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3ty Council approval of this companion zone change request to remove the existing and outdated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@