner of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. The County Animal Facility is also on the airport property, but the piece of land under consideration is just for the animal shelter that doesn't go out that far. Ms. Cervantes stated that the current facility is approximately 18,000 sq ft and includes administrative space, indoor and outdoor kennels, a small medical facility, and paved and overflow parking. The new facility will be 25,000 sq ft on roughly the same area. The group facility has corrals. Parking is provided for about 68 cars total. The new facility will have the same amount. The new facility will have no increase in staff and will be an improvement of the existing substandard conditions of the old 40-year-old shelter. There will be dedicated parking space for staff. There will be a secure drop-off area for the animals brought in by truck. There will be a new animal exercise area away from traffic. A wedge-shaped area will be maintained in a natural state with walking and exercise trails. A room will replace the temporary trailers that are now consuming parking space. The current spayheuter area in a trailer will be replaced with an adequately sized surgical space and preparation/recovery area. The new facility will have a training and conference room to be used primarily by the County for staff meetings as well as doubling as a Community Room on off hours for such activities as animal behavior evaluation, or dog training classes. It is not expected to be used by the general public for meetings. A new entry and exit will be created for the facility that will be more visible and safer for the area. The current facility does not have adequate storm water management, but the new one will meet requirements. The new facility will have a nice, subdued color scheme of grays, browns, and greens. The facility is designed with wind stoops designed to pick up natural breezes off the ocean, naturally ventilating most of the kennels. The street elevation on the west side is about 14 ft below grade. It will be at grade at the entrance. The visibility of the project is minimal. 49 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2003 Page 4 Commissioner Segall asked Ms. Cervantes to comment on the fact that the current facility has 120 kennels but the new one will have only 11 1. Ms. Cervantes replied that some of the current kennels are in such poor condition that they are not usable. Based on staffing levels, they have determined that 11 1 is the appropriate number of kennels. That appears to be the number that is currently being used. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the fire that occurred at the Escondido Human Society had any impact on the design or increased usage on this facility. Ms. Cervantes stated that it did not. Mr. Haas stated that the Escondido facility had been reopened and it is now an animal control facility serving two of the cities that they had previously served, San Marcos and Escondido. That has reduced the number of animals into their shelter by about one-third. They took over the contract on July 1, 2003. Typically, the Carlsbad facility takes in 9,000 animals per year. The result of the service contract going to Escondido Human Society has reduced this number to 6,000. Commissioner White asked about the design of the courtyard in front, which she noted was paid for by the taxpayers and wondered if it was more elaborate than necessary. Ms. Cervantes stated that it had actually been pared down quite a bit because of budget, but they felt that it was important to create a space that felt friendly in which people could interact with animals. It maintained the same theme and color scheme of stamped concrete throughout the facility. Commissioner Whitton asked about the conference rooms being available to the general public. Ms. Cervantes explained that they would be available after hours, after 6:OO p.m., Monday through Saturday. Commissioner Whitton asked about the conference room. Ms. Cervantes explained that there were 25- 30 staff members who would use it and that it was never intended to compete with commercial space in the area. Commissioner Whitton stated that he agreed with Commissioner White in that it was more elaborate than necessary. He noted that there were currently 31 parking spaces that would expand to 68. Ms. Cervantes stated that Animal Control has no place to meet currently for all-staff meetings and this would provide an opportunity for that purpose. She stated that they tried hard to stay within budget. Chairperson Baker opened public testimony and invited those who would like to speak to the podium. Seeing none, she closed public testimony and asked for a motion. MOTION ACTION : Motion by Commissioner White, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5490 recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5491 recommending approval of ZC 03-03, and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5492 and 5493 approving CUP 03-21 and HDP 03-04, respectively, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Baker, Dominguez, Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton Chairperson Baker closed the public hearing on Item 2 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next Item. From: Glenn Pruim AllReCeiveAgendaIteml~ To: Ray Patchett Date: 1 0/27/03 12:07PM Subject: Fwd: ANIMAL SHELTER \ Ray, For the Information of the CITY COUNCIL Pursuant to your request, here is the information regarding the driveways for the Animal Shelter Expansion project. David Rick provided the information in the attached email but 1'11 summarize here: - Existing shelter has 2 driveways; one entrance only, the other allows right-idright-out ingress and egress - Existing entrance only on west side of property will remain as is - Easterly existing driveway will be demolished and reconstructed easterly by -240'. Will provide ingress and egress from/to PAR on a right-Wright-out basis. Increases driveway separation will enhance on-site turning movements. - No openings in raised median proposed on PAR - No road improvements proposed to PAR, only driveway connection work The action at tomorrow's meeting is only for the Zone change. The proposed improvements were approved as part of the CUP and HDP which were finaled at PC on 10/15/03. Please distribute this information to Council. Let me know if you need anything else. From: David Rick To: Glenn Pruim Date: 10/27/03 1 1 :52AM Subject: ANIMAL SHELTER The access as it exists today consists of two driveways: one with ingress only and one with ingress and egress. The westerly driveway is for ingress only and this driveway will remain with the new project. Signs will be added informing drivers that this access is for ingress only. The existing easterly driveway will be removed and a new driveway will be constructed 240 feet east of this demolished driveway. The new driveway will be designed with a wider entrance to accomodate truck ingress and egress in addition to passanger vehicles. This driveway is designed for right-in and right-out circulation and no openings are proposed to the raised median in Palomar Airport Road. Also, pedestrian ramps will be installed on each side of the driveway entrance and a walkway meeting disablility standards along the east side of this driveway will provide access to the shelter. Sidewalk, curb and gutter already exists along the project street frontage. cc: Bob Wojcik; Don Rideout PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 4% 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS, California This 17 %ay of October, 2003 This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of I' NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHkLTEf3 zc 03-03 Signature NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, October 28, 2003, to consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of a Zone Change from Limited Control (LC) to Planned Industrial (P-M), for the North County Animal Shelter on a 4.37-acre County site on property generally located south of Palomar Airport Road, west of El Camino Real, within the City of Carlsbad and Local Facilities Management Zone 5 and more particularly described as: A portion of Lot G of Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to Map No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California on November 16, 1896 Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after Friday, October 24, 2003. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and/or the Zone Change from Limited Control (LC) to Planned Industrial (P-M) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk’s Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: ZC 03-03 CASE NAME: NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER PUBLISH: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17,2003 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL I NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER ZC 03-03 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160° CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ENClNlTAS CA 92024 SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST 1 CIVIC CENTER DR CITY OF ENClNlTAS 505 S VULCAN AVE CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF VISTA 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085 300 NORTH COAST HWY PO BOX 1988 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE 100 STE B SANDIEGO CA 92123 9174 SKY PARK CT 5201 RUFFIN RD REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SD COUNTY PLANNING a SANDIEGO CA 92123-4340 SANDlEGb CA 92123 I.P. U.A. LAFCO AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND 1600 PACIFIC HWY 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 ATTN TED ANASIS U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE CA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 STE 103 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/COMM U N ITY SERVICES DEPT PUBLl C WORKS/ENG IN EERl NG MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER ERIC MUNOZ 1010912003 mAMRY@ Address Labels ' laser 5160@ Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO C/O GENER?U SERVICES 5555 OVERLAND AVE SUITE 2600 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CARLSBAD SELF STORAGE L L C 10531 SORRENTO VALLEY RD SUITE A SAN DIEGO CA 92121 ROCKWELL FARMS INC P 0 BOX 132 ORANGE CA 92666 ARO PARTNERS ET NEWMAN DUNCAN J&NATALIE TRUST MYRON L CO 1832 CREST DR 6115 CORTE DEL CEDRO ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92009 MCROSKEY FAMILY P 0 BOX 1243 RANCHO SANTA FE ARO PARTNERS ET INTEGRATED CAPITAL ENTERPRISES C/O JOHN W MCROSKEY REVOCABLE TRUST CA 92067 P 0 BOX 1243 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 AL 1015 CHESTNUT AVE SUITE A03 CARLSBAD CA 92008 -- READ REVOCABLE TRUST/MOODY KITTRELL JERRY W REVOCABLE TRUST JOSEPH0 ROY P&ROBERTA B TRUST C/O KITTRELL PROPERTIES P 0 BOX 12567 1000 QUAIL ST LA JOLLA CA 92039 SUITE 135 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 BETTI FAMILY LIVING TRUST STET JOSEPH 6074 CORTE DEL CEDRO 6070 CORTE DEL CEDRO CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 HARO ROBERT B P 0 BOX 92 CARDIFF CA 92007 BECKER FRANK R&NICOLE REVOCABLE TRUST 353 PUERTA DE MMAS FALLBROOK CA 92028 PARSONhFOX L L C 6062 CORTE DEL CEDRO CARLSBAD CA 92009 MOSELLE GARY W TRUST 6058 CORTE DEL CEDRO CARLSBAD CA 92009 LEVINE INVESTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1702 E HIGHLAND AVE SUITE 310 PHOENIX AZ 85016 MICHAEL E 860 W GLENWOOD CIR FULLERTON CA 92832 ARO PARTNERS VANOWEN RE7U ESTATE PARTNERS 10475 TENNESSEE AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90064 AZ 85016 CARLTAS INVESTMENTS ETTINGER JAMES P&YELENA L C/O MONICA BROWNING 827 OKRA CT 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92009 SUITE 100 CARLSBAD CA 92008 STEWART JOSE CHANG YIH-HI 6064 CORTE DEL CEDRO CARLSBAD CA 92009 CCAP PROPERTIES 6056 CORTE DEL CEDRO CARLSBAD CA 92009 PALOMAR LOT10 BUSINESS CNTR ASS0 2152 DUPONT DR SUITE 203 TRVINE CA 92715 mAVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5 160@ Smooth Feed SheetsTb1 AS IF HOLDINGS L L C C/O COMPONENT CONCEPTS 1934 KELLOGG AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 AVERYB Address Labels Laser 5 160@