The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-12-13; City Council; 18379; Cassia Professional OfficesAB# 18,379 MTG. 12/13/05 DEPT. PLN Project Applications Administrative Reviewed by and Approvals Final at Planning CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL - TITLE: CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES GPA 05-03/ZC 05-011LFMP 87-1O(A)/HMPP 05-06 To be reviewed - Final at Council RECOMMENDED ACTION: GPA 05-03 ZC 05-01 CITYMGR vp Commission X X 7 - LFMP 87-1 O(A) HMPP 05-06 CT 05-06 PUD 05-04 SDP 05-03 CUP 05-01 That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. , APPROVING Zone Change ZC 05-01 and ADOPT Resolution No. 2005-368 ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and APPROVING General Plan Amendment 05- 03, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment 87-1 O(A) and Habitat Management Plan Permit NS-780 05-06. X X X X X X ITEM EXPLANATION: HDP 05-02 SUP 05-01 X X On November 2, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for a medical office project in the southeast quadrant of the City. The project requires approval by the City Council since the project is requesting changes to the General Plan Land Use and Open Space Elements, Zoning changes, a Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment and a Habitat Management Plan Permit. The Cassia Professional Office project is a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Change (ZC), Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (LFMP), and Tentative Tract Map (CT), Planned Development Permit (PUD), Site Development Permit (SDP), Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Hillside Development Permit (HDP), Special Use Permit (SUP) and Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMPP) to allow for the land use and zoning changes from residential to office and open space, the construction of two office buildings, the permanent preservation of biologically valuable open space, and the subdivision of a single triangular shaped 3.31-acre parcel into 3 separate lots and 8 airspace non-residential condominium units. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of all applications, and voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project to the City Council. A full disclosure of the Planning Commission's discussion for the Cassia Professional Office project and a complete description and staff analysis of the project is included in the attached minutes and staff report to the Planning Commission. PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /g; 379 ENVIRONMENTAL: The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Potentially significant biological and paleontological impacts were identified. The developer has agreed to mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to below a level of significance in accordance with CEQA. The environmental documents were sent directly to the area offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. In consideration of the foregoing, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project on August 22, 2005. Comments were received from the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish & Game. No new mitigation measures were added and minor project revisions were made in response to the comments that do not result in new avoidable significant effects. The revisions do not create a new significant environmental effect and only make equivalent or more effective mitigation measures. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impacts have been identified. EXHl BITS: 1. City Council Ordinance No. NS-780 2. City Council Resolution No. 2005-388 3. Location Map 4. 5. 6. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5977, 5978, 5979, 5980 and 5981 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 2, 2005 Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 2, 2005. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Van Lynch, (760) 602-4613, vlync@ci.carlsbad.ca.us 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 38 ORDINANCE NO. NS-780 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE, ZC 05-01, FROM LIMITED CONTROL TO OFFICE AND OPEN SPACE ON PROPERTY IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE IO. CASE NAME: CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES CASE NO.: zc 05-01 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Section 21.050.30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the zoning map, is amended as shown on the map marked Exhibit “ZC 05-01,” dated November 2, 2005 attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 11: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5979 constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certii to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within fifteen days after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the 13-day of December, 2005, and thereafter Ill Ill Ill Ill ill Ill Ill 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the ,2005, by the following vote, to wit day of AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney ClAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE - Project Name: Cassia Professional Office Legal Description(s): A portion of parcel 2 of Parcel Map 1188, recorded December 20,1972, as File No. 340344, being a portion of fractional Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, being within the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of Related Case File No(s): GPA 05-03/LFMP87-10A /CT 05- -=- OG/PUD 05-041SDP 05-O3/CUP 05-011HDP 05-02/SUP 05- OlIHMPP 05-06 EXISTING ,i z PROPOSED E%Lxi t ZC: 05-01 draft final 0 November 2,2005 Zone Change Approvals A. 21 5-020-26-00 Limited Control 010s Ordinance No: B. Effective Date: C. h u. I I Attach additional Daaes if necessarv I I- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-368 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING A GENERAL ELEMENT AND THE OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, A LOCAL FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT, GPA 05-03 TO AMEND THE LAND USE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LFMP 87-1O(A), AND A HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT, HMPP 05-06, FOR THE CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE IO. CASE NAME: CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES CASE NO.: GPA 05-03/ZC 05-01/LFMP 87-1 O(A)/HMPP WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on November 2, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, and Habitat Management Plan Permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 13th day of December , 2005, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, and Habitat Management Plan Permit and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and/or GPA 05-03, LFMP 87-10(A), and HMPP 05-06; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 1. That all recitations are true and correct. 2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5977, 5978, 5980 and 5981 on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 3. That the application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment and Habitat 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 Management Plan Permit on property generally located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road is approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5977, 5980, and 5981. 4. That the application for a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment from Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Office (0) and Open Space (OS) and an Open Space Conservation Element Amendment on property generally located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road, as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5978, is hereby accepted and approved, and is the fourth General Plan Amendment of 2005. 5. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply: “NOTICE TO APPLICANT The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA. 92008.” .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... -2- 7 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 13th day of December , 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: -3- 8 EXHIBIT 3 SITE CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES GPA 05-03/ZC 05-Ol/ LFMP 87-1 O(A)/HMPP 05-06 9 1 2 3 ‘4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --. EXHIBIT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5977 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENTS FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM TO OFFICE AND OPEN SPACE, A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED CONTROL TO OFFICE AND OPEN SPACE, A LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT; AND APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 SEPARATE LOTS (2 FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS AND 1 FOR OPEN SPACE) AND 8 COMMERCIAL AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10. CASE NAME: CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO SUBDIVIDE AND GRADE A 3.31- CASE NO.: GPA 05-03/ZC 05-01/LFMP 87-10(A)/HMPP 05- 06/CT 05-06/PUD 05-04/SDP 05-O3/CUP 05- Ol/HDP 05-02/SUP 05-01 WHEREAS, Franz-Yut El Camino, A Limited Liability Company, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Bressi Daughters’ Trust U/D/T dated November 22,2000, “Owner,” described as .- -- -- A portion of parcel 2 of Parcel Map 1188, recorded December 20, 1972, as File No. 340344, being a portion of fractional Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, being within the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of November, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 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 ,+ WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any ‘written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, according to Exhibits “NOI” dated August 22, 2005, and “PII” dated August 11, 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinm: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Cassia Professional Offices and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental 7 ..* 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. ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5977 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 '. Commi si PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning n of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of November 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5977 -3- * FILE Copii’-- f Carlsbad a C CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: i ty 0 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Cassia Professional Offices GPA 05-03/ZC 05-01/CT 05-06/SDP 05-03/CUP 05-01/SUP 05-01/HDP 05-02/” 05-06 North east comer of El Camino Real and Cassia Lane, Carlsbad, San Dieno County. (2 15-020-26-00) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The urwosed project involves a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change. Tentative Tract Map, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, . Conditional Use Permit, Special Use Permit and Habitat Management Plan Permit to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Residential Low-Medium Densitv RL M) to Office (0) and the Zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to Office (0). The uroiect proposes to construct two seuarate office buildings on a 3.3 1 acre parcel site. One building will contain 6,340 square feet of medical offices and the other will contain 5,460 square foot of lease space and a cat hospital. Amroximatelv 45%, the northerly uortion of the site, will remain in open space. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EL4 Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. A copy of the initial study (EX4 Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments fkom the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvaVadoption 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 Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-46 13. ‘k = e- ._ -- - PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD August 22,2005 throuszh September 11,2005 PUBLISH DATE August 22,2005 t . 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us *- ENWRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 CASE NO: GPA 05-03/ ZC 05-011 SDP 05-03/CUP 05-01/SUP 05-01/HDP 05-02/HMP05-06 DATE: Aumst 1 1,2005 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. :. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Van Lynch (760) 602-46 13 PROJECT LOCATION: North east comer of El Camino Real and Cassia Lane. Carlsbad, San Diego County. PROJECT SPONSORS NAME AND ADDRESS: Franz-Yut El Camino. LLC, 2710 Loker Avenue West. Suite 100, Carlsbad CA 92008 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low-Medium (existing) - Office (proposed) ZONING: Limited Control (existind - Office (proposed) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed Droiect involves a General Plan Amendment. Zone Change. Tentative Tract Map, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan. Conditional Use Permit, Special Use Permit and Habitat Management Plan Permit to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Residential Low-Medium Density (RLW to Office (0) and the zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to Office (0). The pro-iect site is a trianpular-shaped 3.31 acre parcel (215-020-26) located on the northeast comer of El Camino Real and Cassia Road. The proiect also proposed the widening of El Camino Real in accordance with Citv of Carlsbad prime arterial standards. The widening of the roadwav will be done with a retaining wall instead of fill slopes to reduce the impacts to native vegetation. Development will occur on the southern portion of the parcel while the northern portion will remain preserved open space (except for the El Camino Real widening section). Approximatelv 45% of the site will remain in open space. - The proiect proposes to construct two seDarate office buildings on site. One building will contain 6,340 sauare feet of medical offices and the other will contain 5,460 sauare foot of lease space and a cat hospital. 59 parkinn spaces are proposed, and automobile access will take dace from two separate driveways off Cassia Road. The parcel is currently undeveloped and contains a high percentage of natural vegetation. The site is located within Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 10 in the southeast quadrant of the City of Carlsbad. Surrounding properties include multi-familv development to the west (across El Camino Real). agricultural uses to the south (which were recently approved for high density multi-family housing) and open spaces to the north and east. 1 Rev. 07/03/04 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils 0 Noise 0 Agricultural Resources Hazards/Hazardous Materials and Housing 0 Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Public Services Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Mineral Resources TransportatiodCirculation Recreation - Cultural Resources . 0 Mandatory Findings of Utilities & Service Systems Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/04 .- DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significar-. effect on the environmet-, 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. Assistant Planning Director’s Signature Date 3 Rev. 07/03/02 .-- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. 0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except ‘No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 0 “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. 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation :. measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantia1 evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but glJ potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. 0 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. e 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. 0 If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 I7 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less’ than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than El IxIn 0 UIXI OIXI om I. 11. :. III. Potentially Significant Impact AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? 0 o c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1 997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 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: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 0 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 0 0 OIXI 6 Rev. 07/03/02 1.. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than Potentially Significant Impact c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase 'of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ._ 0 U nw 17 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? o b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 0 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 0 0 0 0 e) 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? f) g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? 0 0 17 0 0 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: ' 0-0 om Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in $1 5064.5? cl 0 OH 0 0 OH Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 om Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? o 0 0 0 0 0 0 om- 0 .:-< om 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 0 0 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? c VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: 0 0 OIX] -0 LXl a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? CI b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? OIX] d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? 0 0 e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 CI g) Impair impIementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wi Id lands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or. waste discharge requirements? 0 IXIO 9 Rev. 07/03/02 dd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 ON Potentially Significant Impact 0 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)? IXIO 00 e) Impacts to groundwater quality? IXI- 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 0 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? 0 f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? CI k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 0 Ixl 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidityl? IXIU 10 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 El0 0 0 El0 n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh’or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 0 0 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 0 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? 0 0 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 we plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: 0 0 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? o 0 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project viciniw above levels existing without the project? 0 0 IXI IXI nIXI 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? -. 0 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) 0 Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? o b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new. or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION 0 0 0 0 a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur. or be accelerated? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant No Impact Impact -0 OBI 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unles Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact . .. b) Does the project include recreational facilities 'or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 0 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) 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)? 17 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 0 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 0 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 CI f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resoufces, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 13 Rev. 07/03/02 ab . Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 ON e) Result in a determination by the wastewaier 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 UIXI f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 O=B g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XM. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0 0 0 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) 0 OH c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES 7 -- -- -7 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. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sife-specific conditions for the project. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The following is a technical explanation for each answer provided in the checklist provided on the previous pages. After each question is posed, a summary of the existing conditions is presented, followed by an analysis of potential project impacts, the finding and appropriate factual justification. In cases where the finding is "Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated", the finding is followed by a description of the mitigation measures that would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Information sources are cited for each discussion. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Existing Condition: The subject is located within the El Camino Real corridor. El Camino Real is considered a Community Theme Corridor in the City of Carlsbad General Plan. A view to the site exists from El Camino Real to the east due to its close proximity to the project site. The project will however adhere to all requirements set forth in the El Camino Real Corridor Study, dated February 8,1984. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will be visible primarily from visitors and employees of the Cassia Professional Offices, as well as, residents of the yet to be constructed El Camino Family Housing project located immediately to the south. Motorists traveling on El Camino Real will have views of the project, particularly south-bound, although a 30-foot landscape screen will be provided. Multi-family housing to the west of the project will also be screened and have limited views of the site. Buildings will occupy only slightly over 10% of the frontage of the lot. The proposed project calls for two buildings, the tallest of which will have a maximum height of 3 1 feet, six inches. This height is consistent with the height of other buildings in the area. :* Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project will not significantly impact the viewshed from either the surrounding housing, or from El Camino Real or other public streets. Temporary impacts associated with construction of the project will not be significant. The project will conform to the City of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines for, grading, design theme and setbacks relating to Community Theme Corridors. Therefore, the project will not have a substantially adverse impact on any scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Existing condition: No trees or rock outcroppings will be impacted by the proposed project. No buildings, including historic buildings, are located in or adjacent to the site. The area of proposed impact is not located within the viewshed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing as a scenic highway. Environmental Evaluation: highways are in the vicinity of the proposed project, no significant impact to such resources is anticipated. Since no trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings, and no State scenic Finding: No impact - The site is not within the viewshed of a state scenic highway or any state highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing. Please also refer to the preceding response. c) - : ..- ._ -- Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Existine condition: The existing visual character of the site is that of an undeveloped parcel, surrounded by existing agricultural and multi-family uses. Annual non-native grassland, southern maritime chaparral, chaparral, and a small amount of coastal sage scrub occur onsite. Environmental Evaluation: Permanent visual impacts of the proposed project will involve the construction of two buildings. Temporary impacts associated with construction will be short-term and not significant. Nearly half of the proposed project site will remain in open space. Therefore, it is concluded that the project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Finding: No impact - Please also refer to response I(a), above. d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Existing condition: The subject area contains no lights and produces no glare at the present time. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will change the appearance of the subject site from a relatively flat undeveloped parcel to a developed office use. Light and glare from the proposed project is anticipated to be not significantly greater than that projected from other uses in the surrounding area. The proposed development modifications will involve an increase in urban appearance, but not dissimilar from the existing uses along El Camino Real. This increase should not however, resalt in significant new sources of light and/or glare, and will not significantly impact overall views to and from the site. The project will submit a lighting plan to the Planning Department for review for consistency-with City policies as part of the approval process. Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in a new source of substantial light and glare and will not significantly a&ct day or nighttime views in the area. . -_ AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Existing condition: The subject site is not designated as "Farmland of Local Importance" on the "California Department of Conservation - San Diego County Important Farmland" exhibit dated September, 2002. The site is currently undeveloped and no agriculture is (or has ever been) practiced on the subject site. ,. Environmental Evaluation: The area which would be impacted by the proposed project is not designated as "Farmland of Local Importance" on the "California Department of Conservation - San Diego County Important Farmland" exhibit dated September, 2002. The property is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not convert prime farmland to non-agricultural uses. The site is currently undeveloped and no farming takes place on the subject site. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Existine condition: The subject project is located on property that is zoned Limited Control (L-C). A zone change to Office (0) is proposed. No agricultural operations are presently conducted in the area of the proposed project improvements. The subject property is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Environmental Evaluation: Williamson Act contract. The property is not zoned for agricultural uses, and is not encumbered by a Finding: No impact - Please refer to the preceding response. The site is on property not established for agricultural uses. No effect on agricultural uses will result from implementation of the project. The property is not zoned for agricultural uses, and no Williamson Act contract encumbers the property. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result - in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? - ,e __ --. Existing condition: which the proposed project urban improvements are proposed. The subject site is currently undeveloped and no farmland presently exists in the area for Environmental Evaluation: The subject property does not contain prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance. Farming operations in the City of Carlsbad or State of California would not be affected through implementation of the proposed plan amendments. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not affect any existing or identified farmland, nor will it cause changes to any factors, such as water supply, access, or drainage that would affect any active agricultural use. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated with respect to agricultural resources. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 16 Rev. 07/03/02 $9 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 &ir 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. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section I5125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? , Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 200 1 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. (Add the following text addressing short-term emissions, if there is grading associated with the project.) The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. - ~ -- ._ -- c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the 17 Rev. 07/03/02 CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. Plant Community Southern maritime chaparral Chaparral Coastal sage scrub Non-native Annual grassland d) No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project wou!d 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. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Total Acres Impacted Preserved HMP Required Acres Acres Mitigation Mitigation Ratio Acres 1.52 0.37 1.15 3:l 1.11 1.02 1.02 0.00 1:l 1.02 (Fee) 0.23 0.02 0.21 2: 1 .04 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.5:l 0.25 (Fee) e) Create objectionable odors affecting.a substantial number of people? Disturbed I 0.05 TOTAL 3.31 No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. 0.05 0.00 Fee 1 0.05 (Fee) 1.95 1.3 1 I 2.47 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Plant Community Southern maritime chaparral Chaparral Coastal sage scrub Non-native Annual a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Off-site Acres Mitigation Mitigation Preservation Revegetation Mitigation Ratio Acres Required Impacted HMP Required On-site On-Site 0.37 3:l 1.11 1.15 0.10" None) 1.02 1:l 1.02 (Fee) 0.00 0.00 1.02 (Fee) 0.02 2: 1 0.04 0.2 1 0.00 None 0.49 0.5:l 0.25 (Fee) 0.00 0.00 0.25 (Fee) Existing condition: The subject site is located wholly within an area that has never been developed. The site '5 contains annual non-native grassland, chaparral, southern maritime chaparral, and coastal sage scrub. No coastal sage scrub will be impacted by the development. The site was surveyed for narrow endemic species of the del mar sand aster and none were found. The aster found was a more common local aster. The impacts to Summer Holly have been minimized to result in a loss of four individuals out of twenty four present for a loss of no more than 20% per the MHCP avoidance, minimization and mitigation actions. grassland Disturbed TOTAL Environmental Evaluation: The project site is an undeveloped parcel. A biological assessment of the site. has been prepared by Planning Systems, dated 10/5/05. Biological resources on the site consist of annual non-native grassland, chaparral, southern maritime chaparral, and coastal sage scrub. Impacts to biological resources resulting from implementation of the project are as follows: 0.05 Fee 0.05 (Fee) 0.00 0.00 0.05 (Fee) 1.95 2.47 1.36 0.10 1.32 Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated - Direct impacts to sensitive vegetation protected by CDFG and/or USFWS will occur through implementation of the subject project as identified above. Mitigation for such impacts are indicated as follows: 18 Rev. 07/03/02 * Revegetation is NOT required as mitigation for project related impacts b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Existing condition: aquatic or wetland habitats are anticipated. Please refer to explanation-of existing condition Section IV(a). No impacts to riparian, . Environmental Evaluation: project . No impacts to wetlands vegetation would result from implementation of the Finding: No Impact - No direct impacts to sensitive wetland, riparian or aquatic vegetation will occur through implementation of the subject project. HMP compliance with regard to SMC impacts and mitigation is required pursuant to CDFG, USFWS and City of Carlsbad regulations. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Existing condition: anticipated through implementation of the subject project. No direct filling, hydrological interruption or other impacts to "waters of the US." are Environmental Evaluation: No impact to wetlands or "waters" is anticipated from the project. Finding: No impact - The project will be developed in an area that does not contain any federally protected wetlands or "waters" as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wifdlife nursery sites? Existing condition: The subject site is currently an undeveloped parcel. A biological assessment of the site has been prepared by Planning Systems, dated 6/30/05. No native residents, migratory fish, or sensitive wildlife species were observed onsite. Environmental Evaluation: Construction of the proposed project is not expected to significantly impede local wildlife movement or migratory fish or wildlife movement because a sufficiently wide open space corridors exists to the east of the subject site. Although the subject site does include an important community of southern maritime chaparral, its situation as a "peninsula" of habitat extending at the end of a large preserve to the east, and surrounded on three sides by urban development, makes it a marginal contributor to the "link" of habitat resources. The site is not identified as a Hardline Conservation Area in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (Figs. D-5, D- 6). The site situated within LFMP Zone 10. No properties within Zone 10 are identified as a Standards Area (Fig. 26). The subject property is not located within the Coastal Zone. -7-5 Finding: No impact - The subject property is no expected to impact any native resident, migratory fish, or wildlife species. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Existing condition : affect the subject project. The City of Carlsbad has no adopted tree preservation policy or ordinance which would Environmental Evaluation: by policy or ordinance except as otherwise described in response W(a) and IV(c) above. The subject project will not impact trees or other biological resources protected Finding: No impact - No tree preservation impacts will result from implementation of the project. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 3a 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad identifies open space Core # 6 to the east of the subject property, but identifies the proposed project site as only containing southern maritime chaparral. The HMP d~esignates a natural preserve system and provides a regulatory framework for determining impacts and assigning mitigation. No other local, regional or state habitat conservation plans specific to this site encumber the property. The project area will be added to the preserve system and managed. Environmental Evaluation: habitats. With regard to habitats on the subject property, these mitigation ratios are as follows: Table 11 (P. D-113) of the HMP identifies mitigation ratios for impacts to HMP Plant Community HMP Note Mitigation Ratio Southern maritime chaparral 3:l 1:l Chaparral Group B. It is assumed that all habitat types in Group B will be included in the proposed preserve system. Small, isolated patches of low quality SMC may be located outside a preserve area and maximum avoidance and onsite conservation is preferred. Group D. Offsite mitigation for habitat in this group which is not conserved or mitigated onsite, shall pay a per acre in-lieu mitigation fee in an amount to be Coastal sage -. - determined by the City Cguncil. Group C. Maximum avoidance and onsite conservation of Group C habitat is - 2: 1 scrub I I encouraged. Annual 0.5:l [ Group E. Offsite mitigation for habitat in this group which is not conserved or grassland Disturbed mitigated onsite shall pay a per acre in-lieu mitigation fee to be determined by the City council. Group F. Offsite mitigation for habitat in this group which is not conserved or mitigated onsite shall pay a per acre in-lieu mitigation fee to be determined by the City council. Fee Onsite Mitigation 1.15 acres preserved, .IO acres revegetated not as mitigation None 0.2 1 None Offsite Mitigation Required None. 1.02 acres mitigated through payment of in- lieu fee. None 0.25 acres mitigated through payment of in- lieu fee. maritime chaparral Community Southern onsite (737 acres). Approximately 52% of this impact is a result of the widening of ECR to prime arterial standards. This impact is considered small, isolated and located on the edge of the SMC community at The project will result in impact to 24% of the SMC Chaparral Coastal sage scrub Non-native Annual giassland Disturbed large. Approximately 100% of this vegetation type will be impacted through implementation of the project. No significant restrictions on take of this vegetation community are identified in the HMP. Payment of an in-lieu fee for the mitigation of 1.02 acres of impact will be required. Approximately 91% (.2lac) of the 0.23 acres of CSS onsite will be preserved. This amount exceeds the 2:l mitigation ratio required in the HMP. Approximately 100% (0.49 acres) of the 0.49 acres of Non-native AG onsite will be impacted through implementation of the proposed project. In-lieu payment for mitigation of these impacts. is required. 0.05 acres of impact is proposed. 0.05 acres mitigated through payment of in- . lieu fee. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 33 Finding: Potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated - The proposed project can be found to be consistent with the HMP if mitigation measures are incorporated to address the above required mitigation. g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? ExistinrJ condition: Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section IV(a). Please refer to evaluation in response to Section Iv(a). Finding: No impact - Please refer to response IV(a) and N(b) above. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in $1 5064.5? Existing condition: are known to exist on the subject site. The subject project will be developed on an undeveloped parcel. Nvhistorical resources Environmental Evaluation: No impacts to historical resources are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project. The site is not identified as having known archeologically sensitive areas according to MEIR 93-01, map 5.8-2. :. Finding: No impact - No historical resources have been identified on the site or within the vicinity of the project; and therefore no impacts to historical resources will result from construction of the project. . b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to 515064.51 Existing condition: identified as having known archeologically sensitive areas according to MEIR 93-01, map 5.8-2. The property involved in the proposed project is an undeveloped parcel. The site is not Environmental Evaluation: A review of existing cultural resources in the area of the subject project indicates that no impact to cultural resources will result from implementation of the subject project. No impacts to significant archaeological resources wilI result from implementation of the proposed project. Finding: No impact - The project will not cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of archaeological resources pursuant to Q 15064.5. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Existing condition: The subject site is an undeveloped parcel located in an area geologically characterized by two soil types as occurring on the property. Topsoil and the Tertiary-age Santiago Formation comprise the majority of the site. The topsoil is roughly 1.5 to 4 feet thick and composed of soft to firm clay, sandy clay and silt, as well as loose silty sand. The Santiago Formation is predominantly massive, dense to very dense, moist silty sand. - ~ A ._ -- Environmental Evaluation: The finish grading associated with development of the project will impact a relatively small amount of upper level soil. The Tertiary age formation have a high potential for containing significant fossils. Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation provided - The project has the potential for paleontological resource. Mitigation in the form of resource recovery will mitigate the impact to a level of insignificance. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Existing condition: would be expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed project. No record exists which would indicate the likelihood that human remains are interred or Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is not anticipated to impact any known human remains. 21 Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: No impact - No human burials or remains are known to exist in the location of the subject project. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Ioss, 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. Existing condition: The project area is situated in the western portion-of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southern California. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends I25 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin, south to the Mexican border, and beyond another 775 miles to the southern tip of Baja California. The westernmost portion of the province in San Diego County, in which the site is located, generally consists of Upper Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary age sedimentary rocks. The most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the north San Diego County area, indicates that the project is considered to be in a seismically active area, as is most of southern California. This map however, indicates that the subject site is not underlain by known active faults, nor is there evidence of ground displacement in the area during the last 11,000 years. The Rose Canyon fault zone is the closest known fault, which is the onshore portion of an extensive fault zone that includes the Offshore Zone of Deformation and the Newport-Inglewood fault to the north of the subject site. This fault zone, located approximately 6.2 miles westerly of the subject site, is made of predominately right-lateral strike- slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The zone extends offshore at La Jolla, and continues north-northwest generally parallel to the coastline. Portions of the Rose Canyon fault zone in the San Diego area have been recognized by the State Geologist to be considered active. Additionally, the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 24 miles to the northeast of the subject site are also referenced in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Environmental Evaluation: Based on resource investigation and field observations by GEOCON Geotechnical Consultants, (Geotechnical Investigation dated December 16,2004) no active faults have been mapped across the project site. The closest fault is located approximately seven miles westerly of the site. The Elsinore fault zone is located approximately 24 miles east of the site, and the Coronado Bank fault is located approximately 22 miles west of the site. The potential for rupture resulting from earthquake is considered to be low. The subject site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the active regional faults discussed above. Finding: Less than significant impact - The project site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as determined in the geotechnical report, and as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; therefore the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. : ---= ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Existing condition: Southern California is recognized as a seismically-active area. As indicated in the response to Item VI(a)(i), the Rose Canyon fault zone is the closest known fault, located approximately 6.2 miles westerly of the subject site. This fault is made of predominately right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend south- southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The second-closest active area of potential ground motion is the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone. No other known active faults are located within the vicinity of the project. The most significant seismic event likely to affect the pioposed facilities would be a maximum moment magnitude 7.2 earthquake along the Rose Canyon fault zone, in which the horizontal peak ground acceleration has a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years is 0.40g (40% of the acceleration of gravity). 22 Rev. 07/03/02 Environmental Evaluation: The project site will likely be subject to ground shaking in response to either a local moderate or more distant large-magnitude earthquake. Seismic risk at the site is comparable to the risk for the San Diego area in general. The closest source to the site for ground motion, and the source that would produce the greatest ground acceleration at the site, is the Del Mar segment of the Rose CanyonMewport-Inglewood fault zone, about 6.2 miles west, and potentially the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 24 miles to the northeast of the project site. Project design will meet or exceed existing earthquake design standards. Finding: Less than significant impact -Earthquake faults exist within southern California, including three fault zones within 24 miles of the site. Historical records have indicated however, that the risk of strong seismic ground shaking of the project site is minimal, and thus is considered a less than significant impact. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Existing condition: Liquefaction of soils with minimal cohesion can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research indicates that loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction. The subject site is an undeveloped parcel located in an area geologically characterized by two soil types as occurring on the property. Topsoil and the Tertiary-age Santiago Formation comprise the majority of the site. The topsoil is roughly 1.5 to 4 feet thick and composed of soft to firm clay, sandy clay and silt, as well as loose silty sand. The topsoil is unsuitable in its present condition to support additional fill or structural improvements and will require removal and recompaction. The Santiago Formation is predominantly massive, dense to very dense, moist silty sand. The Santiago Formation in its present condition is .- adequate for support of structures and structural fills. Environmental Evaluation: Based on the result of subsurface exploration, the site is underlain by Santiago Formation, which is characterized by very stiff to hard siltstone, stiff to hard claystone, and very dense silty very fine sand. Due to the lack of near-surface groundwater table and the underlying very dense formational soils, the potential for liquefaction is considered to be low. The compacted fill is considered suitable for receiving additional fill or structures following partial removal and recompaction. Liquefaction is a not c,oncern on the subject site. . Finding: Less than significant impact - The potential for liquefaction or seismically induced settlement in the vicinity of the proposed improvements is considered to be very low due to the nature of the underlying soil formation and the lack of groundwater near the surface. iv. Landslides? Existing condition: No landslides have been identified as having the potential to damage or affect the proposed project facilities. No evidence of landsliding was observed at the site during Geocon’s site reconnaissance or during their review of historic aerial photos of the site. Environmental Evaluation: improvements. No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project development : ..e Finding: No impact - No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project. .~ -- b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Existing condition: The subject property is an undeveloped parcel. Environmental Evaluation: During the finish grading, the exposure of soils would lead to an increased chance for the erosion of soils from the site. Such grading will follow best management practices for the control of erosion, such as straw bale or sandbag barriers, silt fences, slope roughening, and outlet protection in exposed areas. Finished grades will be promptly hydroseeded or otherwise protected as required per the adopted City Grading Ordinance. If necessary, temporary slope cover such as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to reduce the impact to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to a level of less than significant. Finding: Less than significant impact - It is concluded that impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will be less than significant, because the project is required to comply with the erosion control requirements of the City of Carlsbad grading ordinance. 23 Rev. 07/03/02 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). Environmental Evaluation: Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to response VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). Please refer to evaluation VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). ._ d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1999, creating substantial risks to life or property? Existing condition: The subject site is an undeveloped parcel located in an area geologically characterized by two soil types as occurring on the property. . Topsoil and the Tertiary-age Santiago Formation comprise the majority of the site. The topsoil is roughly 1.5 to 4 feet thick and composed of soft to firm clay, sandy clay and silt, as well as loose silty sand. The topsoil is unsuitable in its present condition to support additional fill or structural improvements and will require removal and recompaction. The Santiago Formation is predominantly massive, dense to very dense, moist silty sand. The Santiago Formation in its present condition is adequate for support of structures and structural fills. - These soils are considered to have a “very low” to “medium” expansion potential as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table No. 18-I-B. Environmental Evaluation: Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code identifies the Santiago Formation as having “very low” to “medium” expansion potential. The soil should be prepared and compacted as directed in GEOCON’s Geotechnical Investigation, and footings /slabs for all buildings should be constructed as directed in GEOCON’s report. Finding: No impact - As a result of proper grading, compaction and foundation work, the project will not be subject to adverse soil expansion tendencies. 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? Existing condition: Sewers are available for the proposed project. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will utilize access to the sewage trunk line which stubs to the southern portion of the site at El Camino Real. As a result, no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system facilities are proposed. Finding: No impact - No septic tanks or alternative sewage disposal systems are included in the project description. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Existing: condition: During construction of the proposed project, construction materials such as petroleum projects, paint, oils and solvents will be transported and used on the site. Upon completion of construction of the project, some use of hazardous cleaning products on the site may occur. Other than during this construction phase, the project will not routinely utilize hazardous substances or materials. Environmental Evaluation: and/or petroleum contamination on the site. There is no evidence of chemical surface staining, or hazardous materials/waste Construction of the proposed project will involve operation of heavy machinery, which utilize petroleum products, and paint, oils and solvents. No permanent use of such hazardous materials is anticipated except for some cleaning products use associated with normal business operations. All transport, handling, use, and disposal of any cleaning substances will comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of such materials. 24 Rev. 07/03/02 37 Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the routine amount of hazardous materials utilized during the construction period is not significant, and therefore the impact to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is less that significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Existing condition: Please refer to the preceding existing condition response. . Environmental Evaluation: No significant hazard involving the release of hazardous material into the environment would be anticipated since only regularly used cleaning materials will be utilized, only in normal instances. Finding: No impact - Please refer the response to Section VII(b). No extraordinary risk of accidental explosion or the release of hazardous substances is anticipated with construction, development, and implementation or operation of the proposed project. c) Emit hazardous emissims or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Existine condition: The subject project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed :* school. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school is Aviara Oaks ElementaryMiddle School, located 0.8 mile southwesterly of the site. . Finding: No impact - As a result of the fact that the proposed project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, no significant impact is anticipated. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? Existing condition: compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 56962.5. The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal database) Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal database) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 56962.5. In addition, it is not on the EPA database of current and potential Superfund sites currently or previously under investigation. Also, to the best of EPA's knowledge, it has been determined that no steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL). It is not on any list of registered hazardous waste generators, or on a database of sites which treat, store, dispose of, or incinerate hazardous waste. Finding: No impact - The subject property is not included on any list of hazardous materials, and has no known previous use history that would involve the use or storage of hazardous materials. . -72 e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Existing condition: runway. However, the site is not within the airport land use plan. The subject site is located approximately 1 mile south of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Environmental Evaluation: Therefore, the site will not cause a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Findinp: No impact - The poses no impact as a potential'safety hazard. 0 The site is located outside the McClellan-Palomar Airport Area of Influence. 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? 25 Rev. Q7lQ3IO2 Existing condition: No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Findinq: No impact - The project is not within the vicinity of a-private airstrip. 9) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Existing condition: located directly adjacent to El Camino Real, an arterial roadway. The proposed project involves development of an undeveloped parcel. The project is Environmental Evaluation: Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project facilities will significantly affect, block, or interfere with traffic on public streets, including any streets that would be used for an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No emergency response or evacuation plan directs evacuees through the project. Finding: No impact - No improvements are proposed by the project in any area which would physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? :. Existing condition: The proposed project site currently consists of an undeveloped parcel with urban development to the south and west. Adjacent to the site on the east and north is an area of low-growing nonnative grasslands, coast sage scrub, and southern maritime chaparral vegetation that may be susceptible to fire. Environmental Evaluation: A Fire Suppression Plan for the project site has been submitted with the Concept Landscape Plan. This Plan includes a brush management and fuel modification zone in conformance with the policies set forth in the Carlsbad Landscape Manual for properties abutting open space areas. Additionally, the project will have a sixty (60) foot fire suppression zone (no flammable structures) on the eastern and northern portion of the buildable site. As a result, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant additional exposure to wildfire risk. Finding: Less than significant impact - In accordance with Section 1I.C of the Carlsbad Landscape Manual, a Fire Suppression Plan has been prepared for the project site. This plan consists of a written and graphic plan illustrating fire hydrant locations, setbacks, emergency and maintenance access, and details of fire truck access. In conjunction with this Plan, it is anticipated that wildland fire risk is less than significant. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? __--. : ,- Existing - condition: The subject project is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, and specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. The subject property is an undeveloped parcel with development to the south and west, and open space to the east and north. The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin identifies specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit. These objectives include the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices (BMP's). The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality of Batiquitos Lagoon. There is currently no development on the rough graded site. Environmental Evaluation: ARer development, there will be an increase in runoff from the study area. A portion of the increase in runoff will be due to the use of imported water into the study area for landscaping, etc. The remaining water increase will be due to the increased impervious area within the project site. This water will all flow into NPDES approved storm drains. Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for 26 Rev. 07/03/02 39 implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality exiting the subject site and eventually entering downstream areas will be maintained to a level of acceptability. Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project could result in temporary degradation of water quality if it does not demonstrate compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations for water quality. The project proponent shall adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for: control of sedimentation and erosion, including the installation of temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Control Board. All exposed graded areas shall be treated with erosion control pursuant to City of Carlsbad erosion control standards, including hydroseed, berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods. Other Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized. 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 (Le., 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)? Existing: condition: there is no surface or near surface ground water conditions on the project site. Geotechnical test borings by GEOCON, excavated for the subject project, indicated that Environmental Evaluation: interference with ground water recharge. Finding: No impact - The proposed project is not expected to deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere with ground water recharge. The proposed project will not involve depletion of groundwater supplies or :. e) Impacts to groundwater quality? Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please see the preceding description of environmental evaluation Item VIII(a). Findinq: Less than significant impact - Inasmuch as the proposed project must comply with federal, state and local water quality requirements, it is concluded that the potential impacts to groundwater quality will be both temporary and less than significant. 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? Existing condition: Drainage flows from the subject site into a tributary to San Marcos Creek (through the La Costa Golf Course), which then flows southerly into San Marcos Creek and into Batiquitos Lagoon. The average yearly rainfall within this drainage area is 13 inches. Nearly all of the surface runoff within the San Marcos Creek drainage area occurs between December and late March. The proposed project drains towards Cassia St and El Camino Real, prior to exiting the site and flowing through offsite open spaces to Batiquitos Lagoon. : *e ---= Environmental Evaluation: The proposed improvements will not significantly alter the existing constructed drainage of the site, nor will they result in a net increase of downstream sedimentation in Agua Hedionda Creek. Urban runoff fiom the proposed development will be channeled into the appropriate storm drain receptors as indicated in the project's Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, by O'Day Consultants, dated February 2, 200.5. The greatest potential for short-term water quality impacts to the drainage basin would be expected during and immediately following the grading and construction phases of the project, when cleared and graded areas are exposed to rain and storm water runoff. To mitigate potential storm water pollution (mostly sediment) during construction, Best Management Practices (BMPs) for grading contractor activities and BMPs for erosion and sedimentation are proposed. Construction BMPs include vegetative stabilization such as hydroseeding, phisical stabilization such as dust control, diversion of runoff using temporary swales and drains, velocity reduction using check dams and slope roughening, and sediment trapping using silt fencing, gravel barriers and inlets protection. Contractor BMPs include managing dewatering and paving operations, structure construction and painting, management of material delivery use and storage, spill 27 Rev. 07/03/02 prevention, water management, vehicle cleaning and maintenance, and contractor, employee and subcontractor training. Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated - The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing pattern of runoff from and through the project, however the project has the potential to result in hydrological impacts including downstream sedimentation. Grading and construction BMPs are proposed as part of the project, which if followed, will mitigate the potential for significant impacts, e) Substantially alter the existing drain-age 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? Existing condition: drainage pattern of the site is proposed. Please refer to the preceding existing condition. No significant modification to the Environmental Evaluation: The proposed improvements will not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. As a result of the installation NPDES required improvements, the urbanjmprovements proposed will not result in a net increase of downstream sedimentation in San Marcos Creek. The flow rate or volume of runoff through the site and into City storm drain onto Batiquitos Lagoon will not significantly increase. The project will also result in a slight, but not significant increase in runoff due to the increase in imported water to the site, and the area of impervious surface of the project. Finding: Less than significant impact - The project will also result in a slight, but not significant increase in runoff due to the increase in imported water to the site and the increase in the area of impervious surface of the project. -. 0 Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Existing condition: increase runoff. Impervious surfaces associated with development of the project will incrementally Environmental Evaluation: Existing storm water drainage systems on the project site have been designed, approved, and in some cases constructed to accommodate the runoff projected from the proposed project. No impact to existing storm drain systems and no additional sources of polluted runoff will result from implementation of the project. Finding: Less than significant impact - No additional pollution of surface waters is anticipated to result from the project. g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Existing condition: Pacific Ocean. These drainage facilities serve to maintain a decent water quality. The proposed project site presently drains to Batiquitos Lagoon, and ultimately to the Environmental Evaluation: Construction of the proposed project improvements is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated NPDES regulations. As mentioned above, the project description includes a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Therefore temporary impacts associated with the construction operation will be mitigated. The project will not result in permanent or long term degradation of water quality as a result of the proposed pollution control program. Findinq: Less than significant impact - Please refer to the preceding responses. 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? Existing condition: property is not within the 100-year flood zone. Environmental Evaluation: Finding: No impact - No housing is proposed as part of the project. The proposed project improvements do not involve the placement of housing. The No placement of housing is proposed within the flood hazard area. 28 Rev. 07/03/02 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Existing condition: area. The subject project does not propose any structures within the 100-year flood hazard Environmental EvaIuation: year flood hazard areas. Thus no impediment to flood flows will result from implementation of the project. Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not impeded or redirect downstream flood flows. The project will not place any structures within the limits of the identified 100- i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving.flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition description VIII( i) above. Environmental Evaluation: dam exists onsite or downstream of the project. Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in increased exposure of 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. Please refer to environmental evaluation discussion VIII(i) above. No levee or '+ k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Existing condition: conditions as identified in the City's MER, Map 5.10.1-2. The proposed project site is not iocated in an area prone to seiche, tsunami or mudflow Environmental Evaluation: Conditions for seiche, tsunami or mudflow do not exist at or near the project site inasmuch as it is located in excess of two miles from the ocean, and no large bodies of water are directly adjacent to the site. Finding: No impact - The potential for damage to the project from seiche, tsunami or mudflow are very low due to the project's location and elevation. I) . Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Existinz condition: Construction of the proposed project will temporarily create (during finish grading) exposed (unvegetated) soil on the subject site. The project applicant must however, obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality of Batiquitos Lagoon. Environmental Evaluation: The construction phase of the project could result in increased erosion into Agua Hedionda Creek. As a result of the "DES permit requirements associated with the proposed project, no significant increase in erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters will result from the project. Urban runoff from the proposed development will be channeled into the appropriate storm drain receptors as indicated in the project's Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, by ODay Consultants, dated February 2,2005. The greatest potential for short-term water quality impacts to the drainage basin would be expected during and immediately following the grading and construction phases of the project, when cleared and graded areas are exposed to rain and storm water runoff. - ~ .- -- - As mentioned above, to mitigate potential storm water pollution (mostly sediment) during construction, BMP's for erosion and sediment transport are proposed. Construction BMP's include vegetative stabilization such as hydroseeding, physical stabilization such as dust control, diversion of runoff using temporary swales and drains, velocity reduction using check dams and slope roughening, and sediment trapping using silt fencing, gravel barriers and inlets protection. Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incoborated - The project will be required to demonstrate compliance with NPDES sediment control requirements during the construction phase. Compliance with the grading construction BMPs for the project will reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. 29 Rev. 07/03/02 42 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)? ExistinP condition: receiving surface waters or other waters upstream or downstream of the subject project. The project design does not propose to create or allow any pollutant discharges into Environmental Evaluation: . The project .proposes no increase in pollutant discharges. The project will be required to process and receive an NPDES permit. No significant levels of heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, or uncontrolled trash will be produced by the project. Finding: Less than significant impact - No significant increase in pollutant discharges will result from implementation of the proposed project. n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition Item VIII(a) above. Environmental Evaluation: Finding: Less than significant impact - No receiving water quality will be adversely affected through implementation of the proposed project. Please refer to environmental evaluation Item VIII(a) above. .5 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? Existine condition: San Marcos Creek is listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) as an "impaired" water body associated with the direct stormwater discharge from this project. San Marcos Creek has low priority impairment for Bacteria indicators. Environmental Evaluation: As proposed, subject to compliance with the proposed BMP's, the project will not result in the increase of pollutants into downstream waters, including San Marcos Creek. Finding: Less than significant impact - No significant level of pollutants are anticipated to be released from the subject site. P) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Existing condition: Please refer to the preceding responses. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to the preceding responses. Finding: No impact - Please refer to the preceding responses. LAND USE PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Existing condition: The project is situated on 3.31 acres located in the southeast quadrant of the city of Carlsbad. The site is a long and relatively narrow parcel, running largely north to south. It is surrounded on the north and east by open space and to the west and south by agricultural and multi-family uses. Environmental Evaluation: Open space areas will remain to the north and east of the project site. No development is planned in these areas and therefore, no division of an existing community would result from development of the project. Finding: No Impact - The project would not separate any contiguous community areas. 30 Rev. 07/03/02 43 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? Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad General Plan identifies the subject site as Residential Low Medium (RLM) land uses. Existing Zoning is designated Limited Control (L-C). A general plan amendment is proposed to change the land use from RLM to Ofice (0). Additionally, a zone change is proposed to change the zoning from L- C to Office (0-Q). Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will be consistent with all applicable land use policies following the general plan amendment and zone change. No incompatibility will exist between the proposed project and the land use regulations on the property. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not be in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project. c) Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities (HMP) allows citywide permits and authorization for the incidental take of sensitive plant and animal species in conjunction with private developments, public projects and other activities which are consistent with the Plan. As part of the planning ~ process for the HMP, a citywide interconnected open space preserve system is identified. Areas are identified as biological habitat Core and Linkage Areas. The open space to the east of the subject is part of Core #6. Environmental Evaluation: The project does not propose any development impacts into the adopted adjacent open space area to the east. The proposed development will occur wholly on the undeveloped parcel located on the northeast comer of El Camino Real and Cassia Road. Figure 3 of the HMP, Vegetation Map of the City of Carlsbad, shows the project site as containing southern maritime chaparral. Roughly one third of the chaparral will be impacted and mitigated at a rate of 3:l. No impacts to the protected open spaces to the east and northeast are proposed. Therefore the proposed project is not in conflict with the HMP. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Finding: No impact - The subject project site is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. No other habitat conservation plans specific to this site effect the property. X. a) MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 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? Existing condition: The proposed project site is currently an undeveloped parcel. No known or expected mineral deposits of future value to the region and the residents of the state are located in the immediate vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: No known mineral resources have been identified on the site, and such minerals are typically not found in soils typical of this site. As a result of the finish grading excavation and disruption of the surface of the land that will result from the proposed project, no significant impact to the potential for valuable mineral deposits is anticipated from the project. :> .- -- Finding: No impact - No known mineral resource of regional or statewide value are known that would be affected through implementation of the project. Additionally, the project would affect a relatively small area of earth disruption, and any substantial mineral resource recovery under these minimal circumstances would not be expected. The site is not located in an area of mineral resources as identified in MEIR 93-01, map 5.13-1. 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? The subject site is not designated on the City of Carlsbad General Plan or the Zoning Existing condition: Ordinance as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. 31 Rev. 07/03/02 Environmental Evaluation: As a result of the fact that the City has not designated the subject property as an important mineral resource recovery site in any regulatory land use document, it is determined that implementation of the proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Finding: No impact - No adopted regulatory land use documents, including the City of Carlsbad General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance designate the subject site as any mineral resource recovery location. XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:. a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Existing condition: The subject area is adjacent to the El Camino Real corridor. The project will include ofice and veterinary components, which do not generate significant noise, and do not as constitute sensitive noise receptors. Environmental Evaluation: In terms of noise generation, the construction of the proposed project is anticipated to create the greatest amount of noise the project will generate, inasmuch as the permanent use will not create significant noise. The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (Chapter 8.48) prohibits construction activity that would create disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise after sunset of any day, and before 7 A.M. Monday through Friday, and before 8 A.M. on Saturday, and all day Sunday and specified holidays. The Noise Ordinance does not ’* set a defined noise level standard for construction activities, but simply limits the hours of construction. The significance of construction noise produced during project construction is typically assessed in accordance with the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance. San Diego County Noise Ordinance Section 36.410 stipulates that construction noise shall not exceed 75 dB for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour period. The only noise generator in close proximity to the project is traffic motorist noise from El Camino Real. Table 5.9- 2, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments of MEIR 93-01 lists land use categories and acceptable noise exposure levels for projects in the City of Carlsbad. The category “Office Building, Business Commercial Planned Industrial and Professional” lists noise levels up to 70 dBA as “Conditionally Acceptable - New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows andji-esh air supply systems or air conditioning will norma& suffice. ’’ Finding: Less than significant impact - Both construction noise levels and permanent noise levels generated by the project are anticipated to comply with City of Carlsbad Noise Policy standards. The subject as a noise receptor has the potential for significant impact, but is mitigated and conditionally acceptable if the mitigation measures outlined in MEIR 93-01 are followed. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? The proposed project is an office/veterinary project, and will not generate, or be affected ,- .- -- Existing condition: by, ground vibrations as part of regular business. Environmental Evaluation: the project is not anticipated to expose persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or noise levels. Although some ground vibration may occur during construction of the project, Finding: No impact - The project will not produce any significant groundbourne vibration. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Existing condition: Please refer to response XI(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI(a). Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project is a commercial retail project. This project is not anticipated to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels generated by El Camino Real without the project. 32 Rev. 07/03/02 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Existing condition: Please refer to response XI(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI(a). Finding: Less than significant- impact - During. construction, a temporary increase in. ambient noise levels in the . project vicinity is anticipated. Construction will be scheduled to conform to the noise level limitations specified in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, so the increase isnot considered substantial or significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Existing condition: . The subject site is located approximately 1 mile south of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. However, it does not lie within the Airport Influence Area identified by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palumar Airport (CLUP), adopted April, 1994, prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Environmental Evaluation: :* working in the project area will not be significantly exposed to excessive noise levels. The property is not located within an airport land use plan. Therefore, people Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not expose people to excessive noise levels. 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Existinp condition: No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip Finding: No impact - The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. XU. 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)? Existing condition: in a minor increase in the intensity of usage of the site, but not in population. The subject project is an undeveloped parcel. Implementation of the project would result Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project involves the development of a currently undeveloped parcel. No increase in population is anticipated as a result of the office and medical jobs related to the 11,800 square feet of proposed development. No inducement for substantial growth, either directly or indirectly will occur through implementation of the subject project. - = __ _- Finding: No impact - The project will not induce substantial growth, nor will it induce population growth by providing infrastructure to support unplanned growth. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Existing condition: area is cufrently undeveloped. No housing exists within the immediate area of the proposed improvements. The subject Environmental Evaluation: exists in the area of the subject project. The proposed project.wil1 not displace any existing housing because no housing Finding: No impact - No housing will be displaced by the project. 33 Rev. 07/03/02 .- c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Existing condition: Environmental Evaluation: or other development presently exists on the site. The project site is currently undeveloped and unoccupied. The proposed project will not displace any people because no people, residences Finding: No impact - No people or houses will be displaced by implementation of the project. 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: 1. Fire protection? ExistinP condition: . Management Plan (LFMP) area. City of Carlsbad Fire Station No. 2 (1906 Arena1 Road) serves the subject site. The Cassia Professional Offices project is located within the Zone 10 Local Facilities Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is considered by the Carlsbad Fire Department to be within an effective fire response time of Fire Station No. 2. The subject project will not measurably affect this anticipated current fire response times. Findinq:No impact - The proposed project is within an area anticipated by the Fire Department for urban development, and planned within their standard response time. The project will comply with the standards identified in the Zone 10 LFMP, and therefore will not have any measurable affect on the fire service demands or needs of the area. . ii. Police protection? Existing condition: The Carlsbad Police Department (CPD), located on 2560 Orion Way, services the entire city of Carlsbad. Although the City has not established an official service standard for the department, CPD does maintain a general in-house guideline that is followed in order to assure adequate police service to the community. This guideline suggests a six-minute maximum response time anywhere within the city limits. In order to achieve this level of emergency service and to sufficiently patrol the city, the CPD currently operates seven beats, each patrolled at any given time by one or two officers. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project would represent a slight increase in demand on CPD resources due to the slight increase in retail establishments requiring police protection services. However this increased demand is anticipated to be minimal, and the department is sufficiently staffed to absorb such demand and continue to meet their own general service guideline of maintaining a six-minute emergency response time. - ~ ,- __ -- Findinq: No impact - The minimal increase in demand on police protection resources represented by the proposed project will not impact this service, inasmuch as their department's service guideline will continue to be met. iii. Schools Existinp condition: schools. The proposed project is non-residential, and will not cause an increase in demand for Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is non-residential, and will have no impact on school student generation. The project will pay all required Carlsbad Unified School District imposed fees as part of the permit process. Finding: No impact - The project will not generate any need for school services and, therefore, will have no impact on schools serving the area. The project will be conditioned to pay all required Carlsbad Unified School District imposed fees as part of the permit process. 34 Rev. 07/03/02 47 e - iv. Parks? Existing condition: parks. The proposed project is non residential and will not create an increase in demand for Environmental Evaluation: demand for parks. The proposed project is non residential and will not create an increase in Finding: No impact - The proposed project is non residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. V. Other public facilities? Existing condition: Sewer: The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides sewer service to the subject site. Sewage from the site is processed at the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility, via a sewer trunk line located in El Camino Real, adjacent to the subject site. The Zone 10 LFMP stipulates that sewer trunk line capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate sewer districts must be provided concurrent with development. Water: The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides water service to the subject site. Water is provided via an existing water line located in El Camino Real. The Zone IO LFMP stipulates that water line capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate water district must be provided concurrent with development. Also, that a minimum ten day average storage capacity must be provided prior to any development. Environmental Evaluation: by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District for the subject site. Sewer: The subject project is not anticipated to exceed sewer demand planned Water: The subject project is not anticipated to exceed water demand. Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project will generate sewer and water usage that the City of Carlsbad has the infrastructure to handle. No unanticipated demands will occur as a result of the project. 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? Existing condition: parks. The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in demand for Environmental Evaluation: demand for parks. The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand beyond that already - ._ r -- ..e accommodated, on recreational facilities of any kind. 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? Existing condition: expansion of recreational facilities. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or Environmental Evaluation: construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the Finding: No impact - No additional recreational facilities, and no construction or expansion of recreational facilities will result from implementation of the proposed project. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? 35 Rev. 07/03/02 -- Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 490 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 19 peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways: El Camino Real. Existing traffic on this arterial is 53,400 ADT (2003) and the 2003 peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection(s) impacted by the project is(are) “D. The design capacity(ies) of the arterial roads effected by the proposed project is(are) 60,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent .9% and .8% 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 from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing ADT* Los Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 ‘LA-D” 35-56 El Camino Real 27-49 “A-C” 33-62 Palomar Airport Road 10-57 “A-D” 30-73 SR 78 124-142 “F” 156-180 1-5 199-2 16 “D” 260-272 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short- term and at buildout. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. .+ --:’ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? 36 Rev. 07/03/02 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. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? - No Impact. (N% whether the project is near public transportation. If not, then state that the project is not served by or not located in an area conducive to public transportation.) (Note bike racks are not necessary for a single- family residential project. Otherwise, condition the project to install bike racks and note here that the project has been so conditioned.) UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Existing condition: currently undeveloped site. The proposed project will create a small increase in wastewater generated by the Environmental Evaluation: projections for the subject site, as indicated in MEIR 93-01. The proposed project is consistent with the planned and anticipated wastewater Finding: No impact - The project would have no impact on wastewater treatment. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Existinrr condition: in quantity of wastewater generation already handled by the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant. Please refer to the previous response. The project will not result in a significant increase Environmental Evaluation: generation already handled by the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant. The project will not result in a significant increase in quantity of wastewater Finding: No impact - No additional water or wastewater treatment facilities will be required due to the construction of the proposed project. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Existing condition: The site is currently an undeveloped parcel. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project is adequate in size and scope to adequately provide for the project purpose. No additional new or expanded drainage facilities will be necessitated by implementation of the proposed project. Both upstream and downstream facilities contain adequate capacity and functionality to accept the storm water demands resulting when the project is complete. . Finding: No impact - No significant new storm water drainage facilities are proposed or would be required from development of the proposed project. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Existing condition: The existing site is an undeveloped parcel. There is no current demand for water Environmental Evaluation: Water service will be supplied by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. Proposed water usage on the site will be for landscape irrigation and the regular water usage associated with an office complex. The project will have no significant impact on water supplies. T ..- __ -- .- Finding: Less than significant impact - The project will not result in a significant impact to water supplies. 37 Rev. 07/03/02 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which sewes 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? Existing condition: Please refer to response XVI(a). Environmental Evaluation: Finding: No impact - No significant increase in wastewater treatment will result from the project. 0 Please refer to response XI(a). Be sewed by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Existing condition: The site is currently an undeveloped parcel and does not generate solid waste. Environmental Evaluation: The waste provider will be Waste Management Services, and the City's engineering staff will have Waste Management Services review the site plan for service adequacy as part of the approval process. Finding:No impact - Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed ofice on site without exceeding landfill capacity. In addition, the proposed development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. g) .. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Existing condition: See previous response. The subject project is not anticipated to create any significant increase in the amount of solid waste. The project is required to comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Environmental Evaluation: disposal, and will comply with federal, state and local statutes The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and Finding: No impact - The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and disposal, and will comply with federal, state and local statutes. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Existing condition: The subject site is an undeveloped parcel located in proximity to San Marcos Creek , which is a main tributary to Batiquitos Lagoon. The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality of Batiquitos Lagoon. There is currently no significant development on the site, with the exception of ornamental landscaping along the project's two street frontages. Environmental Evaluation: After development, there will be an increase in runoff from the study area. A portion of the increase in runoff will be due to the use of imported water into the. study area for landscaping, etc. The remaining water increase will be due to the increased impervious area within the project site. The drainage pattern dictates that this drainage water will flow to San Marco Creek. Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality entering Batiquitos Lagoon will be maintained to a level of acceptability. Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to the responses to Sections IV and V b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) 38 Rev. 07/03/02 Existing condition: pollution or traffic at this time. The project site is currently an undeveloped parcel. The site produces no significant air Environmental Evaluation: congestion in the vicinity. The proposed project will contribute incrementally to air pollution and traffic Finding: Less than significant impact - It is concluded that the cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic will be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Existing condition: The site has no impact on human beings at this time. Environmental Evaluation: adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial Finding: No impact - Potential adverse effects on the human population have been evaluated in preceding sections of this checklist. No unmitigable adverse environmental effects attributable to the project have been identified. . 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. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department (March 1994). ~ ,- .- -- 2. Current Rules and Regulations, County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (November, 2002). 3. San Diego Countv ImDortant Farmland, California Department of Conservation (September, 2002). 4. Uniform Buildino Code - Volume 1 (1997); Table 18-1-B. 5. 6. 7. SDecial Publication 42, California Geological Survey; State Geologist Division of Mines and Geology (May 1996). Zone 10 Local Facilities Manaeement Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, (July 1987). Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for Cassia St. Professional Offices, O’Day Consultants, (February 2,2005). 8. Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21; Zoning Ordinance, City of Carlsbad 39 Rev. 07/03/02 9. Grading Ordinance, City of Carlsbad 10. General Plan Land Use Element, City of Carlsbad 1 1. Geotechnical Investirration, Cassia Road Site, GEOCON Incorporated, (December 16,2005). 12. 13. Preliminary Drainage Study for Cassia Professional Offices, O’Day Consultants Inc., February 2,2005 Preliminam Vegetation Assessment. Cassia Professional Offices, Planning Systems, June 30,2005. 40 Rev. 07/03/02 5-3 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES BIOLOGY: 1. The project applicant shall avoid impacts to and provide a habitat conservation easement over a minimum of 1.1 1 acres of SMC onsite. 2. The project applicant shall avoid impacts to and provide a habitat conservation easement over a minimum of 0.2 1 acres of CSS onsite. 3. This project has been found to result in impacts to 1.02 acres of Chaparral, .49 acres of non-native grassland and .OS acres of disturbed land which provide some benefits to wildlife, as documented in the City’s Habitat Management Plan and the environmental analysis for this project. Developer is aware that the City has adopted an Habitat Impact Mitigation Fee consistent with Section E.6 of the Habitat Management Plan and City Council Resolution No. 2000-223 to fund mitigation for impacts to certain categories of vegetation and animal species. The Developer is Mer aware that the City has determined that all projects will be required to pay the fee in order to be found consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The City is currently updating the fee study, which is expected to result in an increase in the amount of the fee, and the Developer or Developer’s successor(s) in interest shall pay the adjusted amount of the fee. The fee shall be paid prior to recordation of a final map, or issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. If the Fee for this project is not paid, this project will not be consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the General Plan and any and all approvals for this project shall become null and void. 4. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s): Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses the necessary qualifications to hold title to the open space lot(s) and manage it for conservation purposes. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment to the selected conservation entity in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. Concurrent with recordation of the final map, transfer fee title to the open space lot(s) to the selected conservation entity. 5. In order to reduce the potential take of eggs or chicks of the coastal California gnatcatcher, the permitee shall not allow any clearing and grubbing activities in known and potential occupied coastal California gnatcatcher habitat during the breading season which extends from February 15 through August 3 1. The project shall avoid the use of invasive exotic plant species in landscape areas adjacent to and/or near mitigatiodopen space areas. Exotic plant species not to use include those species on List A and B of the California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal-IPC) lost of “Exotic Pests of the Greatest Ecological Concern in California as of October 1999.” A copy of the complete list can be obtained from CALEPPC’s website at httu://w.caleDuc.org. : ,- 6. ---= 7. The developer shall temporary construction fencing in all locations of the project where proposed grading or clearing is within 100 feet of habitat that is off site or to be preserved on site. Fencing should be placed on the impact side and should result in no vegetation loss within the habitat that is off site or to be preserved on site. All temporary fencing shall be removed only after the conclusion of all grading, clearing, and construction. A qualified biomonitor shall be on site when temporary fencing is erected and periodically during construction to ensure project limits are not exceeded. The biomonitor should also prepare reports demonstrating the project limits .were not exceeded. 8. The project applicant shall install permanent protective fencing (min. 5-feet in height) along any interface with developed areas (Le along parking lot and habitat boundary) to deter human entrance into the biological conservation easement area. Fencing should have no gates and be designed to minimize 41 Rev. 07/03/02 intrusion. conspicuous locations. Signage for the biological conservation easement area shall be posted and maintained at 9. All parking lot and building lighting shall be shielded as to prevent light from spilling onto the habitat conservation area. 10. HYDROLOGYNVATER QUALITY: No fire buffer impacts or vegetation thinning shall occur within the preserved open spaces. 1. Prior to commencement of the project, and pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the project proponent shall noti@ the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) of the activities proposed, and shall receive water quality certification for the construction operation, if required by the RWQCB. 2. The project proponent shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations as promulgated by the California RWQCB for the San Diego region. This shall include control of all non-storm discharges during construction, and development and implementation of a monitoring and reporting program to assess the storm water pollution prevention plan. - 3. The project proponent shall comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (December 2003) and adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including Best Management Practices, such as installation of temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Control Board. The following guidelines shall be utilized during design and implemented during construction to reduce runoff and minimize erosion: a. Comply with current drainage design policies set forth in the City of Carlsbad procedures. b. Create desiltation basins where necessary to minimize erosion and prevent sediment transport until the storm drain system is in place. C. Landscape all exposed, manufactured slopes per City of Carlsbad erosion control standards. d. Phase grading operations and slope landscaping to reduce the susceptibility of slopes to erosion. e. Control sediment production from graded building pads with low perimeter berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods. CULTURAL RESOURCES A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavations and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of inspections will depend on the rate of excavations, the materials being excavated, and the abundance of fossils. The palentologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil to facilitate excavation and, if necessary, salvage. Because of the small nature of fossils present in these rock units, matrix samples should be collected for processing through fine mesh screens. Provisions for preparation and curation shall be made before the fossils are donated to their final repository. All fossils collected should be donated to a museum with a systematic palentological collection, such as the San Diego National History Museum. 42 Rev. 07/03/02 5f APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 42 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. 5978 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE AND OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENTS TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM TO OFFICE AND OPEN SPACE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10. CASE NAME: CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES CASE NO: GPA 05-03 WHEREAS, Franz-Yut El Camino, A Limited Liability Company, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Bressi Daughters’ Trust U/D/T dated November 22,2000, ‘cOwner,y’ described as A portion of parcel 2 of Parcel Map 1188, recorded December 20, 1972, as File No. 340344, being a portion of fractional Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, being within the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibits “GPA 05-03” dated November 2, 2005, attached hereto and on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES - GPA 05- 03 as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the 7- __ -- Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 2nd day of November 2005, 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 General Plan Amendment. 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. . B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission GPA 05-03, based on the following findings: RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES - Findings: 1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated November 2,2005 including, but not limited to the following: a. b. C. Land Use: The redesignation of 3.31 acres from the RLM to the Office and Open Space designation is for the purpose of developing a professional office complex. The proposed Office and Open Space land use designations would be compatible with adjacent open space and Residential High density land uses. Open Space: - 1.58 acres will be redesignated to Open Space and preserved and maintained as a habitat preserve area in accordance with the City’s Habitat Management Plan. Circulation: The dedication of an additional 18 feet of public right-of-way across the western project boundary to the eastern project boundary will enable the roadway widening of a General Plan Circulation Element prime arterial roadway (El Camino Real) to the ultimate l26-foot width. 2. 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: 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 Mer condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for iheir violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this General Plan Amendment. - PC RES0 NO. 5978 -2- 58 1 2 3 ‘4 5 6 7 8 9 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the General Plan Amendment documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 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 General 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. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ZC 05-01, LFMP 87-10(A), HMPP 05-06, CT 05-06, PUD 05-04, SDP 05-03, CUP 05-01, HDP 05-02 and SUP 05-01 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5977, 5979, 5980, 5981, 5982, 5983, 5984, 5985, 5986 and 5987 for those o&sr approvals. .. -- NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any.other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. PC RES0 NO. 5978 59 -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 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 2nd day of November 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5978 -4- GENERAL PLAN MAP CHANGE GPA: 05-03 draft final November 2,2005 PROPOSED 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. 5979 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED CONTROL TO OFFICE AND OPEN SPACE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10. CASE NAME: CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES CASE NO: ZC 05-01 WHEREAS, Franz-Yut El Camino, A Limited Liability Company, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Bressi Daughters’ Trust U/D/T dated November 22,2000, “Owner,” described as A portion of parcel 2 of Parcel Map 1188, recorded December 20, 1972, as File No. 340344, being a portion of fractional Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, being within the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on Exhibit “ZC 05-01’’ dated November 2, 2005, attached hereto and on file in the Planning Department, CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES - ZC 05-01 as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of November, 266, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Change. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission ZC 05-01 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES - Findings: 1. That the proposed Zone Change from Limited Control to Office and Open Space is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that the proposed Office designation would be compatible with surrounding uses of Residential High density to the south and Open Space to the north and east. An Office land use would have less impacts associated with roadway noise from El Camino Real than a Residential land use. The site is topographically suitable for the development of Office type uses, as the developable portion is relatively flat. The proposed Office land use designation would not result in any unavoidable adverse impacts to the area and the zone change to OS is applicable to the 1.58 HMP habitat preserve area designated as Open Space. 2. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element, in that the Office zone is intended to implement the Office land use designation and the Open Space zone is intended to implement the Open Space land use designation. 3. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that the proposed location is necessary and desirable to provide medical and vetrinarian services to the community, which will contribute to the well being of people and cats in the community. The proposed uses will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons working or living in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that adequate separation of uses is proposed. 4. 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. -7-q Conditions: 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 further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; 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 Zone Change. PC RES0 NO. 5979 63 -2- I 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 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Zone Change documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal; state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. If any condition for construction of &y 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 Zone Change, (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. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 05-03, LFMP 87-10(A), HMPP 05-06, CT 05-06, PUD 05-04, SDP 05-03, CUP 05-01, HDP 05-02 and SUP 05-01 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5977, 5978, 5980, 5981, 5982, 5983, 5984, 5985, 5986 and 5987 for those other approvals. -i .- -- NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exa~tions.’~ You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. 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. PC RES0 NO. 5979 -3 - 64 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 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions 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, held on the 2nd day of November 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 1 JEFFRE N. SEGALL, airperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: A LXt DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5979 -4- 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. 5980 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAFUSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 10 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10. CASE NAME: CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES CASE NO.: LFMP 87-1 O(A) WHEREAS, Franz-Yut El Camino, A Limited Liability Company has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for Zone 10 (dated September, 2005, on file in the Planning Department) and incorporated by this reference (collectively referred to as the “Local Facilities Management Plan Amendments”), as provided in Section 21.90.125 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 2nd day of November 2005, 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 testim-06 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of an amendment for Local d6 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 I- Facilities Management Plan - Zone 10, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That the Local Facilities Management Plan amendment for Zone 10 is consistent with Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management), and with the Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan, in that it contains all matters required by Section 2 1.90.1 10 and thereby ensures implementation of and consistency with the General Plan and to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that public facilities and improvements will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrently with need. 2. 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: 1. 2. 3. ... ... *.. ... ... Approval is granted for an amendment to Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 10 as contained in the Plan titled Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10, dated June 2001, on file in the Planning Department, and incorporated herein by reference. The amended pages of Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan, dated September, 2005 shall replace the respective pages of the Zone 10 LFMP dated June 2001. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 05-03, ZC 05-01, HMPP 05-06, CT 05-06, PUD 05-04, SDP 05-03, CUP 05-01, HDP 05-02 and SUP 05-01, and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5977, 5978,5979,5981,5982,5983,5984,5985,5986 and 5987 for those other approvals. Prior to the issuance of any permits for the project, the applicant shall submit to-lce Planning Director a digital copy and a camera ready master copy of the Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 10, in addition to the required number of bound copies. PC RES0 NO. 5980 -2- 17 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 Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad on the 2nd day of November 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5980 -3 - CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 10 Prepared For: City of Carlsbad Growth Management Division 163 5 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Prepared By: Document Preparation: Jack Henthorn & Associates Engineering: O'Day Consultants Tmffic: Linscott Law dk Greenspan June, 2000 Revised June, 2001 Revised September, 2005 [LFMP 87-1 O(A)] Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 In addition, it is assumed that slopes of 25% to 40% may be developed at half the usual density. Using this methodology it is estimated that approximately 1,236 dwelling units could be constructed within Zone 10. The actual number of units that are ultimately constructed in the zone may vary. However, the estimate is usem and valid for purposes of this plan and is consistent with all applicable requirements of the Growth Management Program, particularly Proposition E. In addition to the residential land uses proposed, the plan proposes non-residential uses for the zone including an existing golf course, a future park site, elementary school site, open space, and Planned Industrial uses. The plan includes phasing schedules, which indicate the property owners estimated amount of development for each year from 2000 to 2020. The phasing estimates are intended for facility planning purposes only. The phasing schedule (Exhibits 14 through 19) also includes the projections for other zones with adopted Local Facilities Management Plans. The schedules are based upon those adopted Local Facilities Management Plans and are used to determine approximate threshold years for constructing or upgrading various public facilities to maintain compliance with the Performance Standards in the Growth Management Program. The threshold years arrived at in this way are only projections for facility planning purposes. The actual thresholds must be monitored as development takes place in this zone. Facilities may be needed earlier or later than the threshold years shown in this zone plan, depending upon the actual timing of development. B. ZONE 10 REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES The development assumptions outlined above are used to estimate the demand for public facilities generated by development in Zone 10 based on the eleven adopted Performance Standards in the Growth Management Program. The following table (Exhibit 2 on page 1-5) shows the current status of each facility with respect to the performance standards, given the existing amount of development in the zone. Because there is currently no developed land in Zone 10, with the exception of the golf course, the public facility demands are zero. Therefore, all eleven Performance Standards are currently being met. -+ - __ -- Exhibit 3 on page 1-6 summarizes the status of each facility with respect to the performance standards through buildout. In order to assure compliance with the Performance Standards as development occurs in the zone, the zone plqn contains specific conditions of approval which are listed on Exhibits 4 and 5. Exhibit 4 contains the General Conditions that are applicable to all zones of the City. Exhibit 5 contains Special Conditions for Zone September, 2005 1-2 70 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 XVII- Finance: Provides a summary of the proposed method of financing each facility. References: Provides a list of public documents used in the preparation of this plan but not included in the Appendices due to the length of the individual documents. All References are available to the public by request of the respective publishing agency. XVIII- XIX- Appendices: Provides the technical materials used in preparation of this plan. . B. OVERVIEW OF MANAGEMENT ZONE 10 Local Facilities Management Zone 10 is located in the southeast quadrant of Carlsbad as shown on Exhibit 1. The zone is bounded by El Camino Real to the west, Zone 6 to the south, Zones 6 and 18 to the east and Zone 17 to the north and east. Zone 10 comprises approximately 756.6 gross acres. Exhibit 6 lists the property owners within Zone 10 and shows the location of their holdings. Zone 10 is primarily a residential area. The Carlsbad General Plan calls for residential land uses in Zone 10 ranging in density fiom Residential Low Medium (0-4.0 dwelling units/acre) to Residential Medium High (8-1 5 dwelling units/acre). Nonresidential development consists of a potential elementary school site, a community facilities site, a planned industrial site and an office building site. The School Facilities section provides the location and details of the proposed school site. The zone will also include a proposed park site and the 80.8-acre existing golf course. The Park and Open Space Facilities sections provide the location and details of the park and golf course sites. The General Plan land use designations within Zone 10 are shown on Exhibit 7. The land use zoning within Zone 10 is shown on Exhibit 8. The Villages of La Costa Master Plan Amendment was completed concurrently with this Local Facilities Management Plan. September, 2005 11-2 71 Zoning Designations Exclusive Agriculture (a] Qualified Overlay Zone Limited Control Ip-cl Planned Community Flood Plain In Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan Exhibit 8 I d7 3 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 Full Constraints EXHIBIT 10 LFMP Build Out Proiections - Constraints Partial Schools RLM-3 80.0 I I 7.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 346.6 354.0 10.0 0.0 I 7.2 3.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 RLM-4 RLM-6 RLM-7 RLM-8 RLM-10 RLM-11 RLM-I 2 0.0 0.0 39.9 126.2 30.4 35.4 3.0 5.9 2.9 0.6 0.9 0.0 16.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 139.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.8 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RLM TOTAL 323.7 RM-1 C RMH-5 .- PI-IA 18.0 58.4 29.3 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.8 5.2 2.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-1 13.3 8.5 15.7 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 346.3 E os os-I os-2 OS-3 os4 os4 OS-6 OS-7 OS-8 388.7 65.1 32.6 7.2 328.1 7.5 34.4 139.1 36.4 3.4 30.6 80.8 26.9 6.5 3.1 STREETS TOTAL ZONE 756.6 NOTES: A - MAJ( A B C D E F G H ITotal 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 8.5 1 .0 2.9 0.1 0.9 0.4 4.0 2.0 4.5 2.3 0.0 0.0 Net Developable Acres 6.9 69.8 33.6 105.1 27.4 30.2 2.9 4.9 2.5 276.4 7.8 7.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.9 . B - CIRCULATION F- WETLANDS C - RAILROAD ROW D - SLOPES >40% J - SLOPES 25% TO 40% K - SCHOOL SITE OVERLAY G - FLOODPLAIN H - PERMANENT BODY OF WATER September, 2005 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 Non-residential uses within ,the Zone 10 area consist of the existing La Costa Hotel and Spa Golf Course, the potential school site, the future park site, the community facility site, the planned industrial site and the office building site. The future school site location or the need for an elementary school has not yet been determined. If a school site is determined not necessary by the Carlsbad Unified School District, then the area reserved for the school site shall have a land use designation consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation. 3. BUILD OUT POPULATION PROJECTION The build out population projection for Management Zone 10 was determined by applying a population generation rate of 2.3178 persons/dwelling unit. The build out population projections for Zone 10 are shown on Exhibit 12. These build out population projections are used consistently throughout this plan for the purpose of predicting demand for public facilities. The total number of units ultimately constructed within Zone 10 may vary from the projections used in this plan, without requiring an amendment to the plan if facility requirements are not significantly changed. Sources of variance include the uncertainty of the school site, possible density bonuses for affordable housing as well as other undetermined factors. September, 2005 75 111-7 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 31 1 .I EXHIBIT 11 Residential Build Out Proiections I 12361 0 0 1070 General Plan Land Use Designation RLM-3 RLM-4 RLM-6 RLM-7 RLM-8 RLM-10 RLM-11 RLM-12 . RM-IC RMH-5 TOTAL Net Acres 69.8 33.6 105.1 27.4 30.2 2.9 4.9 2.5 26.9 7.8 GMCP (1) 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 6.0 11.5 Residential Build Out Projections 223 107 336 87 96 9 15 8 46 309 Existing App. Future DU’s DU’s DU’s (2) 223 107 259 38 91 9 15 8 44 276 September, 2005 __ - ___ - NOTES: (1) GROWTH MANAGEMENT CONTROL POINT of La Costa Master Plan (MP 98-01) (2) Future Dwelling Units are restricted to those outlined in the Villages 111-8 76 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 2.3178 EXHIBIT 12 Build Out Population Proiections 51 7 51 7 Base General Plan Land Residential RMH-5 309 Population Index 276 Build Out 2.3178 Use Designation (I) DU Build Out Existing Approved Future (3) Existing Approved Future Population DU's DU's DU'a 223 640 I 640 RLM4 RLM-6 RLM-7 RLM-8 RLM-10 RLM-11 RLM-12 RM-IC TOTAL RES. 107 336 87 96 9 15 8 46 1236 I 1070 107 259 38 91 9 15 8 44 NOTES: (1) See Exhibit 7 (2) See Exhibit 11 (3) Source: 1992-93 CFlP 2.3178 2.31 78 248 600 248 600 88 I 88 I 2.3178 I 2.3178 2.3178 2.3178 2.3178 2.3178 21 1 21 1 21 I 211 35 19 102 35 19 102 September, 2005 111-9 77 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 Exhibit 13 Non-Residential Build Out Proiections General Net GMP Non- Base Non- Existing Approved Estimated Land Use Developable Residential Residential Sq. Sq. Ft. Future Sq. Designation Acres LU Buildout Ft. Ft. Intensity Projections Estimate PI -IA 7.6 40%+ 137,650 137,650 P1 Total 7.6 40%+ 137,650 137,650 CF 6.9 30% 90.1 69 90.1 69 CF Total 6.9 30% 90,169 90,169 - 0-1 2.5 40%+ 11,800 11,800 0-1 Total 2.5 40%+ 11,800 11,800 Total Zone 17.0 239,619 239,619 September, 2005 111- lo 78 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 IV. PHASING . Phasing projections estimate when, where and how much development will occur in Zone 10 between now and build out. Although difficult to predict exactly, phasing projections begin to make possible advance planning and programming of public facilities to assure adopted performance standards are continually met. The objectives of phasing projections are as follows: 1. Project estimated demands for public facilities on a yearly basis until build out. 2. Project and establish thresholds when and where public facilities improvements are needed. 3. Projecting facility thresholds allows sufficient lead-time for facility programming to assure that the performance standards are continually met. 4. Through threshold identification allow the City to efficiently and effectively implement public facility improvements. - The 1986 CFIP projects residential phasing to be 1,250 dwelling units per year. This projection was based on a review of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projections along with those utilized in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and the Public Facilities Management Systems, Monitoring Report of April 1986. The 1986 CFIP’s public facility programming was based in part on this projection. A. ZONE 10 LAND USE PHASING 1. RESIDENTIAL The Villages of La Costa Master Plan has limited the number of dwellings 7 ,- units for those portions of land within Zone 10 covered by the Master ---: Plan. Therefore all population and facility projections will be based upon 1,038 dwelling units from the Master Plan and 32 dwelling units from non-Master Plan areas. The residential phasing projections for Zone 10 are shown on Exhibit 16. The residential phasing schedule is intended to be used for projecting future need and timing of public facilities. It is a tool to allow the City to anticipate future public facility needs and to budget moneys for their improvement. The projected residential phasing schedule is not absolute. The actual number of dwelling units to be built each year will vary depending on economic conditions. September, 2005 IV-I m N x m N M c N w m e m 2 2 m 2 2 2 e e 9 m m h .n m .a m N e m 0 Q 0 0 000 00 0000 0 0 00 Lo II 00~~~~~~~~0000000000000 ~~00000000000000000000cg ~c-cc-.(c I - ~000000000000000000000 3 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,079 39,586 8,019 1,070 3,694 1,665 918 1,713 17,079 39,586 Status Existing; Approved .Rrojected Buildout -7-e Year 2000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Totals .. east quadrant Resid- Pr0jed.uu.u Total of LFMP's Total Quadrant Total DUs as of Quadrant Local Facilities Management Zones 1-Jan Population 7,688 0 1,885 1,252 0 1,694 12,519 29,017 40 0 80 125 0 0 12,764 29,584 6(SE) 10 11 12 17 18 40 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 16 15 0 0 0 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 210 210 210 209 166 166 166 166 168 16 15 15 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 125 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,289 13,791 14,206 14,582 15,034 15,467 15,900 16,203 16,489 16,621 16,753 16,885 17,014 17,048 17,064 17,079 17,079 17,079 17,079 30,801 31,965 32,927 33,798 34,846 35,849 36,853 37,555 38,218 38,524 38,830 39,136 39,435 39,514 39,551 39,586 39,586 39,586 39,586 September, 2005 1v-4 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 EXHIBIT 16 Zone 10 Residential Phasing: Proiections status Existing Proposed September, 2005 Years as of l/l 2000 2000 200 1 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 TOTAL Total Zone DU’s as of Zone 10 1 /I 0 0 0 0 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 20 20 0 0 1070 1070 Total Zone Population 0 0 348 348 348 348 348 348 348 46 0 2480 JY-5 82 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 TOTAL . 2009 0 2010 0 Buildout 239,619 EXHIBIT 17 - NON RESIDENTIAL PHASING PROJECTIONS status Year Land Use I SouthheastQuadrantSq. I 2009 20 10 201 1 :i 0 0 0 .. -- 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 September, 2005 TOTAL JY-6 2018 0 2019 0 Buildout 3,425,331 83 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 : . ~~~ ~ ..- EXHIBIT 18 Southeast quadrant Non-Residdal Phashg Projections .. Total Quadrant Non-Res Status Existing Approved Projected Buildout Year 2000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Totals 0 0 0 0 0 56,954 0 56,955 0 56,955 0 56,955 0 11,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Facilities Management Zones as of Jan 1 0 0 344 11,001 0 0 11,345 0 0 0 0 11,345 6(SE) 10 11 12 17 18 56,192 403,801 95,396 83,635 53,579 11,761 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44,280 44,280 44,280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 740,333 807,870 740,333 2,038,958 740,334 2,975,923 0 3,160,793 0 3,315,607 0 3,339,168 0 3,339,168 0 3,339,168 0 3,339,168 0 3,339,168 0 3,339,168 0 3,339,168 0 3,339,168 0 3,339,168 0 3,339,168 0 3,339,168 0 3,339,168 0 3,339,168 0 3,339,168 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,339,168 0 239,619 704,708 41,001 132,840 2,221,000 3,339,168 September, 2005 1v-7 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 Exhibit 19 Zone 10 Non-Residential Phasinp Proiections Year as of Zone 10 Sq. Status 1 /I Ft. Existing 2000 0 2000 0 200 1 0 2002 56,954 2003 56,955 2004 56,955 2005 56,955 2006 1 1,800 2007 0 2008 0 2009 0 2010 0 2011 0 2012 0 2013 0 2014 0 2015 0 2016 0 2017 0 2018 0 2019 0 2020 0 Total 239.619 September, 2005 1v-8 8f L Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 VI. CITY ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES A. PERFORMANCE STANDARD 1,500 square feet per 1,000 population must be scheduled for construction within a five year period. B. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS This analysis provides an inventory of existing and programmed City Administrative Facilities owned and leased by the City of Carlsbad. These facilities include both permanent and temporary structures. This analysis projects the build out demand for City Administrative Facilities and determines compliance with the adopted performance standard. Exhibit 20 shows the location of the existing and future City Administrative Facilities. . 1. INVENTORY a. Existing and Build Out City Administrative Demand: Citywide projected population and Zone 10 projected population comes from Exhibit 14. Performance Projected Standard Population Demand (Sa.Ft.) Existing (1/1/00) Citywide Zone 10 Build Out Citywide (2020) Zone 10 (2020) 83,420 125,130 0 0 =-e 112,284 168,426 2,480 3,720 September, 2005 VI- 1 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 Status Year Approved 2000 Qrojected 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Buildout 2020 Totals Existing 2000 15 0 151 112,284 168,426 222,157 53,731 47,366 1,070 48,436 112,284 168,426 222,157 53,731, .. ... of Citv ABrrm[ustrative Facllrtles Residential Dwelling Units Phasing Adequacy Analysis Projected Projected In Other InTotal City City Citywide Adequacy/ Zones In Zone 10 Zones Population Demand Admin Supply (Inadequacy) -I < . <. 35,991 0 35,991 83,420 125,130 222,157 97,027 1,026 0 1,0261 85,798 128,697 222,157 93,460 1,118 950 813 782 661 669 590 625 648 503 461 461 458 389 302 311 281 176 136 150 1,268 150 1,100 150 963 150 932 150 811 150 819 150 740 20 645 0 648 0 503 0 461 0 461 0 458 0 389 0 302 0 311 0 281 0 176 0 136 88,737 91,287 93,519 95,679 97,559 99,457 101,172 102,685 104,187 105,353 106,422 107,490 108,552 109,453 110,153 110,874 111,526 111,934 112,249 133,106 136,931 140,279 143,519 146,339 149,186 151,758 154,028 156,281 158,030 159,633 161,235 162,828 164,180 165,230 166,311 167,289 167,901 168,374 222,157 222,157 222,157 222,157 222,15 7 222,157 222,157 222,157 222,157 222,157 222,15 7 222,157 222,157 222,157 222,157 222,157 222,157 222,157 222,157 89,052 85,227 81,879 78,639 75,819 72,972 70,399 68,130 65,877 64,128 62,524 60,922 59,329 57,978 56,928 55,846 54,868 54,256 53,784 September, 2005 VI -6 87 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 VII. LIBRARY FACILITIES A. PERFORMANCE STANDARD 800 square feet per 1,000 population must be scheduled for construction within a five year period. B. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS This analysis provides an inventory of existing and approved library facilities owned and leased by the City of Carlsbad. This analysis projects the build out demand for library facilities and determines compliance with the adopted performance standard. Future citywide library facility demand is projected based on the 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Program, adopted LFMF”s and Zone 10 LFMP’s projections. Exhibit 23 shows the location of existing and fbture library facilities. - 1. INVENTORY a. Existing and Build Out Librarv Demand: Citywide projected population and Zone 10 projected population comes from Exhibit 14. Performance Projected Standard Population Demand (Sa.Ft.1 Existing (1 / 1 /OO) Citywide Zone 10 Build Out Citywide (2020) Zone 10 (2020) : ..* 83,420 66,736 ---= 0 0 112,284 89,827 2,480 1,984 September, 2005 VII- 1 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 15 0 151 112,284 89,827 109,155 19,328 47,366 1,070 48,436 112,284 89,827 109,155 19,328 IT24 L&m@kabesPhxhg ... -.-_ :ci Residential Dwelling Units Phasing Adequacy Analysis Status Year Ypproved I 2000 :xisting I 2000 >&jected I 2001 3uildout 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Totals Projected Projected In Other InTotal City City Citywide Adequacy/ Zones In Zone 10 Zones Population Demand Admin Supply (Inadequacy) 35,991 0 35,991 83,420 66,736 88,600 21,864 1,026 0 1,0261 85,798 68,638 88,600 19,962 1,118 950 813 782 661 669 590 625 648 503 461 461 458 389 302 311 281 176 136 150 1,268 150 1,100 150 963 150 932 150 811 150 819 150 740 20 645 0 648 0 503 0 461 0 461 0 458 0 389 0 302 0 311 0 281 0 176 0 136 88,737 91,287 93,519 95,679 97,559 99,457 101,172 102,685 104,187 105,353 106,422 107,490 108,552 109,453 110,153 110,874 11 1,526 111,934 112,249 70,990 73,030 74,815 76,543 78,047 79,566 80,938 82,148 83,350 84,282 85,138 85,992 86,842 87,562 88,122 88,699 89,221 89,547 89,799 88,600 88,600 88,600 109,155 109,155 109,155 109,155 109,155 109,155 109,155 109,155 109,155 109,155 109,155 109,155 109,155 109,155 109,155 109,155 17,610 15,570 13,785 32,612 31,108 29,589 28,217 27,007 25,805 24,873 24,017 23,163 22,313 21,593 21,033 20,456 19,934 19,608 19,356 September, 2005 Vll-6 89 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 IX. PARK FACILITIES A. PERFORMANCE STANDARD Three acres of Community Park or Special Use Area per 1000 population within the park district must be scheduled for construction within a five-year period. B. FACILITY PLA"G AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS September, 2005 Park facilities are addressed on a Park District basis. There are four park districts which correspond to the four quadrants of the City. Zone 10 is located in Park District 4 as shown on Exhibit 30. 1. INVENTORY a. Existing and Build Out Park Demand: The projected population for Park District 4 15. Existing (l/l/OO) Park District 4 Zone 10 Build Out Park District 4(2020) Zone 10 (2020) m flom Exhibi Performance Projected Standard Population Demand (Sa.Ft.) 29,017 87.05 0 0 -i __--. 39,604 118.81 2,480 7.44 IX- 1 96 0 -.I r - z h d 0 4 I ~ooooo~ooooooooooooooc n 9 30000000000000003000000~ sssssssss- m Nmmmm000000000000000oom U-INNNm 1% 90000000000000000000000 I6 mmmmmmmr4 dHrldd44 I I In 0 0 N Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 XIV. SCHOOL FACILITIES A. PERFORMANCE STANDARD School capacity to meet projected enrollment within the zone as determined by the appropriate school district must be provided prior to projected occupancy. B. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS As shown on Exhibit 66, two school districts will serve students in Zone 10: San Marcos Unified School District (SMUSD) and Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD). Since Zone 10 is served by two different school districts, analysis of school facility adequacy shall be addressed on an individual district basis. 1. CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT a. Inventory A majority of Zone 10 is within the Carlsbad Unified School District. There are currently seven elementary schools, two middle schools, one continuation high school and one high school within the Carlsbad Unified School District. The majority of the existing schools in CUSD are located within the Northwest Quadrant. According to CUSD all of the existing schools are operating at capacity. b. Build Out Assumptions Existing and Build Out Population: SFD Multi Total units Units Total Rate Population Existing 0 0 0 2.3 178 0 Build Out 502 180 682 2.3178 1,581 c. Phasing The CUSD has adopted a school location plan and is also in the process of developing a finance plan based on the Mello-Roos financing mechanism. The new school location plan projected September, 2005 XIV- 1 99999Lnv: 00000hb -7 mmmmmm mQ\Q\mQ\m 000000 999999 000000 PINr\lNNN 000000 T4.TT?T4.T?T! LD 0 0 (v Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 b. Technical Assumptions Carlsbad's current sewer Master Plan establishes unit flow generation factors as a basis for projecting the average sewer flows. The average unit flow fiom the City of Carlsbad was projected using 220 gallons per day per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). The La Golindrina pump station, located east of Zone 10, is a temporary pump station and will be abandoned at the time sewer facilities are constructed within Zone 10. C. Existing Demand The land within Zone 10 is presently undeveloped and contains no existing sewer demand. d. Build Out Proiections and Sewer Demand The projected build out sewer flows for each sewer district in Zone 10 can be determined by multiplying the build out projections as established in this plan by the average unit flow factors obtained fiom Carlsbad's Sewer Master Plan and the Leucadia County Water Districts Planning Study. Projected build out x Average unit flow = Average projected build out sewer At buildout, the projected average sewer flow for Zone 10, by sewer district, is as follows: Carlsbad Sewer Service Area Land Proposed Average Build Out -7-e Build out Unit Flow Sewer Flow Residential 299 EDU 220 GPD/EDU 65,780 GPD Park 10 EDU 220 GPDEDU 2,200 GPD community 10 EDU 220 GPD/EDU 2,200 GPD Facilities PI 10 EDU 220 GPDEDU 2,200 GPD Office 6.56EDU 220 GPDEDU 1,443 GPD SUBTOTAL. 73,832 GPD September, 2005 xv-5 94 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 Leucadia County Water District Land Proposed Average Build Out Us Build out Unit Flow Sewer Flow Residential 771 EDU 215 GPDEDU 165,765 GPD TOTAL 239,905 GPD The projected yearly average flow for each sewer district of Zone 10 is shown on Exhibit 7 1. EXHIBIT 71 Zone 10 Yearly Sewer Demand September, 2005 Carlsbad Sewer Service Leucadia County Water District District Projected Projected Number of Avg. Flow Number of Avg. Flow Yearly Cu mmulative Yearly Cummulative Year EDU (MGD) EDU (MGD) 2000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 200 1 150 0.0330 0 0.0000 2002 142 0.0660 0 0.0000 2003 7 0.0675 143 0.0307 2004 0 0.0675 150 0.0630 2005 0 0.0675 150 0.0952 2006 0 0.0675 150 0.1275 2007 0 0.0675 150 0.1597 2008 0 0.0675 28 0.1658 2009 0 0.0675 0 0.1658 2010 0 0.1815 0 0.1658 201 1 0 0.1815 0 0.1658 Build Out Subtotal 299 0.1815 77 1 0.1658 Park 10 0.0022 0 0.0000 Community Facilities 10 0.0022 0 0.0000 P/I 10 0.0107 0 0.0000 Office 6.5 0.0027 0 0.0000 0.1993 771 0.1658 BuildOut Total 335.5 7 ,- __-- Note: Average Unit Flow for the CSSD is 220 GPD per EDU as determined in Carlsbad's Sewer Master Plan Average Unit Flow for the LCWD is 2 15 GPD as determined in the Leucadia County Water Districts Planning Study. ?5 XV-6 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 5. A proposed 12-inch reclaimed water line in El Chino Real and paralleling the existing 18- inch line to the west in Zone 2 1. The location and size of the major water facilities proposed for Zone 10 have been approximated only for the purposes of this plan. The actual location and sizes will be defined as Management Zone 10 develops and the major water facilities are analyzed per the Water District’s current standards. C. Build Out Assumptions: The section in this plan, entitled “Build Out Projections”, estimates the ultimate build out for Zone 10. These build out projections are listed below: Land Use Proiection Residential RLM RM RMH TOTAL Dwelling Units 750 44 276 1,070 Non-Residential: Park Site 34.4 Acres Planned Industrial 7.6 Acres Office 3.3 Acres Golf Course (Existing) 80.8 Acres Community Facilities 6.9 Acres September, 2005 96 XVI-5 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 EXHIBIT 76 Zone 10 Yearlv Potable Water Demand Year Existing 2000 200 1 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Projected Yearly Dwelling Units 8.1 0 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 20 Projected Yearly Demand (in GPD) 11.664 0 5 1,250 71,250 124,625 130,200 187,500 144,375 0 0 C um ula tive Demand (in GPD) 1 1,664 1 1,664 62,914 1 34,164 258,789 388,989 576,489 720,864 720,864 720.864 Build Out Subtotal Elementary School 7.2 AC Park Site 27.2 AC Office 3.3 AC Com.Facilities 6.9 AC Industrial 7.7 AC 720,864 13,680 13,680 39,168 39,168 2,714 2,7 14 20,700 20,700 15,400 15,400 Golf Course 80.8 AC 1 16,3 52 116,352 Build Out Total 928.878 September, 2005 XVI- 10 97 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 10 EXHIBIT 77 Yearlv Reclaimed Water Demand Year Yearly No. Projected Yearly Average Unit Projected Build No. of Irrigated Demand Cumulative Out Acres Acres Demand AFNR Existing 80.8 72.7 3.2 232.7 2000 0.0 0.0 0.0 232.7 200 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 232.7 2002 37.4 7.5 2.5 25 1.5 2003 48.1 9.6 2.5 275.5 2004 75.1 15.0 2.5 313.0 2005 94.6 18.9 2.5 360.2 2006 175.8 35.2 2.5 448.2 2007 154.0 30.8 2.5 525.2 2008 0.0 0.0 0.0 525.2 Build Out Subtotal 525.2 Elementary 7.2 4.3 3.8 16.1 School Office 3.3 .54 .3 5 .35 Community 6.9 1.2 2.5 3 .O Facilities Industrial 7.6 1.2 2.5 3 .O Park Site 27.2 21.8 2.5 54.5 Build Out Total 602.15 September, 2005 98 XVI- 1 1 .- Local Facilities Management Plan e Zone 10 e. Proiected Build Out Demand: The projected build out average potable .water demands can be projected for Management Zone 10 by multiplying the build out projections as established in this Plan to the average unit demand factors obtained fiom CMWD’s Master Plan. The projected average potable water demand for the build out of Management Zone 10 is as follows: Land Use Projected Build Out Average Demand Avg. Potable Water Residential RLM RM RMH Elem. School Of€ice Park Site Golf Course Industrial Community 750 du 44 du 276 du 7.2 AC 3.3 AC 27.2AC 80.8 AC 7.6 AC 6.9 AC 625 GPDIdu 400 GPD/du 250 GPD/du 1,900 GPD/AC 820 GPD/AC 1,440 GPD/AC 1,440 GPDIAC 2,000 GPD/AC 3,000 GPDIAC Demand 468,750 GPD 17,600 GPD 69,000 GPD 13,680 GPD Gross 2,706 GPD 39,168 GPD 116,352 GPD 15,200 GPD 20,700 GPD Facilities TOTAL 763.156 GPD The projected average reclaimed water demand for the build out of Management Zone 10 is as follows: Land Use Projected Irrigated Acres Average Demand Avg. Reclaimed Build Out Water Demand Residential 365 AC 73.2 2.5 AE/WAC 183 AF/YR Elem. School 7.2 AC 4.3 3.7 ACNWAC 15.9 AFiWAC Office 3.3 AC .54 .35 AFMUAC .35 AFNWAC Park Site 27.2AC 21.8 2.5 AFNRIAC 54.5 AF/YR Golf Course 80.8 AC 72.7 3.2 AFMUAC 232.6 AFNR Community 7.9 AC 1.2 2.5 AFMUAC 3.0 AF/YR Facilities Industrial 7.9 AC 1.2 2.5 AFIWAC 3.0 AFNR TOTAL 492.35 AFNR f. Possible Use of Reclaimed Water: On March 21,1989, the City of Carlsbad adopted an interim Reclaimed Water Use Policy for new land development. This policy specifies that all new development within the City of Carlsbad shall use reclaimed water if it can be reasonably September, 2005 XVI- 12 99 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 h- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5981 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT SEPARATE LOTS (2 FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS AND 1 FOR OPEN SPACE) AND 8 COMMERCIAL AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10. CASE NAME: CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES TO SUBDIVIDE AND GRADE A 3.3 1 -ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 CASE NO: HMPP 05-06 WHEREAS, Franz-Yut El Camino, A Limited Liability Company, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Bressi Daughters’ Trust U/D/T dated November 22,2000, “Owner,” described as A portion of parcel 2 of Parcel Map 1188, recorded December 20, 1972, as File No. 340344, being a portion of fractional Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, being within the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has received authorization to issue permits to impact various sensitive species and habitats, including species listed as Threatened or Endangered, by virtue of Incidental Take Permit No. TEO22606-0 from the US. Fish and Wildlife Service and Natural Community Conservation Planning Permit No. 2835-2004-00 1-05; and z-- ._ -- WHEREAS, the authority stated above is based on a plan titled Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, Final Approval November 2004, referred to as the HMP, and approval of all projects is contingent on a finding of consistency with the HMP; and 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 WHEREAS, said verified application by Developer constitutes a request for a Habitat Management Plan Permit pursuant to the City's authority, on file in the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of November 2005, consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said 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 Habitat Management Plan Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That the CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES project is consistent with the HMP as described in the following findings. C) That based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Habitat Management Plan Permit, HMPP 05-06, for the CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That the Cassia Professional Offices is shown in Figure 28 of the approved HMP as - ,i being adjacent to an existing hardline area. .. -- 2. That authorization to take species of concern is subject to continuous compliance with all provisions of the Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP), the Citywide Incidental Take Permit issued for the HMP, the Implementing Agreement, the Terms and Conditions of the Incidental Take Permit, and the Biological Opinion. 3. That authorization to take species of concern is subject to continuous compliance with all mitigation measures as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 05-03, ZC 05-01, LFMP 87-10(A), CT 05- 06, PUD 05-04, SDP 05-03, CUP 05-01, HDP 05-02, and SUP 05-01 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5977, 5978, 5979, 5980, 5982, 5983, 5984, 5985, 5986 and 5987 for those other approvals, including but /I PC RES0 NO. 5981 .2 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 .. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 not limited to recordation of conservation easements over all conserved areas and management and monitoring in perpetuity by a qualified conservation entity. 4. That authorization to take species of concern is subject to continuous compliance with the provisions of Volumes I, I1 and I11 of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program and the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth within the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program Planning Area (SCH No. 93 12 1073). 5. The Planning Commission hereby finds that all development in Carlsbad benefits from the Habitat Management Plan, which is a comprehensive conservation plan and implementation program that will facilitate the preservation of biological diversity and provide for effective protection and conservation of wildlife and plant species while continuing to allow compatible development in accordance with Carlsbad’s Growth Management Plan. Preservation of wildlife habitats and sensitive species is required by the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City’s General Plan which provides for the realization of the social, economic, aesthetic and environmental benefits from the preservation of open space within an increasingly urban environment. Moreover, each new development will contribute to the need for additional regional infrastructure that, in turn, will adversely impact species and habitats. The In-Lieu Mitigation Fee imposed on all new development within the City is essential to hnd implementation of the City’s Habitat Management Plan. 6. That all impacts to habitat and all take of species will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities related to construction and operation of the Cassia Professional Offices project. 7. That the project design as approved by the City of Carlsbad has avoided and minimized impacts to wildlife habitat and species of concern to the maximum extent practicable. Specifically; 1.52 acres of acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral present with 1.15 acres preserved in place and no mitigation is required; 1.02 acres of Chaparral is present and all will be taken and will be mitigated through payment of an in-lieu fee; .23 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub is present with .21 acres being preserved on site and no additional mitigation required; all of the taken .49 acres of Non-NatiF; Grassland will be mitigated by the payment of an in lieu fee; and .05 acres of disturbed area will be mitigated by the payment of an in lieu fee. 8. That adequate funding has been provided to address changed circumstances and adaptive management needs that may be reasonably anticipated in the future, consistent with the HMP Implementing Agreement. 9. That the incidental take of species of concern as a result of the project will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild due to compliance with all of the above stated requirements, as well as ongoing monitoring and reporting to the wildlife agencies and the public. 10. That the Planning Director is authorized to sign the Take Permit. PC RES0 NO. 5981 -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 _._ Conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 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 further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; 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 Habitat Management Plan Permit. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Habitat Management Plan Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.. 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 Habitat Management Plan Permit, (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) DeveloperlOperator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, includigg 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. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 05-03, ZC 05-01, LFMP 87-10(A), CT 05-06, PUD 05-04, SDP 05-03, CUP 05-01, HDP 05-02 and SUP 05-01, and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5977, 5978,5979,5980,5982,5983,5984,5985,5986 and 5987 for those other approvals. This project has been found to result in impacts to wildlife habitat or other lands, such as agricultural land, non-native grassland, and disturbed lands, which provide some benefits to wildlife, as documented in the City’s Habitat Management Plan and the environmental PC RES0 NO. 5981 -4- 103 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 7. analysis for this project. Developer is aware that the City has adopted an In-lieu Mitigation Fee consistent with Section E.6 of the Habitat Management Plan and City Council Resolution No. 2000-223 to fund mitigation for impacts to certain categories of vegetation and animal species. The Developer is further aware that the City has determined that all projects will be required to pay the fee in order to be found consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The City is currently updating the fee study, which is expected to result in an increase in the amount of the fee, and the Developer or Developer’s successor(s) in interest shall pay the adjusted amount of the fee once it is approved by the City Council. The fee shall be paid prior to recordation of a final map, or issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. If the In-lieu Mitigation Fee for this project is not paid, this project will not be consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the General Plan and any and all approvals for this project shall become null and void. As a condition of this approval, applicant must comply with the requirements of all regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements of the environmental documents for the project. Pursuant to Government Code section 65871 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter 20.04, section 20.04.140 applic-ant shall grant a conservation easement for the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of certain species thereof, in accordance with the City’s adopted Habitat Management Plan. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions .” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, voi&%r annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. ,.. PC RES0 NO. 5981 -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 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetingof the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 2nd day of November 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: n DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5981 -6- Tht ,ity of Carlsbad Planning DepartmeL. EXHIBIT 5 P.C. AGENDA OF: November 2,2005 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application complete date: November 2, 2005 Project Planner: Van Lynch Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle SUBJECT: GPA OS-O3/ZC OS-01LFMP 87-10(A)/HMPP 05-06/CT 05-06lPUD OS- OWSDP 05-03/CUP 05-01/HDP 05-O2/SUP 05-01 - CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; a recommendation of approval for a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Element from Residential Low Medium to Office and Open Space, a Zone Change from Limited Control to Office and Open Space, a Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment and Habitat Management Plan Permit; and approving a Tentative Tract Map, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permit to subdivide and grade a 3.3 1 -acre parcel into 3 separate lots (2 for ofice buildings and 1 for open space) and 8 commercial airspace condominium units located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 10. I. . RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5977 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5978, 5979, 5980 and 5981 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment 05-03, Zone Change 05-01 , Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment 87-10(A) and Habitat Management Plan Permit 05-06 and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5982,5983, 5984, 5985, 5986 and 5987 APPROVING Tentative Tract Map CT 05-06, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit 05-04, Site Development Permit 05-03, Conditional Use Permit 05-01, Hillside Development Permit 05-02, and Special Use Permit 05-01 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. -7-e 11. INTRODUCTION The 3.3 1 -acre project site is located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 10. The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Elements to change the land use from Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Office (0) and Open Space (OS) and a Zone Change to rezone the property from Limited Control (LC) to Office (0) and Open Space (OS) to allow the development of two professional/medical office 'buildings. A Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment is required to update the facilities plan with the proposed land use and zoning changes. A Tentative Tract Map is required to subdivide the property into 3 separate lots and 8 GPA 05-03/ZC 05-01/LFMP 87-10(A)/HMPP 05-06/CT 05-06/SDP 05-03/CUP 05-01/HDP 05- 02/SUP 05-0 1/PUD 05-04 - CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES November 2,2005 Page 2 commercial airspace condominium units. Lots 1 and 2 will each contain one professional office building, with a maximum of 4 commercial airspace units each. Lot 3 is a 1.67-acre open space lot. Any development, other than child day care facilities, requires the processing of a Site Development Plan in the Office Zone. A Conditional Use Permit is necessary to allow for the proposed veterinary hospital to be located in Building 1. A Special Use Permit is required for development adjacent to El Camino Real. The project meets all regulations applicable to these legislative and permitting actions, and staff has no issues with the proposal. 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant, Franz-Yut El Camino, LLC, has requested a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Change (ZC), Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (LFMP), Tentative Tract Map (CT), Planned Development Permit (PUD), Site Development Permit (SDP), Conditional . Use Permit (CUP), Hillside Development Permit (HDP), Special Use Permit (SUP) and Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMPP) to allow for the land use and zoning changes from residential to office and open space, the construction of two ofice buildings, the permanent preservation of biologically valuable open space, and the subdivision of a single triangular shaped 3.31-acre parcel into 3 separate lots and 8 airspace condominium units. Lot 1 is proposed to be .87 acres in size and will house a 5,460 square foot veterinary (feline) hospital with a 700 square foot upstairs apartment for a staff member. Lot 2 will be .77 acres in size and will house a 6,340 square foot medical office building. Lot 3 will contain 1.67 acres of open space. The site is currently vacant. Multi-family developments occupy adjacent lots across El Camino Real to the west. Additionally, a recently approved affordable housing apartment complex (Carlsbad Family Housing - SDP 02-13) will occupy the lot to the south. Open space currently exists to the north and east. A SDG&E high-pressure gas line runs adjacent the property along the eastern property boundary. The southern half of the property is characterized as a relatively flat plateau and the northern half slopes down a natural canyon from south to north. Native vegetation onsite includes 1.52 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral, 1.02 acres of Chaparral, .23 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub and .49 acres of annual non-native grassland. The project includes street widening and utility improvements along its El Camino Real frontage. To reduce the amount of biological impacts associated with grading (fill) for the roadway widening, a 29- foot tall crib wall is proposed on the easterly side of El Camino Real. Vehicular access to the project will be via two separate driveways off future Cassia Road. The project also includes associated parking and landscaping within and around the project. _.-- ~ ANALYSIS The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards: A. B. General Plan Office (0) Land Use Designation; Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance) including: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Chapter 2 1.06 - Qualified.Development Overlay Zone Chapter 21.27 - Office Zone Chapter 2 1.40 - Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone Chapter 2 1.42 - Conditional Uses Chapter 21.47 - Nonresidential Planned Developments GPA 05-03/ZC 05-01/LFMP 87-10(A)/HMPP 05-06/CT 05-06/SDP 05-03/CUP 05-01/HDP 05- 02/SUP 05-01/PUD 05-04 - CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES wx- November 2,2005 Page 3 * 6. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance); Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment and Growth Management. Chapter 21.95 - Hillside Development Regulations C. D. Habitat Management Plan; and E. The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables. A. General Plan The proposed General Plan Amendment to the land use and Open Space and Conservation . Elements would change the land use of the site from Residential Low Medium Density to Office (0) and Open Space (OS). The northern undevelopable 1.67-acre portion is proposed to be designated as Open Space. The proposed Office designation would be compatible with surrounding uses of Residential High Density to the south and Open Space to the north and east. An Office land use would have less impact associated with roadway noise from El Camino Real than a Residential land use. The site is topographically suitable for the development of Office type uses, as the developable portion is relatively flat. The proposed Office land use designation would not result in any unavoidable adverse impacts to the area. The project will not generate a significant increase in average daily vehicle trips and the existing roadway and signalized intersection at El Camino Real is capable of handling the proposed vehicle trips. Adequate buffers in the form of open space and circulation element and local roadways separate the existing and proposed residential land uses from the proposed office site. The preservation and protection of open space is an objective of the Open Space and Conservation element of the General Plan. The project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the proposed office development are the Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Circulation, Noise, Housing and Public Safety elements. Table 1 below indicates how the project complies with these particular elements of the General Plan. GPA 05-03/ZC 05-Ol/LFMP 87-10(A)lHMPP 05-06/CT 05-06/SDP 05-03/CUP OS-OlkIDP 05- OYSUP 05-01PUD 05-04 - CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES November 2,2005 Element TABLE 1 - GENl Use Classification, Goal, Objective or Program Land Use r Open Space and Conservation I .- + Circulation L Public Commercial development to serve the employment and service needs of Carlsbad residents. To preserve, protect and enhance unique open space functions like buffers between uses and wildlife habitats. Require new development to construct roadway improvements needed to serve the proposed development. Adequate circulation infrastructure to serve the projected population. Require that a noise study be submitted with all non- residential projects. Enforce the City policy that 55 Leq (h) dBA is the maximum interior noise level for general office uses. Provision of affordable housing. Provision of emergency water systems and all- weather access roads. R4L PLAN COMPLIANCE Proposed Use and Improvements The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to Office (0) for the development of professional office services. Open space for habitat preservation adjacent to permanent open space preserve areas. The project is conditioned to provide street improvements to El Camino Real, as well as, share the costs of improvements to Cassia Road. Project site is not significantly impacted by roadway or airport noise. Project site is not being developed as residential and therefore is not required to provide affordable housing. All necessary water mains, fire hydrants, and appurtenances must be installed prior to occupancy of any building and all-weather access roads will be maintained throughout construction. Compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Based on the net developable area of the site, the theoretical Growth Management Control Point dwelling unit yield for the site would be eight units, which will be deposited into the excess dwelling unit bank. Given the results of the above analysis, the Cassia Professional Offices project is consistent with the Elements of the City’s General Plan. The Carlsbad Family housing project adjacent to the south requested 5 1 units from the City’s excess dwelling unit bank for the change in land use and for developing over the Growth Management Control Point by 6 units. GPA 05-03/ZC 05-01/LFMP 87-lO(A)/HMPP 05-06/CT 05-06ISDP 05-03/CUP 05-01kIDP 05- 02/SUP 05-01/PUD 05-04 - CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES November 2,2005 Page 5 Provided Lot 1 = 30 feet max./ B. Office (0) Zoning The project proposes a zone change from Limited Control (L-C) to Office (0) and Open Space (OS). The Office Zone would implement the proposed Office land use designation. The Office Zone has a built-in Site Development Plan requirement and a Qualified Overlay Zone is not required. The proposed project complies with the Office and OS zone as shown in Table 2 below. Compliance Yes TABLE 2 - OFFICE AND OS ZONE COMPLIANCE one level Front: 15 ft. Code Section Building Height Yes Setbacks- Buildings Rear: 6 ft. 10 in. Front: 10 ft. Setbacks- Driveways and Parking Yes Lot Area Lot 1 = 40,510 sq ft Lot 2 = 34,848 sq ft Lot 1 = 145 ft Lot 2 = 195 ft Lot 1 = 18.4% and Lot 2 = 21.4% Lot Width Yes Yes Yes Lot Coverage 60 parking stalls Lot 1 = 425 sq ft Lot 2 = 500 sq ft Parking Yes Yes Employee Eating Area * See El Camino Rei Standard Not to exceed 35 feet/three levels. Front: 15 ft. Street side: 50 ft. Interior side: 10 ft. Rear: 5ft. Front: 10 ft. Street side: 30 ft. Interior side: 10 ft. Rear: 5ft. Min. 10,000 square feet 75 ft wide minimum ~~ 50 YO max. 1 :250 or 59 parking stalls required 300 sq ft / 5,000 of building area required Lot 1 = 327.6 sq ft Lot 2 = 380.4 sa ft Corridor Standards two levels Lot 2 = 25 feet max./ 1 Yes *Street side: 30 ft. Interior side: 10 ft. Street side: 30 ft. Interior side: 10 ft. Rear: 6 ft. 10 in. Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone (El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards) The proposed project is located adjacent to and on the east side of El Camino Real, and thus is subject to the regulations of the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone, as implemented through the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. Pursuant to section 21.40.040, a Special Use Permit is required. Although not required, the project proposes to use building materials consisting of stucco and Spanish tile roofing, which is a design theme suggested for other parts of the El Camino Real Corridor. GPA 05-03/ZC 05-01/LFMP 87-1O(A)/HMPP 05-06/CT 05-06/SDP 05-03/CUP 05-01/WDP 05- 02/SUP 05-01/PUD 05-04 - CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES November 2,2005 Standard Design Theme Median Breaks The project is located within Area 4 of the El Camino Real Corridor (College Avenue to Sunfresh Rose Company), Compliance with the corridor standardsis shown in Table 4 below. Adopted Criteria Proposed Project Compliance where both buildings Planned “campus type” Office type design theme Yes research, business, service center complement each other Major intersections Median break provided at the Yes intersection of El Camino Real and Cassia Road Standard Signs Building Height Grading Setback Adopted Criteria Proposed Project Compliance Freestanding monuments, Freestanding monument Yes not to exceed 5 fl above street grade, and 24 sq. ft. in area. 35’ from grade maximum 30’ from grade maximum Yes No cut or fill exceeding 15’ Yes from original grade At grade: 30’ minimum. 30’ minimum proposed with Yes proposed, not to exceed 24 square feet in area Negligible Cut/fill (not to exceed 15 feet) + Because the property has significant topographic and biological constraints, the project is utilizing the less restrictive prime arterial setback of the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. The Office zone would require 50 feet where the Corridor Standards allows a 30-foot setback from El Camino Real. The HMP allows modification to the development standards for the preservation of habitat. The reduced setback will not be significant as the adjacent multi- family two-story structure was approved with a reduced setback of 22 feet due to habitat constraints. The El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards reduces the setback from El Camino Real to 30 feet south of Cassia Road. Some screening to be incoruorated into setback TABLE 4 - EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPLIANCE CONTINUED landscape screening Street Furniture Street light spacing Roof Equipment Land Uses As appropriate to match As required for bus stop Yes adjacent development City standard City standard Yes Not visible Not visible Yes Land use changes should be Land use change proposed. Yes addressed at time of reauest. GPA 05-03/ZC 05-01ILFMP 87-10(A)/HMPP 05-06/CT 05-06/SDP OS-O3/CUP 05-01/HDP 05- 02/SUP 05-01/PUD 05-04 - CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES November 2,2005 Pane 7 Conditional Uses Ordinance Lot 1 of the project site proposes to house a feline veterinarian hospital. A CUP allows veterinarians and small animal hospitals in all zones except residential zones. The building also proposes a staff residential unit in the second story of the building. The 700 square foot unit contains a living room, bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and deck. Table 3 below summarizes the required findings for approval. TABLE 3 - CONDI ~~ Reauirements (section 21.42.020) The use is desirable for the development of the community. The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. All of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained. The street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. [ONAL USES COMPLIANCE Adeauacv Proposed use is desirable because it provides services primarily for the convenience of the occupants of the surrounding community. No other similar uses are located or presently planned in the area. Proposed buildings comply with all 0 Zone development standards, except for the modified the ECR setback. The project complies with the zoning requirement of 59 parking spaces. Proposed project complies with all 0 Zone, except ECR setback, and El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards for all yards, setbacks, fences, and landscaping. The staff residential unit allows personnel to monitor and take care of animals during the night. The project proposes improvements to El Camino Real. Consequently, the project will be adequately served by the surrounding infrastructure. Given the results of the above analysis, the necessary findings can be made pursuant to Section 21.42.020. Non-Residential Planned Development Ordinance The project proposes that the two professional offices be constructed as airspace condominiums with a maximum of four units for each building. The proposed development will be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as outlined previously. The proposed location is necessary and desirable to provide medical and veterinarian services to the community, which will contribute to the well being of people and cats in the community. The proposed uses will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons working or living in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that adequate separation of uses is proposed. The project complies with all requirements for nonresidential planned developments, and thus is consistent with the Non-Residential Planned Development Ordinance. GPA 05-03/ZC 05-0 l/LFMP 87- 1 O(A)/HMPP 05-06/CT 05-06/SDP 05-O3/CUP 05-0 l/HDP 05- 02/SUP 05-0 1PUD 05-04 - CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES November 2,2005 Page 8 Hillside Development Regulations The proposed project is consistent with the applicable Hillside Development Ordinance restrictions for development of steep slopes, slope height, grading volumes, and slope screening. The project will not disturb natural slopes exceeding 40%, except for the road widening required for El Camino Real. The nonresidential project is exempted from grading volumes and slope height requirements. The project is proposing a grading volume of 2,955 cubic yards per acre, which would be within the acceptable range and manufactured slopes are below the 40-foot maximum allowed. A crib type retaining wall structure is proposed along the eastern side of El Camino Real to allow for the roadway widening without the need for a large 2:l fill slope that would impact sensitive native habitats. The proposed office project provides the necessary top of slope setback where applicable. ,- C. Subdivision Ordinance The project proposes the subdivision of an existing 3.3 1 -acre parcel into 3 lots with 8 airspace condominium units within two of the lots. Chapter 20.16 of the Subdivision Ordinance addresses the requirements of a major subdivision (a subdivision creating more than four parcels). These requirements primarily relate to providing the drainage, sewerage, and circulation dedications and improvements needed to serve the subdivision. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and has concluded that the subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. All major subdivision design criteria have been complied with, including minimum lot depths, provision of public access, required street frontage, and minimum lot area. The grading for the project shows a fairly balanced grading operation with an export of 968 cubic yards of material. The developer will be required to offer various dedications and will be required to install street and utility improvements along El Camino Real and Cassia Road. Given the above, the proposed subdivision would provide all necessary facilities and improvements without producing any land title conflicts; therefore the project is consistent with -i the Subdivision Ordinance. __ -- D. Habitat Management Plan The City’s HMP identifies the project site as within Core Area 6 and is not identified as being a hardline project or within a standards area. The site is shown on Figure 15 of the HMP as having all Southern Maritime Chaparral (SMC) habitat. A biological study of the site identifies 1.52 acres of SMC, 1.02 acres of Chaparral, .23 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS), .49 acres of non- native grassland, and .05 acres of disturbed areas. The project will mitigate impacts by minimizing the habitat impacts and through off-site mitigation and the payment of impact fees. Specifically; 1.52 acres of SMC is present with 1.15 acres preserved in place and no mitigation is required; 1.02 acres of Chaparral is present and all will be taken and will be mitigated through payment of an in-lieu fee; .23 acres of CSS is present with .21 acres being preserved on site and no additional mitigation required; all of the taken .49 acres of Non-Native Grassland will be mitigated by the payment of an in lieu fee; and .05 acres of disturbed area will be mitigated by the payment of an in lieu fee. The project site does not contain any narrow endemic plant GPA 05-03/ZC 05-01/LFMP 87-10(A)/HMPP 05-06/CT 05-06/SDP 03-03/CUP 05-01/HDP 05- 02/SUP 05-01/PUD 05-04 - CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES November 2,2005 Page 9 Standard Citv Administration species. The project will impact four (20%) of the approximately 20 summer holly plants identified on the site, which meets the management recommendations of. the HMP for avoidance and minimization of impacts to the species. Impacts/Standards I Residential Impacts [ Compliance N/A I 24.3 sa ft Yes E. Local Facilities Management Plan and Growth Management Library Wastewater The Cassia Professional Offices project is subject to the provisions of the Growth Management Program, as contained in Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance and in the approved Zone 10 LFMP. An amendment to the LFMP is required to identify the facilities impacts and document the changes as a result of the proposed land use change. Public facilities have been planned to comply with performance standards assuming demand with the development of the site with Residential uses. The change to Office uses on the site will have minimal impact on public facilities. Thus, the proposed project public facility demand will be in compliance with the public facility assumptions of the Zone 10 LFMP. No special conditions or requirements exist within the Zone 10 LFMP applicable specifically to the subject site. The project is conditioned to pay the appropriate public facilities fee, water hd sewer connection fees, traffic impact and school fees to mitigate its impact on these respective facilities. As conditioned, all facility improvements necessary to accommodate the development will be in place prior to, or concurrent with, development. Therefore, the proposed Cassia Professional Offices development is consistent with the Zone 10 LFMP. N/A 13 sqft Yes 7 EDU 7 EDU Yes Table 5 below details the project’s conformance with the requirements of the Growth Management Program. Treatment Parks Drainage I TABLE 5 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE 1 N/A .049 ac Yes 17 CFS unknown Yes .. -.-. e- Circulation Fire 490 ADT 70 ADT Yes Station #2 Station #2 Yes Open Space Schools Water N/A N/A Yes No Students Generated unknown Yes 1,540 gallons per day 1540 GPD Yes (GPD) (220 gpd/EDU x 7 EDUs). V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Potentially significant biological and paleontological impacts were identified. The developer has agreed to GPA 05-03/ZC 05-0l/LFMP 87-1 O(A)/HMPP 05-06/CT 05-06/SDP 0>-03/CUP 05-01/HDP 05- 02/SUP 05-01PUD 05-04 - CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES November 2,2005 Parre 10 mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to below a level of significance in accordance with CEQA. The environmental documents were sent-directly to the area offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. In consideration of the foregoing, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project on August 22, 2005. Comments were received from the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish & Game. No new mitigation measures were added and minor project revisions were made in response to the comments that do not result in new avoidable significant effects. The revisions do not create a new significant environmental effect and only make equivalent or more effective mitigation measures. ATTACHMENTS: ;* 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5977 (Mit. Neg. Dec.) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5978 (GPA) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5979 (ZC) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5980 (LFMP) Planning Commission Resolution No. 598 1 (HMPP) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5982 (CT) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5983 (PUD) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5984 (SDP) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5985 (CUP) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5986 (HDP) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5987 (SUP) Location Map Background Data Sheet Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Disclosure Statement Reduced Exhibits Exhibits “A” - “Q” dated November 2,2005 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: GPA 05-03/ZC 05-01LFMP 87-1 O(A)/HMPP 05-06/CT 05-06/PUD 05- 04/SDP 05-03/CUP 05-01/HDP 05-02/SUP 05-01 CASE NAME: Cassia Professional Offices APPLICANT: Franz-Yut El Camino, LLC ..a REQUEST AND LOCATION: General Plan and Zoning changes to an Office designation for the development of 2 medical office buildings, one as a veterinarian cat hospital. on 3.3 1 acres of land located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Lane. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of parcel 2 of Parcel Map 11 88, recorded December 20, 1972. as File No. 340344, being; a portion of fractional Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West. San Bernardino Meridian, being within the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California .- APN: 215-020-26-00 Acres: 3.31 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 3 Lots / 8 units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: Residential Low-Medium Density Allowed: 3.2 ddacre Existing Zone: Limited Control (LC) Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Density Proposed: 0 units/acre Proposed Zone: Office Zoning Site Limited Control General Plan RLM Current Land Use Vacant (natural habitat) North PC MOS Vacant ~ South RD-M RH Greenhouses East PC os West RD-M RM Open Space Apartments PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 6.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT w Negative Declaration, issued August 22,2005 0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated . u Other, CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: GPA 05-03/ZC OS-OlLFMP 87-10(A)/HMPP 05-06/CT 05-06/PUD 05-04/SDP 05-03/CUP OS-Ol/HDP 05-02/SUP 05-0 1 - CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 10 GENERAL PLAN: IUM ZONING: Limited Control DEVELOPER’S NAME: Franz-Yut El Camino. LLC ADDRESS: 2710 Loker Avenue West, Suite 100, Carlsbad CA 92008 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 3.3 1 ac ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: ASAP PHONE NO.: 760-93 1-7700 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 2 12-020-26-00 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A ‘ Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) Park: Demand in Acreage = NfA Drainage: Demand in CFS = 17 6.5 EDU Identify Drainage Basin = “D” Circulation: Demand in ADT = 490 Fire: Served by Fire StationNo. = 2 Open Space: Acreage Provided = 1 S8 Schools: Carlsbad Sewer: Demands in EDU 6.5 Identify Sub Basin = Ponto/l OC Water: Demand in GPD = 1430 The project is depositing seven units into the Growth Management Dwelling unit bank. // 7 - City of Carlsbad 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. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. . 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 corporation or DartnershiD, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corDoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE Person Corp/Pad Franz-Yut El Camino LLC Title Title &E&? PEL Address OWNER (Not the owner's agent) 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 (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the --- shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (NIA) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Address 2710 Loker Ave West Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 2. 7 -- Person Corp/Pafi Bressi Daughters Trust 11 -22-00 Title Title Address Address 10409 Riverside Dr. #302 Toluca Lake, CA 91602 @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Cahbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 9 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us i 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonorofit orqanization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profitrrrust Ruth Budlong Non ProfiVTrust Mary Address2525 Ocean Blvd. #B5 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Address 10409 Riverside Dr. #302 Toluca Lake, CA 91602 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (1 2) months? Lz] Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s): I. NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. , &*iJg-y& . /2-/5=/ / %!fW d Sibn&ure of ownerldate -‘ Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent H:ADMIMCOUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 i!? i :. 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonwofit orqanization, or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profitrrrust Ruth Budlong Non Profiflrust Mary Title Title Address2525 Ocean Blvd. #B5 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Toluca Lake, CA 91602 Address 10409 Riverside Dr. #302 Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees andlor Council within the past twelve (12) months? 0 Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s): ~ __ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of ownerlapplicanfs . .- Print or type name of ownerlap HA!JMIMCOUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 ....... ..... ............ ....... .._.I ........ .._. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ .___.. 1- ._.. ............ ............ ........ . __. ...... :. ....... .. ._ _-: ....... ............... ............... ............... ............ .. I I / I I I I I I 3 a R B .... - 8 5 I I -.r II: e 6 t L Planning Commission Minutes November 2,2005 Page 4 EXHIBIT 6 3. GPA 05-03/ZC 05-011LFMP 87-1 O(A)/HMPP 05-06/CT 05-06/PUD 05-04/SDP 05- OYCUP 05-011HDP 05-02/SUP 05-01 - CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; a recommendation of approval for a Genera/ Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Element from Residential Low Medium to Office and Open Space, a Zone Change from Limited Control to Office and Open Space, a Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment and Habitat Management Plan Permit; and approving a Tentative Tract Map, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permit to subdivide and grade a 3.31-acre parcel into 3 separate lots (2 for office buildings and 1 for open space) and 8 commercial airspace condominium units located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road in Local Facilities Management Zone IO. Mr. Neu introduced Item 3 and stated he would give the staff presentation. Chairperson Segall opened the public hearing on Item 3. Mr. Neu gave a detailed presentation on the project and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Baker inquired about the residential unit and the hospital, what allows that to happen, and why at that location instead of other locations. Mr. Neu stated the Conditional Use Ordinance allows it as well as some provisions in the Industrial Zone to allow it as well. The City has not seen this type of request before because the City typically sees more traditional uses in the Industrial Zone. Commissioner Cardosa asked how large the designated open space area will be on Lot 3. Mr. Neu stated it would be 1.58 acres. Commissioner Cardosa asked if this area was originally zoned as Open Space. Mr. Neu stated the existing zoning is L-C. With the residential General Plan designation, the ultimate zone, if that designation remained, would be R-I. Commissioner Cardosa commented that the open space area would be adjacent to other open space areas. Mr. Neu stated that was correct. Commissioner Cardosa asked how the open space will be managed. Mr. Neu stated that he believes the applicant is talking with the Center for Natural Lands Management, which is managing the adjacent open space area, but that is something that has not been finalized yet. Commissioner Dominguez asked for clarification on how many dwelling units the site would have allowed under the original zoning designation, which was RLM. Mr. Neu stated that 7 or 8 units would have been allowed. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other questions. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to give a presentation. Paul Klukas, Planning Systems, 1530 Faraday Av, gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the proposed crib wall along the El Camino Real Corridor would be a plantable crib wall. Mr. Klukas stated that although the wall would not be visible from the road, it would be planted with native habitat. Commissioner Montgomery further inquired about how the plan for the 4-condo units per site will be implemented. Mr. Klukas stated that typically the individual owners will use a main lobby entrance to get to their own condos. Pat O’Day, 2710 Loker Ave West, part owner of the project and also the civil engineer, stated that air space condos are not planned for this project at this time but in case it was to be done in the future this enables the owner to make the necessary changes without having to go to Planning Commission again. Commissioner Cardosa asked if either of the complexes could be a 24-hour use. Mr. Klukas stated yes. Commissioner Cardosa asked Mr. Neu what the impact on the ADT would be with this use as compared with the 8 residential units. Mr. Neu stated that the ADT for this use is 490 compared with 80 ADT from the residential units. Mr. Wojcik clarified that the ADT would actually increase with the proposed use. Planning Commission Minutes November 2,2005 Page 5 Commissioner Baker asked why the medical building would only be one-story. Mr. O’Day stated that parking typically dictates what a building’s square footage will be. Commissioner Dominguez asked about the construction of the cul-de-sac and how it will be coordinated with the adjacent property. Mr. Wojcik stated that the property across the street will be developed first and the ordinance requires half street plus 12 feet of width be constructed which were conditions of the other project. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other questions or if any members of audience wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he opened and closed public testimony. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5977 recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5978, 5979, 5980 and 5981 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 05-03, Zone Change 05-01, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment 87-1 O(A) and Habitat Management Plan Permit 05-06 and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5982, 5983, 5984, 5985, 5986, and 5987 approving Tentative Tract Map CT 05-06, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit 05-04, Site Development Permit 05-03, Conditional Use Permit 05-01, Hillside Development Permit 05-02, and Special Use Permit 05-01 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION Chairperson Segall commented that this use is a far better use for the area as opposed to more residential homes, and he stated his support for the project. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSENT: None Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton Chairperson Segall closed the public hearing on Item 3 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 133 Cassia Professional OfficesCassia Professional OfficesGPA 05GPA 05--03/ZC 0503/ZC 05--01/LFMP 8701/LFMP 87--10(A)/10(A)/HMPP 05HMPP 05--0606 Location MapLocation MapEL CAMINO REALCASSIA RDLAS PALMAS DRSITE Aerial ViewAerial ViewSITESITECarlsbad Family Carlsbad Family housinghousingManzanita Manzanita AptsAptsVilla LomaVilla Loma General Plan AmendmentGeneral Plan AmendmentQQFrom: Residential Low Medium (RLM)From: Residential Low Medium (RLM)QQTo: Office (O) and Open Space (OS)To: Office (O) and Open Space (OS)QQConservation ElementConservation Element RDMRDMPIPIPC PC (OS)(OS)LCLCLC to LC to OfficeOfficeSITESITEEAEA--QQZoning MapZoning Map Local Facilities Management Plan Local Facilities Management Plan AmendmentAmendmentQQAmend LFMP 10 to reflect new land use and Amend LFMP 10 to reflect new land use and impacts associated with change.impacts associated with change. Habitat Management Plan PermitHabitat Management Plan PermitQQ1.58 acres to Open Space preserve system.1.58 acres to Open Space preserve system.QQMitigation through payment of impact feesMitigation through payment of impact fees Planning Commission approvals:Planning Commission approvals:QQThree Lot SubdivisionThree Lot SubdivisionQQEight Unit Condominium (CT 05Eight Unit Condominium (CT 05--06/PUD 0506/PUD 05--04)04)QQSDP 05SDP 05--03/CUP 0503/CUP 05--01/HDP 0501/HDP 05--02/SUP 0502/SUP 05--0101 Cassia Professional OfficesCassia Professional Offices Mitigated Negative DeclarationMitigated Negative DeclarationQQHabitat MitigationHabitat MitigationQQNPESNPESQQPaleontologicalPaleontologicalResourcesResources RecommendationRecommendationQQThat the City Council That the City Council ADOPTADOPTthe Resolution the Resolution ADOPTINGADOPTINGthe Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and APPROVINGAPPROVINGof GPA 05of GPA 05--03, LFMP Amendment 8703, LFMP Amendment 87--10(A) and HMP Permit 0510(A) and HMP Permit 05--06 and 06 and ADOPTADOPTthe the Ordinance Ordinance APPROVINGAPPROVINGZC 05ZC 05--01.01. Cassia Professional OfficesCassia Professional Offices Medical OfficeMedical Office