HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-11; City Council; 17940; Encina Wastewather Authority Bldg ProgramDEPT. PLN
Project application(s)
Environmental Review
Precise Development Plan
Amendment
Coastal Development Permit
CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
Administrative Reviewed by and To be Reviewed -
Approvals Final at Planning Final at Council
Commission
X
X
X
TITLE:
ENCINA WASTEWATER AUTHORITY BUILDING
PROGRAM - PDP I(G)
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTY.
CITY MGR=
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2005-008 , ADOPTING the Negative
Declaration and APPROVING Precise Development Plan Amendment PDP 1 (G).
On November 17, 2004, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended to
the City Council (7-0) approval of a Negative Declaration and a Precise Development Plan
Amendment and approved a Coastal Development Permit to allow development of two new buildings
within the 25-acre Encina Water Pollution Control Facility campus generally located on the east side
of Avenida Encinas, between Poinsettia Lane and Palomar Airport Road.
The two new buildings would house current operations and maintenance staff. The two buildings
would provide a total of approximately 43,000 square feet of floor area to replace the existing smaller
operations/maintenance building. The two new buildings (one for operations and one for
maintenance) would be located in the northwestern corner of the project site. The operations
building would be two stories (40' high) and would contain 30,460 square feet of area to house the
current operations staff (42 employees). The building's design incorporates numerous elements
including: masonry walls, glass planks, aluminum siding panels and sunshades, a curved metal roof,
and operable windows. Portions of the building would include an exterior railing and metal perimeter
security fencing (up to 6' high). Bollard lights and landscape planters will also be provided. The new
maintenance building would be located just south of the new operations building. The maintenance
building would also be two stories (301-8" high) and would contain 12,506 square feet of area to
house the current maintenance staff (22 employees). The maintenance building design incorporates
masonry walls and a seat wall, aluminum sunshades, and a curved metal roof. Portions of this
building would also include metal perimeter security fencing (up to 6' high). Again, bollard lights
would be provided. The project would also provide additional parking and landscaped setbacks
along Avenida Encinas.
No public testimony was offered at the Planning Commission hearing and no support or objection. A
Full disclosure of the Planning Commission's actions and a complete description and staff analysis of
the proposed project are included in the attached minutes and Planning Commission staff report and
attachments. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval of the proposed
project.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Staff prepared an initial study for the project and concluded that no potentially significant
impacts would result with the implementation of the project. A Negative Declaration has been
prepared by the Planning Director and is recommended for adoption by the City Council.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,940
Facilities Zone
Growth Control Point
Net Density
Special Facility Fee
Local Facilities Management Plan
FISCAL IMPACT:
3
3
NIA
NIA
N/A
All public infrastructure required for this project will be funded and/or constructed by the developer.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2005-008
2. Location Map
3.
4.
5.
Planning Commission Resolutions 5792 and 5793
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 17, 2004
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 17, 2004.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Elaine Blackburn, (760) 602-4621, eblac@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
a
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-008
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVING PRECISE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AMENDMENT PDP I(G) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCINAS
BETWEEN POINSETTIA LANE AND PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3.
CASE NAME: ENCINA WASTEWATER AUTHORITY
CASE NO.: PDP 1(G)
BUILDING PROGRAM
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21.36 of the Municipal Code,
the Planning Commission did, on November 17, 2004, hold duly noticed public hearings as
prescribed by law to consider a Negative Declaration and Precise Development Plan
Amendment (PDP I(G)); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 1 lth day of
JANUARY , 2005, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Precise
Development Plan Amendment and at the time received recommendations, objections, protests,
comments of all persons interested in or opposed to PDP 1 (G); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the adoption of
a Negative Declaration and the approval of Precise Development Plan Amendment (PDP 1 (G))
is approved by the City Council and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5792 and 5793, on file with the City Clerk
and made a part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council, except
as modified herein.
....
. . ..
.... 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
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 11th day of JANUARY , 2005, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Lewis
- CLAUDE A. LEflIS,%lav6r MATT HALL, Mayor- Pro Tem
ATTEST:
I
LORRAINE M. WO~D, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
EXHIBIT 2
SITE
BUILDING PROGRAM
PDP 1(G)
5
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
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5792
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND A
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AVENIDA
ENCINAS BETWEEN POINSETTIA LANE AND PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 3.
CASE NAME: BUILDING PROGRAM
CASE NO.: PDP l(G)/CDP 04-19
WHEREAS, Encina Wastewater Authority, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 214-010-95, 211-030-06, and 211-
030-08
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of November 2004,
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 Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration,
Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated October 12, 2004, and “PII”
dated September 28, 2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
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. The Planging Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration PDP
l(G)/CDP 04-19 and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project
and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the
project; and
b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part I1 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 17th day of November 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery, and Segall
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
n
Planning Director
I PC RES0 NO. 5792 -2-
FILE COPY
City of Carlsba-d
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: BUILDING PROGRAM
PROJECT LOCATION:
CASE NO: PDP 000 1 (GYCDP 04- 19
EAST SIDE OF AVENlDA ENCINAS BETWEEN POINSETTIA
LANE AND PALOMAX AIRPORT ROAD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of two new operations and maintenance buildings
totaling approximately 43,000 sf on a developed site containing the Encina Wastewater
Treatment Facility
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the above-described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially
significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be
recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed 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 30 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvalladoption 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 Elaine
Blackbum in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4621.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD October 12,2004 - November 11,2004
PUBLISH DATE October 12,2004
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us Januarv 30. 2003
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: BUILDING PROGRAM
PROJECT LOCATION:
CASE NO: PDP 1 (G)/CDP 04- 19
EAST SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCINAS BETWEEN POINSETTIA
LANE AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of two new operations and maintenance buildings totaling
approximately 43,000 sq.ft. on a developed site containing the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility,
on the east side of Avenida Encinas between Poinsettia Lane and Palomar Airport Road.
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above
described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, the initial study (EL4 Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the
environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
@ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
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. (Negative Declaration applies only to the
effects that remained to be addressed).
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.
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: , pursuant to
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 9
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: PDPOOOl(G)/CDP 04-19
DATE: September 28,2004
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: Building: Program (EWA)
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMl3ER: Elaine Blackburn
PROJECT LOCATION: East side of Avenida Encinas, between Poinsettia Lane and Palomar
Aimort Road
PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Encina Wastewater Authority, 6200 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA 92009-1095
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Public UtiIities (PU)
ZONING: Public Utilities (P-U)
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements):
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Proiect Description: The Droposed project involves the construction of two new operations and
maintenance buildinps on a developed site containing the Encina Wastewater Treatement
facilities. The two new buildings will contain 30,460 sf (proposed operations building) and
12,506 sf (proposed maintenance building). The existing operations building: will be demolished.
Both proposed new buildings would be two (2) stories in hei.ght, and were identified in the EWA Building
Procram Needs Assessment in November 2002 as necessary facilities to house existing EWA full-time staff
including operations, maintenance, administration, and environmental compliance staff, currently totaling
52 employees. The proposed project would adequately meet existing and future staff needs. No new
employees would be hired or relocated to the proposed facilities as a result of the proiect.
Environmental Setting: The EWPCF is located approximately 0.5 mile from the Pacific Ocean in the City
of Carlsbad. The facility is located immediately west of Interstate 5 (1-3, east of US 101. and south of
Palomar Aimort Road (Fiaire 2). The EWPCF plant site includes a total of approximatelv 25 acres which
have been previously filled and graded and developed with the existing water treatement facilitv campus.
Nearby and adiaceiit land uses include residential development and open space to the south, 1-5 and
residential development to the east, commercial/ industrial development to the north. and residential
development. oDen space, and transportation corridors (State Highway 101 and railway lines) to the west.
The operations and maintenance buildinn sites are within the iurislction of the City of Carlsbad and have
been designated for public utility use.
1 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation:Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
c] Aesthetics
0 Agricultural Resources
c] Geology/Soils [7 Noise
0 Hazardshlazardous Materials 0 and Housing
0 Air Quality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality Public Services
0 Biologxal Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation
Utilities & Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2
Il
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Ixi
e
0
e
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a signlficant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
/a /dD 4
Date
3 Rev. 07/03/02
/a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects ldce 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 Thah Significant Impact.”
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is sigrufkantly
adverse.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but &l potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative 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 addltional 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 ths case, the appropriate “Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
4 Rev. 07103102 13
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially sipficant 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 Ovemdmg
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. 07tQ3lQ2 /4
Issues (and Supporting Information Sourcesj.
1.
11.
111.
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
'Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and hstoric
buildings within a State scenic hghway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundmgs?
Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are signrfcant
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:
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?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
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:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
0 17
0 cl
0 0
Less Than
Significant No Impact Impact
ow ow
ow
ow
ow
cl clw
0 nw
0 [XI0
6 Rev. 07/03/02 /5
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat niodifications, 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 WiIdlife Service?
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 interruption, or other means?
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?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
cl
0
0
0
17
0
0
D
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
17
cl
0
0
0
0
c?
iI
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
0
IXI
Ixl
IXI
IXI
[XI
IXI
[XI
KI
ixi
7 Rev. Q7lO3JQ2 16
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
Cause a Substantial adverse change in the
significance of a hstorical resource as defined in 0 15064.5?
Cause a Substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 5 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Expose people or structures to potential Substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
Substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shalung?
... 111. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
Result in Substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
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?
Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
El
0
0 o
17 o
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant Impact
cl
0
0
0
0
IXI
IXI
17
17
0
0
8 Rev. 07103l02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
.use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
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?
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 which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
For a project withm 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
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
[ncorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant Impact
0
Ixi
Ixi
0
IXI
IXI
0
cl
IXI
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 ow b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
.interfere. substantially with .ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
0 0 ow
0 0 ow c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
0 cl NO e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site? o 0 IXIO f) Create or contribute runoff water, whch would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff!
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0
0 0 ow
0 0 uw
0 ow
0 BO a Bci
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
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?
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
i)
j)
k)
I)
0 cl El0 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)?
10 Rev. 07103102 19
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
0 0 n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or .wetland waters) during or following construction?
17 0
17
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaifed
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
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?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
17 0 om o 0 OIXI
0 0 UIXI c)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 0 OH 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?
o 0 urn 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?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
0 0 NU 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?
0 0 NO b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
0 UBI
0 0 Ian
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
11 Rev. 07103102
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
e) For a project located withm 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?
0 0
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or worlang
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
0 0 Ixi
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
0 cl
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0 0
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 17 17 0
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
0
0
c?
0
17
0
17
Ixi
Ixi
Ixi
Ixi
Ixi
ii) Police protection'?
iii) Schools'?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
LXV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
0 0 Ixi
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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:
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)?
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 patterns, 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
(e.g., 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
cl
0
17
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
17
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
[XI
e3
I?
0
cl
0
0
0
I?
El
No
Impact
Ixi
El
IXI
IXI
[XI
Ixi
El
Ixi
[xi
0
13 Rev. 07103102 aa
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Less Than Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 Ixlo 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?
0 0 Ixlu
0 0 UIxl
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? g)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
0 0 ow a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects?)
0 0 IXIn b)
0 0 Ixin c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a> Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
bj Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicabie 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 Signsicant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
14 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. AESTHETICS
a-c) No Impact. The proposed project involves construction of two new buildings as part of an on-going
building program for the existing Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility. The existing facilities include a number of
tall structures typically associated with this type of use. The proposed ahnistrative/operation building would
replace an existing structure at the EWPCF site in the same location. The proposed buildings would be two stories.
The operations building is proposed to have a maximum height of 40 feet, and the maintenance building proposed at
30 feet, 8 inches. Existing buildings at the EWPCF include the dewatering building at 44 feet, the cogeneration
facility at 38 % feet, and the screenings building at 27 !h feet. The proposed height of each building would not
exceed the highest buildings at the EWPCF. The P-U Zone does not provide a specific numerical height limit
because it recognizes that public utility uses are unique in nature and require individual consideration. Therefore,
the maximum allowed height is to be determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Height
limitations on surrounding developments with office and industrial development zoning are approximately 35 feet.
Even in those zones, additional height up to 45 feet is permitted conditionally. Therefore, staff believes the
proposed heights are in keeping with the surrounding developments.
There currently is no scenic vista either on the project site or through it. The proposed project site does not contain
any scenic resources. The site is a developed site that contains part of a larger wastewater treatment facility campus.
The site is also not located along a scenic highway. The proposed new buildings will be compatible in character
with the surrounding uses and with the other uses on the project site.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed buildings would entail the use of the same type of building
materials, lighting fixtures and visual treatment currently present at the EWPCF. The new facilities would not
represent a new lighting source since- the existing buildings currently employ night lighting. As such, substantial
increases in light or glare sources would not occur. Existing lighting onsite utilizes non-glare sodium vapor lights.
Additional lighting sources associated with the proposed project would appear as an extension of existing lighting
facilities. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would affect day
or nighttime views in the area
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
a - c) No Impact. The proposed project site is an area already developed with existing industrial and related
structures as part of the Encina Wastewater Treatement Facility. The project does not occur on, or otherwise
involve, any designated faimland, any land already used for agricultural purposes, or any land subject to a
Williamson Act contract.
111. AIRQUALITY
a) 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 (PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego
Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the
pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality, In San Diego County, this attainment planning
process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control
District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. AAer considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incoiporated 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.
15 Rev. 07/03/02
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the
following:
Is’a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being
implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS,
Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the regional plan.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality
violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in
2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates
in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The project would involve
minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized
through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust
control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant
emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard
(comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and
suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable
potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated
with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed
project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to
the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is
considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
d) 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.
e) The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes fiom the operation of
construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-
term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial.
No Impact.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a, b) No Impact. The EWPCF is located on a flat mesa approximately 0.5 mile fiom the Paclfic Ocean. The
site is currently developed with wastewater treatment facilities and has been previously graded and cleared of all
naturally occurring vegetation. The proposed facilities would be located withm the existing EWPCF site. Due to
the lack of habitat onsite, the project would not result in the impact to biological resources and would therefore not
impact candidate, sensitive or special status species protected by local or regional plans, policies, or regulations.
c) No Impact. See response (a) above. The project would be confined within the EWCPF site. This site
does not currently support wetlands. Therefore implementation of proposed facilities on the site would not disturb
wetland resources.
a No Impact. See response (a) above. The project is confined withn the EWPCF site, which is not located within and does not contain any wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, implementation of proposed project would
not interfere with wildlife movement
e, 9 No Impact. The project is a developed site in an urbanized area and contains no biological resources
(including trees). The porject site also does not contain any lands identified for preservation of open space. The
16 Rev. 07/03/02
615
City's Draft Habitat Management Plan identifies the site as a "developed area" which does not contain any lands to
be preserved. Therefore, the project is not in conflict with any ordinance, policy, plan, or other provision for
conservation of resources.
g) No Impact. See responses (b) and (c) above
CULTURAL RESOURCES
a-d) No Impact. The project will not have any impact on cultural resources. The project site is located in a
fi~lly urbanized area and is developed with a wastewater treatment facility, including industrial uses and related
office/administration and lab facilities. (An EJR was prepared for the EWPCF facility in August 1988.) The
proposed new buildings are to be located within the boundaries of the existing facility in areas previously graded
and developed. The site does not contain any designated archaeological or paleontological or other historical
resources. The site also does not contain any unique geologic features, known burial grounds, etc.
'
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a.i) No Impact. The proposed project involves the replacement of an existing building. All proposed activities
would be limited to the existing plant site. This area has been previously evaluated for soils, geology, and seismicity
in three separate reports (Brown and Caldwell 1975, Fugro, Inc. 1979, and WESTEC 1982). No known faulting
exists within or adjacent to the EWPCF site and the site is not located in a delineated earthquake zone on an Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Map (State of California, 1997 with updates in 1999).
a.ii) Less Than Significant Impact. Although no faults exist onsite, a number of active and potentially active
regional fault zones could affect the EWPCF site. These include the Elsinore and Newport-Inglewood fault zones,
as well as the San Andreas, San Jacinto, Rose Canyon, Coronado Banks, Palo Verdes, and San Clemente fault
zones. A major earthquake on any of these could affect the EWPCF, depending on the nature, size, and location of a
particular event. Based on their location, extent and seismic history, the Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas
fault zones are considered the most likely to produce seismic events capable of affecting the EWPCF site. All
proposed facilities will be designed and built in accordance with seismic design provision of the Uniform Building
Code. Additionally, all facets of excavation, construction, and facility design will meet the standards established for
previous development at the EWPCF site. Specifically, this will include measures such as the over-excavation of
unsuitable base soils and geologic units, the proper composition, placement, and compaction of all construction fill,
the use of additional foundation design techniques as necessary, and the utilization of appropriate construction
materials and methods. Incorporation of these standard design and construction measures will ensure that impacts
related to geologic hazards including seismic events would be less than significant.
a.iii) Less Than Significant Impact. Soils in the project area are relatively high in silt and clay content and are
therefore not highly susceptible to dynamic settlement or liquefaction during a seismic event. Further, the entire site
is covered with construction fill of varying thichess, which was compacted before the site was developed in order
to avoid these types of geologic risks (Encina Wastewater Authority, August 1988, 4-127). Therefore, impacts
related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, are considered to be less than significant.
a.iv.) No Impact. Landslides are associated with steep slopes or areas adjacent to variable topography. The
project site is located on a level mesa and is not adjacent to any significant slopes. Therefore, no landslide hazards
exist.
b) No Impact. The entire EWPCF was previously graded and covered with construction fill of varying
depths. Any grading that would occur as a result of the proposed project would involve removal of existing
pavement or buildings with limited soil disturbance. Grading of undeveloped land would not occur. Therefore,
substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would not occur.
c) construction fill to ensure that impacts related to an unstable geologic unit or soil would be fully mitigated.
No Impact. See response (a) above. The entire EWPCF site was previously graded and covered with
d) No Impact. See responses (a) through (i) above. The entire EWPCF site was previously graded and
covered with construction fill to ensure that impacts related to an unstable geologic unit or soil would be fully
mitigated.
17 Rev. 07/03/02
e) disposal systems.
No Impact. The project does not require or propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a,b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves construction of two buildings. During
construction, some hazardous substances and wastes would be stored, used, and generated in active construction
zones on the EWPCF site. These would include fuels for machinery and vehicles, new and used motor oils, cleaning
solvents, paints, sealants, and storage containers and applicators containing such materials and would not involve
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Accidental spills, leaks, fires, explosions, or pressure
releases involving hazardous materials represent a potential threat to human health and the environment if not
appropriate addressed. Accident prevention and containment are the responsibility of the construction contractors,
and provisions to properly manage hazardous substances and wastes are typically included in EWA’s construction
specifications. EWA monitors all contractors for compliance with applicable regulations including regulations
regarding hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Adherence to EWA’s construction specifications and
applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials and hazardous waste would ensure that construction of the
proposed facilities involving hazardous materials would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment. The project would not involve use of hazardous materials once construction is completed. Impacts
would be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The project is not located within a quarter of a mile of an existing or proposed school.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located at the EWPCF, a facility which uses and stores
hazardous materials and is therefore included on the County’s list of sites prepared pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5. However, because the site currently uses hazardous materials, and because the proposed
operations and maintenance buildings would not involve use of hazardous materials, the project would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment. See response (a) above.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located approximately 2.25 miles west of McClellan-
Palomar Airport. The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of the Airport Comprehensive
Land Use Plan (CLUP) and within the 60 &A CNEL noise contour. The project would not involve the introduction
of facilities that are hgher than existing facilities. Therefore, obstruction impacts to aircraft flight patters would not
occur as a result of the project. The CLUP also identifies compatible uses for each type of land use within each
CNEL contour. In the context of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the project would fit into the “commercial-
wholesale, industrial, manufacturing” land use category. Within the CNEL 60 contour, these types of land uses are
“compatible.” The Comprehensive Land Use Plan defines “compatible” as the outdoor CNEL sufficiently
attenuated by conventional construction that the indoor noise level is acceptable, and both indoor and outdoor
activities associated with the land use may be carried out with essentially no interference from aircraft noise
(SANDAG 1994). Site noise measurements contained in an Environmental Noise Assessment report (Dudek &
Associates 2003) document the property line noise levels on the project site as between 49 and 67 dBA CNEL. The
noise associated with plant operations compounded by the adjacent freeway already provide an ambient noise
environment typical of an industriaYpublic works facility; given existing noise conditions expected on a daily basis
at the plant, additional noise from aircraft would not preclude plant employees from successfully carrying out
operation activities. Therefore, construction of the project would not place employees in a hazardous setting as a
result of the site’s proximity to McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Q result in impacts to this type of facility or its associated employees.
No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and would therefore not
8) No Impact. The City’s Emergency Plan identifies primary roads that would be used for emergency
evacuations, including El Camino Real, Carlsbad Boulevard, La Costa Avenue, Rancho Santa Fe Road and Carlsbad
Village Drive. The proposed project would not involve expansion beyond the existing EWPCF boundaries,
therefore conflicts with the City’s emergency evacuation plan would not occur. Further, the plant is not located
along any of the major arterials that could serve as major evacuation routes.
h) No Impact. The project is not located next to wildlands or undeveloped areas.
VIII. HYDROLOGY*AiiD WATER QUALITY
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not be expected to produce any significant impacts to surface or groundwater hydrology because all proposed activities would be located within the previously
18 Rev. 07103102 37
developed EWPCF site and no groundwater would be utilized for construction. All drainage within the plant site is
currently directed into the central flood control channel. The flood control channel conveys flows underneath
Avenida Encinas and then empties into Encinas Creek on the west side of Avenida Encinas. The creek eventually
drains to the Pacific Ocean via a drainpipe. The proposed building design would not affect the onsite drainage
patterns and would not subject the existing or proposed facilities to impacts related to surface flooding. Potential
water quality impacts include the contamination of surface runoff into the flood control channel. The contamination
of surface runoff could result from erosion associated with proposed construction activities. Standard construction
measures to control erosion and discharge of pollutants, such as sandbagging or other means of stabilization or
impoundment will be employed during construction in conformance with the NPDES permit standards.
Implementation of these measures will reduce surface water quality impacts during project construction to less than
significant.
b) No Impact. The project would not involve groundwater pumping or dewatering. (See response (a) above).
c,d) No Impact. See response (a) above.
e-g) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above.
h) No Impact. The proposed project would not include the introduction of any housing.
i) No Impact. All natural drainage on the EWPCF site was chverted into a central concrete flood control
channel built as part of the original plant. The flood control channel is designed to handle the 100-year flood. The
proposed operations and maintenance buildings would be located within the EWPCF site and therefore not placed
within a 100-year flood hazard area (SanGIS accessed November 2003) and would not impede or redirect flows.
j) flood zone or dam inundation zone, therefore no impact would occur (SanGIS, accessed November 3,2003).
No Impact. See response (a) above. The project would not involve the introduction of structures in a
k) Less Than Significant Impact. The threat to the EWPCF due to seiche or tsunamis remains the same regardless whether the proposed project is implemented or not. The EWPCF is located less than a half of a mile
from the Pacific Ocean. The presence of this large body of water coupled by Carlsbad's location withm seismically
active southern California exposes the existing EWPCF site to seiche and tsunami hazards. These conditions occur
when seismic activity sets water (in the case of seiche or tsunami) in motion. Whle the EWPCF site is not located
within an earthquake hazard zone as designated on Alquist-Priolio Maps, seismic activity can still impact this area
of the Pacific Coast. That said, the frequency of such events occurring is very low, therefore impacts associated
with potential project site inundation by seiche or tsunami is considered less than significant.
I-n) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above.
0) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above. No 303(d) water bodies would be affected by
construction or operation of the proposed operations and maintenance buildings.
P) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above.
IX. , LAND USE AiiD PLANNING
a-c) No Impact. The site of the proposed project does not contain any housing. It is in a hlly urbanized area
and is developed as a watewater treatement facility containing wastewater treatement facilities and related office
uses. The proposed project is consistent with the City's Public Utilities General Plan designation, zoning, and
Precise Development Plan regulations on the site. The project does not conflict with any conservation plans. or other
land use plans. The City's Habitat Management Plan shows the site as a "developed area".
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
a, b) No Impact. The site does not contain any hiown mineral resources.
XI. NOISE
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Noise associated with the project would be temporary and would result
from short-term construction activities. No long-term noise sources would result from implementation of the
proposed operations and maintenance buildings. The noise levels created by construction equipment would vary
19 Rev. 07103102
greatly depending upon factors such as the type and specific model of the equipment, the operation being performed
and the con&tion of the equipment. The average sound level of the construction activity also depends upon the
amount of time that the equipment operates and the intensity of the construction during the time period. Noise
generated by construction equipment will occur with varying intensities and durations during the various phases of
construction. The one-hour average noise level during construction activities typically ranges up to approximately
75 dB to 80 dB at 50 feet from the closest construction work area. The closest residences are located approximately
500 feet or more from the closest onsite construction area. At this distance the one-hour average noise level would
be approximately 60 dB or less. The construction noise would comply with the City's construction noise criteria.
All construction activity will be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
on Saturday. Therefore, onsite construction-related noise would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above.
c) These types of uses would not be expected to result in any substantial increase in ambient noise levels.
No Impact. The proposed project involves two proposed office administration and maintenance buildings.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above.
e) No Impact. The project site is within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area and at approximately
the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Because the project is within the Airport Influence Area, it must be reviewed by
the Airport Land Use Commission for consistency with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan-
Palomar Airport. An application will be prepared and sent for their review. City staff review of the CLUP indicates
that the project is consistent with the CLUP, which allows office buildings, R&D offices, and laboratories in the 55-
65 dBA CNEL noise contours and conditionally in the 65-70 dba CNEL contour. Therefore, the project would not
subject people to excessive noise.
f) No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a-c) No Impact. The proposed project will not induce growth. The proposed new office/administration areas
are being built to create sufficient workspace for existing employees who have been working in confined spaces.
The project does not propose nor require any extension of roads or other infrastructure. The project will not
displace any existing housing or people. It is developed as a watewater treatement facility containing wastewater
treatement facilities and related office uses.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a-c) No Impact. The proposed project would not result in a need for new or altered fire, police, school, parks,
or other public facilities. The existing wastewater treatement facility provides a public service. The site is in an
urbanized area served adequately by existing fire, police, and other services. The proposed new structures are
intended to provide adequate workspace for existing employees who have been worlung in small older quarters for
some time.
XIV. , RECREATION
a, b) facilities, nor would it require or include the creation of any new recreational facilities.
No Impact. The proposed project is non-residential and would not increase the use of existing recreational
XV. TRAIYSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
a) Less Than Significant Impact, The project will generate 218 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 22 peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways Avenida Encinas, a Secondary Arterial. Existing traffic
on this arterial is 7,667 ADT (2003) and the 2003 peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection(s) impacted
by the project are "A" (am) and "C" (pm). The design capacity of the arterial road affected by the proposed project
is 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent 3% of 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 fi-om the proposed project are,
therefore, less than significant.
20 Rev. 07/03/02
a9
b) Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has
designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two hghway segments
in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and
Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Existing ADT* Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-3 5 “A-D” 35-56
El Camino Real 27-49 “A-C” 33-62
Palomar Aqort Road 10-57 ‘‘A-D” 30-73
SR 78 124-142 “F” 156-1 80
1-5 199-216 “D” 260-272
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E’, or LOS “F” if
that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated
roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS.
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the 111 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. Achevement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E’ standard assumes
implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and
hghways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-
term and at buildout.
c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent
with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Aqort. It would not, therefore, result in a
change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed.
d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and,
therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and
zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed.
e) Police Departments. No impact assessed.
f) No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would
comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed.
No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and
g) No Impact. The project is not served by public transportation.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS-Would the project:
a) ,,, Less Than Significant Impact. The project has submitted a preliminary SWPP that addresses the current
and proposed development of the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. The existing uses are covered in an
approved SWPP dated June 19,2003. The proposed development has been identified in the preliminary SWPP and
has been conditioned to address additional filters and BMP’s to ensure compliance with current Regional Water
Quality Control Regulations.
b) proposed project can be adequately served by the existing water and wastewater treatment facilities.
No Impact. The developer of the proposed project is the wastewater treatment provider for the area. The
c) No Impact. The project would involve replacement of two existing buildings which currently make up the
plant’s impervious surfaces. Replacement of existing impervious surfaces with new impervious surfaces would not
result in a net increase in stormwater runoff. All drainage within the EWPCF site is currently directed into the
central flood control channel. The proposed project would not affect the onsite drainage patterns or central flood
control channel.
4 and would represent a less than significant incremental increase in use.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project can be adequately served by existing water supplies
21 Rev. 07103102
30
e) provider for the area. The proposed project can be adequately served by the existing wastewater treatment facility.
Less Than Significant Impact. The developer of the proposed project is the wastewater treatment
f) Less Than Significant Impact. The waste from the project would represent a less than significant
incremental increase to the local landfill capacity. No expansion of existing landfill capacity would be necessitated
by the proposed project.
g) NO Impact. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
XVII. MAVDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE-Does the project:
a) No Impact. See responses IV a-g and V a-d.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in the previous responses, the proposed project would have
no effect on aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, land use and planning,
mineral resources, population and housing, surface and groundwater hydrology, public services, and recreation. In
the absence of project-related impacts, incremental accumulation of effects in conjunction with past, current, and
probable hture projects to these environmental resources would not occur. The proposed project would have a less
than significant effect on air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water
quality, noise, short-term construction related traffic, and utilities and service systems. The combined cumulative
impact associated with the project’s incremental effect and past and surrounding current and future development on
these environmental resources has been determined to be less than significant.
c) that the project would not result in significant direct or indirect effects on human beings.
Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the analysis of all the above questions, it has been determined
22 Rev. 07/03/02
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
Encina Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report. Westec Services.
August 1988.
Updated Geotechnical Investigatin. Provosed Encina Wastewater Authority Administrative Center and
Maintenance Buildings. PlaidWhitelaw Architects, Inc. August 28,2003.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Encina Water Pollution Control Facility Buildinss Promam Support.
Acoustical Analysis for the Encina Wastewater Authority Operations & Maintenance Facilities. Wieland
Associates, Inc. April 27, 2004.
23 Rev. 07/03/02
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. 5793
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT PDP 1(G) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCINAS
BETWEEN POINSETTIA LANE AND PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3.
CASE NAME: BUILDING PROGRAM
CASE NO.: PDP 1(G)
WHEREAS, Encina Wastewater Authority, “DeveloperIOwner,~’ has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 214-010-95, 211-030-06, and 211-
030-08
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Precise
Development Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibits “A” - “V” dated November 17,2004, on
file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, BUILDING PROGRAM - PDP 1(G) as provided by
Chapter 21.36 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of November 2004,
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 Precise Development Plan Amendment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of PDP 1(G) based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
33
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.
4.
That the proposed Precise Development Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and
policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that the proposed use is a
necessary part of the existing Encina Wastewater Pollution Control Facility campus
and the use is consistent with the Utilities General Plan designation on the property
and the use is necessary to continue to provide a necessary public use (wastewater
treatment).
That the proposed Precise Development Plan is consistent with the public convenience,
necessity and general welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that the
proposed new buildings are necessary to provide sufficient employee work space to
adequately perform the operations and maintenance tasks related to the operation
of the wastewater treatment facility and the proposed construction is consistent with
the Public Utilities General Plan designation and Public Utility zoning on the
property.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B).
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a
Grading Permit.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or fiu-ther condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Precise Development Plan Amendment.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Precise Development Plan document(s) necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
PC RES0 NO. 5793 -2- 34
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
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code
Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be
invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies
with all requirements of law.
Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Precise Development Plan
Amendment, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation
survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s
approval is not validated.
Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a reproducible 24” x 36” mylar copy of
the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide
school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 3 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #I special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 3, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Planning.
PC RES0 NO. 5793 .3 -
35-
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
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
...
...
Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the
City of Carlsbad has issued a Precise Development Plan Amendment and Coastal
Development Permit by Resolutions No. 5793 and 5794 on the property. Said Notice of
Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete
project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions
specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the
authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates
said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 127 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibit "C" .
Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting plan
including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid
any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of CDP 04-19 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5794 for those other
approvals incorporated herein by reference.
The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two
(2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per
Section 21.201.210 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape and
Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and
the City's Landscape Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as
shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and
thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project's building, improvement, and grading plans.
Upon approval by City Council the setbackdyards, open space, height and bulk of
buildings, fences and walls, landscaping, grading, dedication and improvement
requirements, phasing (if any), points of ingress and egress, and parking proposed
by PDP 1(G) shall be the minimum development standards for PDP 1.
Upon approval by City Council this Precise Development Plan Amendment (PDP
l(G)) site plan shall become the approved site plan for the entire 25.23-acre Encina
Water Pollution Control Facility development and shall supercede all preceding
approvals for PDP 1.
PC RES0 NO. 5793 -4- 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
Engineering:
The term Developer or Contractor shall refer to Agency or District or it’s authorized
representative for this project. The limits of the project relative to these conditions is within the
City Boundary of Carlsbad.
NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions must be met
prior to approval of a building or grading permit whichever occurs first.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit issued by the City Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit issued by the City Engineer.
Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City for all
public streets (Avenida Encinas) as shown on the site plan. The offer shall be made by a
separate document. All land so offered shall be offered free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances and without cost. Streets that already public are not required to be
rededicated.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
This project is required to obtain a Right-of-way Permit prior to the
commencement of any work within the public right-of-way or within a City
easement.
Prior to the issuance of a Right-of-way Permit, the developer shall prepare, process
and receive approval of a Traffic Control Plan to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. In addition to the Traffic Control Plan, a staging and equipment storage
plan (within the City of Carlsbad) shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Developer/Contractor shall install traffic control devices in accordance with
approved Traffic Control Plan as required.
Prior to the issuance of right-of-way or construction permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP)” SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PROJECT. The SWPPP shall be in
compliance with current requirements and provisions established by the San Diego
Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of
Carlsbad Requirements. The SWPPP shall address measures tO reduce to the
maximum extent practicable storm water pollutant runoff during construction of
the project. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall:
a. include all content as established by the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board requirements;
b. include the receipt of “Notice of Intent” issued by the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board;
PC RES0 NO. 5793 37 -5-
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
C. recommend source control and treatment control Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented with this project to avoid contact
or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable
before discharging to City right-of-way or natural drainage course; and
establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up.
Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education on
the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants.
d.
Code Reminders
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following:
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
...
...
...
...
..I
...
...
...
...
Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
PC RES0 NO. 5793 -6-
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
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your projec, includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“ feedexactions. ”
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 feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of November 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery, and Segall
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN
P/ &- -.--_ fi
;$RANK HeN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
n
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5793 -7- 39
EXHIBIT 4 Toe City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 17,2004
Application complete date: July 28,2004
Project Planner: Elaine Blackbum
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: PDP l(G)/CDP 04-19 - BUILDING PROGRAM - Request for a
recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration and a recommendation of
approval of a Precise Development Plan Amendment and approval of a Coastal
Development Permit to allow construction of two new operations and
maintenance buildings totaling approximately 43,000 square feet on a developed
site containing the existing Encina Wastewater Pollution Control Facility on a site
located on the east side of Avenida Encinas between Poinsettia Lane and Palomar
Airport Road and within Local Facilities Management Zone 3.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5792
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5793 and 5794 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Precise
Development Plan PDP 1(G) and APPROVING Coastal Development Permit CDP 04-19 based
upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The proposed project is a request for approval of a Precise Development Plan (PDP) Amendment
and a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to allow construction of two new buildings (an
operations building and a maintenance building) on the site of the Encina Water Pollution
Control Facility (EWPCF) on the east side of Avenida Encinas. The proposed buildings would
house current operations and maintenance staff and would also provide a new driveway entrance
and parking area for visitors to the facility. There are no outstanding planning issues related to
the proposed project. Staff believes that all required findings can be made and is recommending
approval of the project.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Project Description
The proposed project consists of the construction of two new buildings and the demolition of one
older building. The two new buildings would be constructed along the western side of the water
treatment facility campus (adjacent to Avenida Encinas) and near the northern property line. The
two new buildings and a related central parking area would be constructed over the site of the
existing operations building.
The first new building, and the larger of the two, is a new operations building. The new
operations building would be two stones (40' high) and would contain 30,460 square feet of area
,
PDP 1 (G)/CDP 04- 19 - BU~LDING PROGRAM
November 17,2004
to house the operations staff (42 employees). The new operations building would be located in
the northwestern comer of the project site. The design of that building incorporates numerous
elements including: masonry walls, glass planks, aluminum siding panels and sunshades, a
curved metal roof, and operable windows. Portions of the building would include an exterior
railing and metal perimeter security fencing (up to 6' high). Bollard lights and landscape planters.
will also be provided. The new maintenance building would be located just south of the new
operations building. The maintenance building would also be two stories (30'-8" high) and
would contain 12,506 square feet of area to house the current maintenance staff (22 employees).
The maintenance building design incorporates masonry walls and a seat wall, aluminum
sunshades, and a curved metal roof. Portions of this building would also include metal perimeter
security fencing (up to 6' high). Again, bollard lights would be provided.
A new driveway and a new parking area would be added between the two new buildings
providing an opportunity for more convenient visitor parking. Earthwork volumes for the
proposed project would consist of 2,842 cubic yards (CY) of cut, 507 CY of fill, and 2,335 CY
of export.
Site Description
The existing EWPCF campus occupies a site consisting of three parcels totaling approximately
25 acres and located between Avenida Encinas on the west and 1-5 on the east and between
Poinsettia Lane on the south and Palomar Airport Road on the north. The site is fully developed
with uses associated with the water treatment facility. The site contains landscaped setbacks on
the western and northern perimeters of the property. The site is generally flat and contains no
ornamental vegetation other than the landscaped setbacks and no native vegetation. The site is
bisected east to west by a flood control channel. The southern portion of the campus contains
aeration basins and a storage building (eastern edge), chemical storage and odor control facilities
(center), and secondary clarifiers (western edge). The northern portion contains digesters, a
power building, and shop areas on the east, and primary clarifiers and other processing facilities
in the central area. The northwestern portion of the site contains some small facilities (pump
station, etc.), the existing operations building (9,697 sq. ft.) and three modulars to house
operations/maintenance staff not accommodated by the operations building, and parking
associated with those uses. The proposed project would demolish the existing operations
building and construct two new operations and maintenance buildings and new centralized
parking for those structures. One of the three existing modulars would be removed when the
new buildings are completed.
The project site carries a Public Utilities (U) General Plan designation and Public Utility (P-LJ)
zoning. The surrounding area contains a variety of industrial uses. The area north of the project
site has a Planned Industrial (PI) General Plan designation and Industrial (M) zoning. That area
is developed with a variety of office and quasi-industrial uses. The project site is bounded on the
east by 1-5 and on the west by Avenida Encinas, which both have a Transportation Corridor (TC)
General Plan designation and T-C zoning. The area immediately south of the project site has a
General Plan designation of Planned Industrial/Office (PI/O) and Planned IndustriaYOffice
(PM/O) zoning. That area (approximately 45 acres) contains the recently completed water
recycling facility and several acres of undeveloped land.
41
PDP 1 (G)/CDP 04- 19 - BULLDING PROGRAM
November 17,2004
Background/Prior Actions
There have been a number of prior permit actions on the subje e Table 1 "Permit
History" below.) The EWPCF was built in the 1960's to provide primary wastewater treatment
prior to deep ocean disposal. Planning for secondary treatment began during the early 1970s.
The treatment plant was commissioned in 1983 for primary and secondary treatment. Other than
the addition of the three modulars, the existing operations and maintenance areas have remained
in their original size and configuration since the mid-1980s. Consequently, some staff work
areas remain crar
PROJECT
NUMBER
PDP 1
PDP 1(A)
PDP 1(B)
PDP l(C)
PDP 1(D)
PDP 1(E)
PDP l(F)
ped.
Table 1 - PERMIT HISTORY
DESCRIPTION APPROVALS
t site. (S
Planning Commission
May 25, 1979; PC Reso No. 1514;
City Council
June 19,1979; CC Reso No. 5812
Planning Commission
May 26,1982; PC Reso No. 1962
City Council
July 6, 1982; CC Reso No.6926
Planning Commission
Ami1 27. 1983: PC Reso No. 2113
Planning Commission
March 15, 1989; PC Reso No. 2830
City Council
June, 1989; AB998 1
Planning Commission
October 2, 1996; PC Reso No. 3992;
City Council
December 3, 1996; CC Reso No. 96-415
Planning Commission
April 21,1999; PC Resos No. 4544,4545
City Council
June 15. 1999: CC Reso No. 99-216
Withdrawn
IV. ANALYSIS
Expansion of EWPCF and
upgrade of plant to secondary
treatment (to comply with
Federal and State wastewater
treatment guidelines)
Phase I11 - An expansion
(construction of sedimentation
tank)
Delay for the remodel of
existing storage building
Phase IV expansion; superseded
PC Reso No. 21 13 and CC Reso
No. 6926
Modular office units; conditions
of approval per PDP 1(C) (PC
Reso No. 2830)
Replacement of pump station
and addition of electrical
equipment building
Tenant improvement of existing
facility and building add in for
office use.
The project requires approval of the following legislative actions:
A. Precise Development Plan Amendment
The project is subject to the following regulations and requirements:
PDP 1 (G)/CDP 04-1 9 - BUILDING PROGRAM
November 17,2004
Page 4
PROPOSED USES OR
IMPROVEMENTS
B.
C.
D.
E.
Carlsbad General Plan Public Utilities (U) designation regulations;
Public Utility (P-U) Zone regulations (Chapter 21.36 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
Coastal Development regulations for the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone LCP
Segment (Chapters 21.201 and 21.203 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); and
Growth Management regulations (Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code).
CONSISTENT?
The recommendation for approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with
each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
aesthetically pleasing.
A City which ensures
the timely provision
of adequate public
facilities and services
to preserve the quality
of life of residents.
A. Legislative Actions
Pursuant to the Public Utility (P-U) Zone regulations, the proposed project requires the approval
of a Precise Development Plan (PDP) Amendment, a legislative action. Unlike some other
legislative actions (e.g., a Specific Plan), processing of a PDP or PDP Amendment is not
governed by specific State Codes. Instead, the P-U Zone regulations provide that a PDP
Amendment be processed in the same manner as a zone change and be approved by City
Council. Section IV.C of this report (Public Utility Zoning) contains a detailed discussion of the
proposed PDP Amendment and its compliance with P-U zone requirements.
Regulatory Compliance
B. General Plan
The proposed project site has a General Plan designation of Public Utilities (U) and contains the
existing EWPCF wastewater treatment facility. The proposed project is an expansion of the
existing operations and maintenance areas, essentially office uses needed to serve the current
staff of the facility. As demonstrated in Table 2, below, the proposed project is consistent with
the U General Plan designation.
ELEMENT
Land Use, Overall
Land Use Pattern,
Policy C. 1
Land Use, Growth
Management & Public
Facilities, Goal A. 1
LAN CONSISTENCY
Expansion of operations and
maintenance areas for
current EWPCF staff.
Yes
Expansion of operations and
maintenance areas for
current EWPCF staff,
Yes
43
PDP l(G)/CDP 04-19 - BUILDING PROGRAM
November 17,2004
Page - 5
Use
Min. Lot Area
C. Public Utility (P-U) Zoning
Public Utility Wastewater treatment facility
7,500 sq. ft. 25.23 ac (1,103,200 sq. ft.)
The purposes of the P-U Zone are: 1) to ensure compatibility of the development with the
General Plan and surrounding developments; 2) to ensure that due regard is given to
environmental factors; and, 3) to provide for public improvements and other conditions of
approval necessitated by the development. Uses proposed for the P-U Zone are allowed subject
to the approval of a PDP processed in the same manner as a zone change. (See Section N.A,
"Legislative Actions," above.) The P-U Zone recognizes the unique nature of most public utility
uses and, thus, contains only two specific development standards (7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot area
and 50% maximum lot coverage). The zone provides that all other development restrictions (i.e.,
conditions) shall be as determined necessary and consistent with the P-U chapter, the General
Plan, and any other applicable specific plan. These potential conditions include, but would not
be limited to: setbacks; buWheight restrictions; fences and walls; signage; landscaping; special
grading restrictions; requiring street dedicationshmprovements; requiring public improvements
on or off the project site that are needed to serve the proposed development; timing/phasing of
the proposed project; regulation of points of ingress/egress; and parking.
Staff has reviewed the proposed project design for compliance with specific code requirements,
compatibility with surrounding uses, and reasonableness. The proposed project satisfies the lot
size requirement and the maximum lot coverage limit for the P-U zone. The heights of the
proposed buildings (40' and 30'-8") are within the height limits allowed by City regulations in
similar industrially-zoned areas and are below the height of other structures on the EWPCF
project site. (Heights of existing major buildings on the project site range from 27'-6" to 44'.)
Therefore, staff believes the proposed heights are reasonable and compatible with the
surrounding area. The existing operations building is set back 49'-5'' from Avenida Encinas.
Construction of the two new buildings would result in a setback of 24'-3" at the closest point (the
north end of the proposed operations building). That represents a reduction fiom the current
setback; however, staff believes a minimum 24' setback is reasonable and consistent with the
surrounding area. Also, the setback will be fully landscaped between the building and Avenida
Encinas and between the proposed parking area and Avenida Encinas. The interior side setbacks
(north and south sides) and rear setback (adjacent to 1-5 on the east side) would remain
unchanged by the current development proposal. The EWPCF facility in its current size and
configuration provides a total of 90 parking spaces. The proposed project would provide a total
of 127 parking spaces (4 more than required under the new design). The proposed project would
provide new parking spaces located between the two new buildings for optimal convenience.
Because of the unique nature of the EWPCF use, the parking requirement for this use was
determined by an analysis of the number of employees on the site and the anticipated number of
visitors rather than by a floor area calculation. If this project is ultimately approved by City
Council, the development standards incorporated into the amended site plan would become the
adopted minimum development standards for the project. Based upon this analysis, staff
believes the proposed development standards are reasonable and are compatible with the
surrounding development.
Table 3 - P-U ZONE & PARKING COMPLIANCE
STANDARD I REOUIRED/ALLOWED I PROVIDED
I Max. Lot Coverage I 50% 1 46.5% (total site, including I
44 proposed project)
PDP 1 (G)/CDP 04- 19 - BUILDING PROGRAM
November 17,2004
Page 6
STANDARD
Max. Building Height
Min. Front Yard
REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROVIDED
Council approval 40' (Operations Bldg)
Council amroval 24"" (berations Bldg)
3 0'- 8" (Maintenance Bldg)
Council approval 130' (north side) 1 unchanged (south side)
Min. Interior Side Yards
Min. Rear yard
P arkin E
Council approval Unchanged
Council amroval 127 (for entire EWPCF site)
D. Coastal Development Regulations
STANDARD IMPACTS
The proposed project is within the Mello I1 segment of the Coastal Zone. The policies of the
Mello I1 segment of the Coastal Zone emphasize preservation of prime agriculture and scenic
resources, protection of environmentally sensitive lands, provision of shoreline access, and
prevention of geologic instability and erosion. The site of the proposed project does not and has
not in recent history supported agricultural uses and has not been designated as protected
agricultural land. The site also contains no scenic resources, no slopes, and no environmentally
sensitive lands. Therefore, there is nothing on the site to be preserved or protected. The site is
fully developed with the wastewater treatment facility. The site does not and could not provide
any shoreline access. (It is located on the east side of Avenida Encinas.) Finally, a geotechnical
study was prepared for the proposed project and concluded that the site is appropriate for the
proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the land use policies and
requirements of the Mello I1 segment.
COMPLIANCE
E. Growth Management
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 3 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 4 below.
NIA NIA
NIA NIA
NIA NIA
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
ODen SPace
NIA NIA
15 cfs; Basin C Yes
218 ADT Yes
Station No. 4 Yes
NIA NIA
Schools
Elementarv School Students
N/A Yes
N/A NIA
Middle School Students
High School Students
NIA NIA
NIA NIA
PDP 1 (G)/CDP 04- 19 - BUILDING PROGRAM
November 17,2004
STANDARD
Page 7
IMPACTS I COMPLIANCE
Sewer Collection System
Water
25 EDU Yes
5.500 GPD Yes
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). That study concluded that the project, as designed and conditioned, would
not result in potentially significant environmental impacts. No sensitive habitat or agricultural
operations exist on the project site. Therefore, a Notice of Intent to Issue a Negative Declaration
was issued on October 12,2004. No public comments were received during the review period.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5792 (ND)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5793 (PDP Amendment)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5794 (CDP)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement
Full Size Exhibits “A” - “V” dated November 17, 2004
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: PDP 1 (G)/CDP 04-1 9
CASE NAME: BUILDING PROGRAM
APPLICANT: ENCJNA WASTEWATER AUTHORITY
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Construction of two new operations and maintenance buildings
totaling approximately 43,000 square feet on a developed site containing the Encina Wastewater
Treatment Facility, on the east side of Avenida Encinas between Poinsettia Lane and Palomar
Airport Road.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Assessors Parcel Numbers 214-010-95,211-030-060,211-030-080
APN: 214-010-95,211-030-06,08 Acres: approx. 3 ProposedNo. of Lots/Units: N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: PU
Density Allowed: N/A
Existing Zone: P-U
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Density Proposed: N/A
Proposed Zone: N/A
Zoning
Site P-u
North M
South P-M/O
East TC
West TC
General Plan Current Land Use
U Wastewater treatment facility
P-I Industrial & commercial
PUO Recycled water facility
TC 1-5 Freeway
TC Avenida Encinas & railroad line
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 25
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT w Notice of Intention to Adopt Negative Declaration, issued October 12,2004 u
0 Other,
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
47
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: BUILDNG PROGRAM - PDP 1 (GYCDP 04-1 9
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 2 GENERAL PLAN: PU
DEVELOPER’S NAME: ENCINA WASTEWATER AUTHORITY
ADDRESS: 6200 AVENIDA ENCINAS, CARLSBAD, CA 92009
ZONING: P-U
PHONE NO.: 760-476-9852 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 214-010-95,211-030-06, OS
QUANTITY OF LAND USEIDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 3.3-AC
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: N/A
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
City Administrative Facilities:
Library:
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Demand in Square Footage =
Demand in Square Footage =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire:
Open Space: Acreage Provided =
Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDU
Served by Fire Station No. =
Identify Sub Basin =
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD =
N/A
NIA
NIA
N/A
15
C
218
A
N/A
N/A
25
3B
5,500
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
ne following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-pa&mhip, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, Corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county; city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit”
Agents may sign this documeot; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a comoration or uartnershiu, include the - names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares.-IF- NO
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned comoration, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person Michael T. Hogan
Title G-ManapPr Title Operator-Administrator Encina
Address 6200 Avenia Enci-s Addressm Avpnidrr
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
corppart Encina Wastewater Authority
Joint System
2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent) I
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (Le,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
commation or DartnerShiD, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO MDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) M THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned comoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate .
page may be attached if necessary.) ._
SEE ATTACHED Person Corpmart
Title Title
Address Address
49
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 @
3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit oreanization or a trust, 1st 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 ProfiVTrust N/A Non Profitfrrust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees andor Council within the past twelve (1 2) months? 0 Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
correct to the best of my knowledge.
Paul Davy, Chair
Print or type name of owner
Michael T. Hogan. Gener-r
Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicablddate ,-’
#
~~ Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent
Page 2 of 2 50
SUBJECT:
11 I
Person:
Title:
Address:
I21
Person:
Title:
Address:
[31
Person:
Title:
Address:
[41
Person:
Title:
Address:
[51
Person:
Title:
Address:
ENCINA WASTEWATER AUTHORITY
A Public Agency
6200 Aveninda Encinas
Calrsbad, CA 92009-1009
Telephone (760) 438-3941
Fax (760) 438-3861 (Plant)
(760) 438-7493 (Administration)
Writers Direct Line 060) 268-881 1
Ref: Admin.03-7381
DlSCLOSl+lRE STATEMENT OWNER INFORMA'CION
Robert Greaney CorpFart: City of Carlsbad
Deputy Public Works Director Title: Member: Encina Joint Powers Agreement
P.O. Box 1988, Vista, CA 92085-1 988
Rick Dudley Corp/Part: City of VistdBuena Sanitation District
Asst City Manager Title: Member: Encina Joint Powers Agreement
P.O. Box 1988, Vista, CA 92085-1988
William Rucker Corp/Part: Vallecitos Water District
General Manager Title: Member: Encina Joint Powers Agreement
201 Vallecitos De Oro, San Marcos, CA 92069
Michael Bardin Corp/Part: Leucadia Wastewater District
General Manager Title: Member: Encina Joint Powers Agreement
1960 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92009-681 0
Lin Wurbs Corp/Part: City of Encinitas
Public Works Director Title: Member: Encina Joint Powers Agreement
505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024-3633
SERVING THE CITY OF VISTA, CITY OF CARLSAD, 5UENA SANITATION DlSTRl CT, VALLECITOS WATER DISTRI(
LEUCAOIA WASTEWATER DISTRICT AND CITY OF ENClNlTAS
Planning Commission Minutes November 17,2004 Pa el E~HIBIT 5
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting: 6:OO P.M.
Date of Meeting: November 17,2004
Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLAN N I NG COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER
Planning Commission Chairperson Whitton called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:OO p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Dominguez led the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery and Segall
Staff Present: Don Neu, Assistant Planning Director
Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Michele Masterson, Management Analyst
Van Lynch, Senior Planner
Christer Westman, Senior Planner
Elaine Blackburn, Senior Planner
Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner
Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer - Development Services
John Maashoff, Associate Engineer
David Rick, Assistant Engineer
Karyn Vaudreuil, Fire Marshal
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, to approve the minutes of
the Regular Meeting of November 3,2004.
Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery and Segall
VOTE: 7-0
AYES:
NOES: None
Chairperson Whitton directed everyone’s attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the
Commission would be following for that evening’s public hearing.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairperson Whitton opened the public hearing and asked Assistant Planning Director, Don Neu, to
introduce the first item.
1. CDP 04-32 - MARTINET RESIDENCE - Request for approval of a Coastal Development
Permit to allow for the construction of a single-family residence within the City’s Coastal
Zone. The subject property is located at 4020 James Drive within Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
Planning Commission Minutes November 17,2004 Page 2
3. CDP 04-16 - LA SUVERA - Request for a determination that the project is within the
scope of a previously adopted negative declaration and that the negative declaration adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA; approval of a Coastal Development Permit for building floor plans, elevations, and plotting for the construction
of twelve single-family residences located on Fisherman Drive on previously subdivided
lots within the Mello II segment of the City’s Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
5. PDP I(G)/CDP 04-19 - BUILDING PROGRAM - Request for a recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration and a recommendation of approval of a Precise
Development Plan Amendment and approval of a Coastal Development Permit to allow
construction of two new operations and maintenance buildings totaling approximately
43,000 square feet on a developed site containing the existing Encina Wastewater
Pollution Control Facility on a site located on the east side of Avenida Encinas between
Poinsettia Lane and Palomar Airport Road and within Local Facilities Management Zone
3.
Mr. Neu stated that agenda Items 1, 3 and 5 are normally heard in a public hearing context, however, the
projects are minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends approval. He recommended that the public hearing be opened and closed, and that the Commission proceed with a
vote as a consent Item, including the errata sheets, if any. If the Commission or someone from the public wishes to pull an Item, Staff would be available to respond to questions.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there was anyone who wished to pull Items 1, 3 or 5, or if any of the
Commissioners wished to speak on an Item.
MOTION
ACT1 ON : Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission approve Items 1, 3 and 5.
Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery and Segall
VOTE: 7-0
AYES:
NOES: None
Chairperson Whitton closed the public hearing and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item.
2. GPA 04-16RC 04-12/LCPA 04-12lSDP 04-02/CUP 04-05/HDP 04-011CDP 04-03 -
NORTH COAST CALVARY CHAPEL - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change and a Local
Coastal Program Amendment to redesignate and rezone the undeveloped portions of the
property to open space, and approval of a Site Development Plan, Conditional Use
Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit for the
development of 26.94 acres into a church campus located on the northeast corner of Poinsettia Lane and Aviara Parkway in Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 2 and stated Senior Planner Van Lynch would make the staff presentation.
Chairperson Whitton opened the public hearing on Item 2.
Mr. Lynch stated the project is a church campus consisting of 4 buildings: a multi-purpose building, a
preschool, a youth building and a chapel. The architectural theme is Tuscan. Part of the project includes two open space lots and a pedestrian trail as part of the citywide trail network. The project is located on
the northeasterly corner of Poinsettia Lane and Aviara Parkway. The northern portion of the property and the very southern part of the property south of Poinsettia Lane are the two open space habitat areas that
will be put into open space. Mr. Lynch directed the Commission to the slide presentation to discuss many details of the project. The General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Change (ZC) and Local Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA) are to change the land use, zoning and Local Coastal Program land use
designation from R-1-7,500-Q to Open Space on the two Open Space lots on the property. The Open
53
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Schulman
Auditorium, Dove Library, 1775 Dove Lane, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on
Tuesday, January 11, 2005, to consider adoption of a Negative Declaration and
approval of a Precise Development Plan Amendment to allow construction of two new
operations and maintenance buildings totaling approximately 43,000 square feet on a
developed site containing the existing Encina Wastewater Pollution Control Facility on a
site located on the east side of Avenida Encinas between Poinsettia Lane and Palomar
Airport Road within Local Facilities Management Zone 3 and more particutarly
described as:
Assessork Parcel Numbers 214-01 0-95, 21 1-030-06, and 21 1-030-08.
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 January 7, 2005.
If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-462 1 .
If you challenge the Negative Declaration and/or Precise Development Plan
Amendment 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, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: PDP 1(G)
CASE NAME: BUILDING PROGRAM
PUBLISH: December 30,2004
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
54
I
SITE
BUILDING PROGRAM
PDP 1(G)
.
Smooth Feed Sheets;"
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SANDIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECREATION ADMIN
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DlST OLIVENHAIN WATER DlST
TIM JOCHEN 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
1960 LA COSTA AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VALLECITOS WATER DlST
201 VALLECITOS DE OR0
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SANDIEGO CA 92123
I. P.U .A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100 URBAN STUDIES 9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST SANDAG
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR STE 800
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
ATTN TED ANASlS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING PROJECT PLANNER
DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER ELAINE BLACKBURN
CLYDE WICKHAM
- www.avery.com - 1 -800-GO-AVERY Jam Free Printing . Use Avery* TEMPLATE 5160*
FOUR SAC SELF-STORAGE CORP\
2727 N CENTRAL AVE
PHOENIX, AZ 85004-1155
DOUGLAS E & CAROL SWENSON
2240 MIDLAND GROVE RD 303
SAINT PAUL, MN 55113-3846
BHG PR
14651
TX 75240-8809
J W M I11 *M*
12 57 4 WOODGREEN
LOS ANGELES. CA
ALL-COAST ENTERPRISES INC
15332 ANTIOCH ST 811
PACIFIC PLSDS, CA 90272-3628
DEBORAH D ST
90066-2724
GIOVANNA & ANTHONY NITTI
1951 W MOUNTAIN ST
GLENDALE, CA 91201-1258
TR WATSON
6702 DARYN DR
WEST HILLS, CA 91307-2708
JAY R & YOLANDA LOUGHRIN
10320 CLIOTA ST
WHITTIER, CA 90601-1710
TR BROGE
10127 BOGUE ST
TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780-2703
FORD MANCE CO
PO BOX 910
CARDIFF BY TH, CA 92007-0910
DAVID K & BEVERLY WOODWARD
3413 CORVALLIS ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANS:
5900 PASTEUR CT 200
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-7336
GRAND PACIFIC PALISADES
5900 PASTEUR CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-7317
DICK & DIANA COSTANTINO
5900 PASTEUR CT 200
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOAN LOOS
2609 EL RASTRO LN
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-9108
THOMAS P MEANEY
195 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 83
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1000
CARLSBAD CORPO / EDWIN A & FRANCES JANKOWSKY
6490 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1030
MAR1 LY N JOHN SON
6492 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1030
BETTY ROSE
64 92 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1012
TR DIVONA
6494 EASY ST T
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1030
BETTY MOEH
RICHARD & LILLIAN JONES
6496 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1012
G & JANET MERRIHEW
6494 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1012
DONALD A & SHEILA DAVIS
6 4 9 8 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1012
JULIA POCHILY *M*
6502 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1014
NORMA" L GRUNNAN
6504 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1014
GEORGE & GLORIA AFANSEV
6506 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1014
Jam Free Printing . Use Averye TEMPLATE 5160@
TR SORENSEN
6508 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1014
JAYNE K AKAMINE
6505 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1015
F & THELMA MELLOTT
6504 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1033
LEONA E PLEICK
6510 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1033
0 L & E STANLEY
6504 OCEANVIEW DR T
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1018
CHARLES H & ANN BENDIG
6509 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1034
JEAN CRAIG
6514 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1018
TR DEDERICK
6524 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1018
NINA LUIS1
6531 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1034
JAMES F KENNY
6523 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1034
I www.avery.com - 1 -800-GO-AVERY
ROBERT V & BETH TAPP LESTER & BETHENE VELMAN
6509 FRIENDLY PL 6507 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1015 CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1015
HOYT C & FRANCES BONNER TR LEITCH
6503 FRIENDLY PL 17 6491 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1015 CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1013
JUDITH J HENDERSON
6506 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1033
JOYCE Y BECKWITH
6498 OCEANVIEW DR T
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1016
GIEBINK
6506 OCEANVIEW DR T
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1018
BERNA RUSSELL
6508 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1018
TR BUEL *M*
6518 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1018
TR BARONE
6526 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD , CA 92 0 0 9- 10 18
HARVEY L RUSHFELDT
6508 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1033
JAMES M & PATRICIA EINSPAR
6502 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1018
TR ZANE
6507 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1034
MORRIS L & AGNES DONALDSON
6510 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1018
KENNETH J & DOROTHY CLAYPOOL
6522 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1018
KENNETH BARNETT
6528 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1018
ROBERT & ELAINE BARRETT
6525 EASY ST
CARLS CA 92009-1034 CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1034
HAROLD R & MARGUERITE EV *M* MIGUEL & PEGGY PADILLA
6519 EASY ST 6517 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1034 CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1034
Jam Free Printing . Use Avery@ TEMPLATE 5160@ - www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY - @ AVEKY@ 5160@
WILLIAM FOND
6515 EASY ST 55
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1034
DENNIS W & JACQUELYN BUSS10
6513 EASY ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1034 92009-1034
TR PETERSEN WILLIAM N ROSS
6520 FRIENDLY PL 6516 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1014 CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1035
ALLISON E & SUSAN SPANN
6516 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1014
JOHN D & ELIZABETH GLUCS
6520 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1035
JANICE FLEMING
6522 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1035
HARRY C & JOYCE PAGE
6524 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1035
TR COLARUOTOLO
6534 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1035
DAVID L & ROBBE SKINNER
204 EASY PL T
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1011
JOSEPH J & KATHY MILLS
6526 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1035
TR CASCARANO
6533 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1034
ALLAN P & MARTHA BRENNAN
6530 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1018
VIVIAN E STILLWELL
6535 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1034
TR FRENCH
6532 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1018
TINH V & TRI VU *M*
6534 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1018
TR HOLGUIN
6536 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1018
BERNICE M BUTTNER
204 SEA BREEZE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1038
SHEILA A DEAN
6538 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1018
FRANK J & JOAN ADAMS
6602 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1020
FRANK & SALLY CLARKE
201 EASY PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1011
BARBARA SIMMONS
6602 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1036
TR EAMES
KENNETH W & NANCY ONEAL
6604 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1036
TR EDMISTON
6606 EASY ST T
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1036
JUANITA J MANNING
6608 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1036
N & ALICE HERRINGTON
6610 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1036
DONALD M BUTLER
6618 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1036 92009-1036
Jam Free Printing . Use Averye TEMPLATE 5160@'
TR CHAPMAN
6618 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 9 2 0 0 9- 102 2
RICHARD M & MARY TOOHEY
6610 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD , CA 9 2 0 0 9 - 10 2 2
ALCIA EATON
6607 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1037
MATHILDE E RATCLIFF
6613 EASY ST T
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1037
MCWIN CORP
6102 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1005
ROBERT E & PATRICIA CHAPMAN
1076 PROSPECT PL
VISTA, CA 9208 3- 68 15
TR BAKER *M*
13 14 MONTEREY ST
REDLANDS, CA 92373-6949
- www.avery.com - 1 -80040-AVERY
TR WRIGHT
6616 OCEANVIEW DR T
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1022
TR BRAJKOVI
DALE R & CLAIRE WHITE
6609 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1037
SHENG ZHONG
6400 SURFSIDE LN
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-3207
OS, CA 92069
PEGGY HADLEY
PO BOX 12727
PALM DESERT, CA 92255-2727
TR STOCKTON
222 ESCONDIDO DR
REDLANDS, CA 92373-7215
DOROTHY MCGINITY CATHY L MUSCH *M*
10160 LEUCADIA LN 19371 SIERRA INEZ RD
RIVERSIDE, CA 92503-1051 IRVINE, CA 92612-3933
JACK & NANCY CULP *M*
6614 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1022
HACCAO NGUYEN
201 SEA BREEZE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1039
TR WIES INGER
6611 EASY ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-1037
ALTAMIRA MANAG
TR ROBERTIS
204 TURF VIEW DR
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075-2317
TR WALLACE
28463 CARRIAGE HILL DR
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
TR MINE0
1751 SUNNYPARK
REDLANDS, CA 92374-5578
THERESA ROSATI *M*
22042 SALCEDO
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691-1231
MICHAEL D & MARY TRAMUTOLA TR BAUER HENRY & MARY AMEEN
25442 REMESA DR 521 KNEPP AVE 12811 CHAPARRAL DR
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691-5463 FULLERTON, CA 92832-2720 GARDEN GROVE, CA 92840-5941
TR CAVENDER ROSE ROSE WALTER NG
16952 NIGHTINGALE LN PO BOX 5058 3062 MELBOURNE CT
YORBA LINDA, CA 92886-2107 LIVERMORE, CA 94551-5058 PLEASANTON, CA 94588-2911
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAIUNG
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, 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, (DATE}, to consider
adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of a Precise Development Plan Amendment to
allow construction of two new operations and maintenance buildings totaling approximately
43,000 square feet on a developed site containing the existing Encina Wastewater Pollution
Control Facility on a site located on the east side of Avenida Encinas between Poinsettia Lane
and Palomar Airport Road within Local Facilities Management Zone 3 and more particularly
described as:
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 214-010-95,211-030-06, and 21 1-030-08.
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 {DATE}. If you have any
questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4621.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration and/or Precise Development Plan Amendment 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 at
or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: PDP 1(G)
CASE NAME: BUILDING PROGRAM
PUBLISH: {DATE}
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
SITE
BUILDING PROGRAM
PDP 1(G)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
Those persons wishing to speak on this pro osal are cordially invited to attend the ublic hearing. gopies of the agenda bill will be availabk on and after January 7, 2005. If you have any questions please call Elain Blackburn in the Planning Deiartrnent at (7608
If, you challenge the Ne ative eclaralion and/or Pre- cise Development Plan WmenBment in ioud you may be limited to raising on1 those issues you oisqneone else raised at the publicXearing described in this notice or in written corres ondence delivered to the Ci of Carlsbad, Attn: &y Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Vi/& Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or pnor to the pubi.; hearing.
602-4621.
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:
December 30th, 2004
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
This 30fh Day of December, 2004
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
I I Assessot's Parcel Numbers 214-010-95,211-030-06, and 21 1-030-08.
CASE FILE PDP I(G)
December 30,2004
Signature
Jane Olson
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
.
ENCINA WASTEWATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY (EWPCF) –BUILDING PROGRAMPDP 1(G)/CDP 04-19
Location MapIN T E R S T A T E 5
PASEO DEL NO RT EC A R L S B A D B L V DSITEAVENIDA E NC INA S
P A C IF IC O C E A N
S DN R
Project SiteGeneral Plan: Public Utilities (U)Zoning: Public Utility (P-U) Coastal Zone –Mello IIPrecise Development Plan 1
Permits RequiredPrecise Development Plan AmendmentCoastal Development Permit
Proposed ProjectConstruction of two new buildingsOperations, MaintenanceDemolition of existing Operations buildingRevisions to existing circulation and parking and provision of additional parking spaces
Proposed Operations BuildingSize: 30,460 sf(approximately 42 employees)Height: 40’/2 storiesBuilding materials: masonry walls; glass planks; aluminum siding panels and sunshades; curved metal roof; operable windows; exterior railing and metal perimeter security fencing; bollard lights and landscape planters;
Proposed Maintenance BuildingSize: 12,506 sf (approximately 22 employees)Height: 30’8”Building materials: masonry walls and a seat wall; aluminum sunshades; curved metal roof; metal perimeter security fencing; bollard lights;
Proposed Circulation & ParkingRedesigned staff parking area north end (17 spaces)New entry/parking area (15 spaces)Centralized between two new buildingsNew staff parking area south end (60 spaces)Total parking: 127 spaces (from 90)Required = 123 spaces
P-U Zone ComplianceUse –EWPCF public utility useLot areaMinimum allowed –7,500 sfProject site –25.23 acLot coverageMaximum allowed –50%Proposed –46.5% (total site)
P-U Zone Compliance –Cont’dBuilding height, setbacks, and parking per City Council approvalProposed building heightOperations Bldg –40’Maintenance Bldg –30’8”
P-U Zone Compliance –Cont’dFront yard (street) setbackProposed: 24’3”(Operations) and 40’(Maintenance) (closest points)Currently: 49’5”Side yard (north side) setbackProposed: 130’Currently: 180’
Zoning Compliance –Cont’dParkingProposed –127 spaces (for entire EWPCF site)
Planning Commission ActionPublic Hearing November 17, 2004Unanimous VoteApproved CDP 04-19 (Final at Planning Commission)Recommended approval of Negative Declaration and PDP 1(G)