HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 57951
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. 5795
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO AMEND
THE LAND USE AND OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION
ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN, THE ZONING MAP
AND THE MELLO I1 SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM TO CHANGE THE RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM
DENSITY (RM) AND PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (PI)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND THE RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY-MULTIPLE WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY (RD-M-Q), RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY
WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (R-1-Q)
AND PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (PM) ZONING
DESIGNATIONS TO OPEN SPACE ON ROUGHLY 9.5 ACRES
OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE KELLY CORPORATE CENTER
INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD AND HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD AND
BETWEEN HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD AND AVIARA
PARKWAY, SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: KELLY CORPORATE CENTER GPA/ZC
CASE NO.: GPA 04-09/ZC 04-05/LCPA 04-08
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding property described as
Parcel A of Parcel Map 147 in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no.
2993, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego,
August 23,1974 as file number 74-230326 and Parcels 3, and 4
of MS 01-08, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to map thereof no. 19207, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, April 9,2003
as file number 2003-0402795
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of January 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 Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration,
Exhibit “ND,” dated October 19, 2004, according to Exhibits “NOI” dated
October 19,2004, and “PII” dated October 12,2004, attached hereto and made a
part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1.
...
...
...
...
...
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration for KELLY
CORPORATE CENTER GPNZC - GPA 04-09/ZC 04-05kCPA 04-08, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5795 -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
C mmi io
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
f the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of January 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: 1. N. SEGALL, airperson
CARLSBAD PLANNI~G COMMISSION
ATTEST: LA
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5795 -3-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: KELLY CORPORATE CENTER GPNZC
PROJECT LOCATION: The southwest corner of Palomar Airport Road and Hidden Valley Road
and between Hidden Valley Road and Aviara Parkway, south of Palomar Airport Road. 212-040-66, 212-
CASE NO: GPA 04-09/ZC 04-05LCPA 04-08
040-67,212-040-70.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal
Program Amendment to change the Residential Medium Density (RM) and Planned Industrial (PI) General
Plan land use designations to Open Space and change the Residential Density-Multiple with a Qualified
Development Overlay (RD-M-Q), Residential Single-family with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1 -Q),
and Planned Industrial (PM) zoning designations to Open Space on roughly 9.5 acres of property within the
Kelly Corporate Center industrial subdivision. The amendments are to designate properties as open space
that are constrained by topography, biological resources, and previously encumbered by open space
easements through previous discretionary approvals (SDP 97-25). The properties are remnant parcels from
previous development approvals which are being General Plan and Zoned as Open Space for mapping
consistency. Surrounding uses are residential to the south and industrial professional office buildings to the
north. Most of the open space is within the Encinas Creek drainage.
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
(EM Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of
Carlsbad finds as follows:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least
one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that
remained to be addressed).
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is
required.
0
0
A copy of the initial study (EL4 Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file
in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: , pursuant to Citv Council Resolution No.
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
@ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
PROJECT LOCATION:
KELLY CORPORATE CENTER GPMZC
The southwest comer of Palomar Airport Road and Hidden Valley
Road and between Hidden Valley Road and Aviara Parkway, south
of Palomar Airport Road.
CASE NO: GPA 04-09/ ZC 04-05/ LCPA 04-08
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local
Coastal Program Amendment to change the Residential Medium Density (RM) and Planned
Industrial (PI) General Plan land use designations to Open Space and change the Residential
Density-Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlay (RD-M-Q), Residential Single-family
with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1 -Q), and Planned Industrial (PM) zoning
designations to Open Space on roughly 9.5 acres of property within the Kelly Corporate Center
industrial subdivision. The amendments are to designate properties as open space that are
constrained by topography, biological resources, and previously encumbered by open space
easements through previous discretionary approvals (SDP 97-25). The properties are remnant
parcels from previous development approvals which are being General Plan and Zoned as Open
Space for mapping consistency. Surrounding uses are residential to the south and industrial
professional office buildings to the north. Most of the open space is within the Encinas Creek
drainage.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially
significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be
recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative
Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California
92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the
Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and 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) 602-4613.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD October 19.2004 to November 18,2004
PUBLISH DATE October 19,2004
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003
ENVIROMMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
CASE NO: GPA 04-09//ZC 04-05/LCPA 04-08
DATE: October 12,2004
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: Kelly Corporate Center GPNZC
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Van Lynch 760-602-461 3
PROJECT LOCATION: One lot west and easterly of Hidden Valley Rd to Aviara Parkway and
south of Palomar Aimort Rd City of Carlsbad, County of San Dieno
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Av,
Carlsbad, CA 92008
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium Density (RM) and Planned Industrial
ZONING: Residential Multiple Density with a Qualified Development Overlay (RD-M-0) and
Planned Industrial.
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Reauest for a General Plan Amendment. Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change
the Residential Medium Densitv (RM) and Planned Industrial (PI) General Plan land use designations to
Open Space and change the Residential Density-Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlay (RD-M-Q)
and Planned Industrial (PM) zoning designations to Open Space on roughly 9.5 acres of property within the
Kelly Corporate Center industrial subdivision. The amendments are to designate properties as open space
that are constrained by topoeraphy. biological resources, and previously encumbered bv open space
easements through previous discretionary approvals (SDP 97-25). The properties are remnant parcels from
previous development approvals whxh are being General Plan and Zoned as Ouen Space for mapping
consistency. Surrounding uses are residential to the south and industrial professional office buildings to the
north. Most of the open space is within the Encinas Creek drainage.
The property covered by the proposed land use designation change is already subdivided and has no
potential of further subdivision, therefore no impacts to the yield of the properties will occur. Since all of
the affected properties are already subdivided and no additional development is proposed with this proiect,
no impacts to any physical features, such as scenic resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or geologic
features, will occur. The changes to the zoning and land uses over the developed properties does not
preclude the continued conformance with the Mello I1 segment policies. The proposal is consistent with all
applicable policies and regulations and staff has no issues with the proposed land use designation change.
1 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation, Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Aesthetics Geology/Soils 0 Noise
Agricultural Resources 0 HazardsLIazardous Materials 0 and Housing
Air Quality HydrologyiWater Quality 17 Public Services
0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
0 Cultural Resources Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation
0 Utilities & Service Systems u Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project 1 3ULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been
added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL 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.
0!3A,Y
Dad
IO! 13/04
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 mformation
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by
an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement
to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental
document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an ELR
if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any
of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there .
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
4 Rev. Q7lQ3lO2
e 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
EM-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.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
0 0 OEI
0 cl ON
0 0 OEI
0 0 LIB
a)
b)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and hstoric
buildings within a State scenic hghway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
c)
d)
in the area?
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 0 0 OH 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?
17 0 OEI b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
5 Rev. 07l03102
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
whch, due to their location or nature, could result in
.conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a Substantial
number of people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
Have a Substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or US. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a Substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or US. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a Substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
I7
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No rmpact
[XI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
.with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in 5 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archeological resource pursuant to 9 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i.
11.
... 111.
1v.
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.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Landslides?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
CI
0
0
0
0
0
No
rmpact
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
la
[XI
[XI
la
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18
- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
For a project withm an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant rmpact
Mitigation
Incornorated
Unless Impact
0
0
0
0
0
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
ow
8 Rev. 07103102
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
*evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for whch permits
have been granted)?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 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?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
Create or contribute runoff water, whch would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
Ixl
Ix1
[XI
Ixl
w w
Ixl
[XI
IXI
[XI
9 Rev. 0ll03102
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Place within 1 00-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
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)?
Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction?
Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water
body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
list?
The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
Physically divide an established community?
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
X. 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?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I7
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
[mpact
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
[XI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
[XI
[XI
IXI
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. NOISE - Would the project result in:
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?
0 151
o 0 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
0 151
151 0 17 c) A Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
0
0 0 d) A Substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
0 [XI
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, withm 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
0 0 0 IXI
o 0 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or worlung
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
0
X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
0 0 a) Induce Substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)? o 0
0 0
b) Displace Substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace Substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)
Ixl
0
XTII. 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:
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated 0
LessThan No
Significant rrnpact
Impact
0
0
0
OBI ow
OBI ow ow
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
0
0
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?
ow
0 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) 0 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)?
o
0
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
hghwa ys?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, includmg
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
c)
'.
ow
ow
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 nw
0
0
0
0 e)
f)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
0 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of whch could cause
sipficant environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to
commitments?
Be served by a landfill
capacity to accommodate
disposal needs?
the provider’s existing
with sufficient permitted
the project’s solid waste
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
urobable future moiects?)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
El
0
0
El
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
0
0
0
El
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
la
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
[x1
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant lmpact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated 0 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
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.
14 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS:
No Impact. The proposed legislative actions do not impact the existing or future development of the industrial
subdivisioq. No development is proposed with the actions and no adjustments to the existing development are
proposed. Therefore no impacts to aesthetics will result.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:
No Impact. The project site is currently under development for industrial (professional office space). No
agricultural resources exist on the property and the proposed land use and zoning designation boundary changes will
not increase or reduce the amount of agricultural land. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural resources will occur.
AIR QUALITY:
No Impact.
Therefore no increases in emissions, sources of dust, or objectionable odors will occur.
No additional development is proposed with the land use and zoning designation boundary changes.
BIOLOGICAL. RESOURCE:
No Impact. All natural open space areas preserved with the Kelly Corporate Center development will remain and
no development or alteration of any areas with biological resources is proposed. Therefore, the proposed land use
and zoning designation changes to Open Space will not have an adverse impact on biological resources.
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
No Impact. No additional grading is proposed with this land use and zoning designation change. The site is
already being developed in accordance with the approved subdivision map and, therefore, no impacts to cultural
resources would result.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS:
No impact. No grading is proposed with the land use and zoning designation change and no adjustment to the
existing, approved grading plan would result from the proposed change. Therefore, no adverse impacts due to
geology or soils will result.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No Impact. No construction or alteration to the currently approved development is proposed with the land use and
zoning designation change and no additional hazards or hazardous materials will result due to the proposal.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:
No Impact. No construction or alteration to the currently approved development is proposed with the land use and
zoning designation change. Therefore no impacts to hydrology or water quality will result.
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
No Impact. The proposed land use and zoning designation boundary adjustment will bring the zoning, General
Plan, and Local Coastal Program designations into conformance and will eliminate the potential for individual lots to
have more than one designation. Since the subject property is already subdivided and has no potential for further
subdivision, no impact to the industrial or residential yield of the property will result. Therefore, no adverse impacts
to land use and planning will occur due to the proposal.
MINERAL RESOURCES:
15 Rev. 07103102
No Impact. No grading is proposed with the land use and zoning designation change and no adjustment to the
existing, approved grading plan would result from the proposed boundary adjustment. Therefore, no adverse
impacts to mineral resources will result.
NOISE:
No Impact. No construction or adjustment to approved construction documents is proposed with the land use and
zoning designation change. No new sources of noise will occur with the land use adjustments. Therefore, no
adverse impacts due to noise will result from the proposed actions.
POPULATION AND HOUSING:
No Impact. The subject property is already subdivided and has no potential for further subdivision, therefore no
impact to the industrial or residential yield of the property will result from the land use and zoning designation
change. Given the above, the proposal would not cause any adverse impacts to population and housing.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
No Impact. The proposal involves no construction and therefore no increase in public service demand would occur
with the land use and zoning designation change. Given the above, no adverse impacts to public services would
occur.
RECREATION:
No Impact.
recreational demand will occur. Therefore, no adverse impacts to recreation will result from the proposal.
No construction is proposed with the land use and zoning designation change and no increase in
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC :
No Impact. No additional development is proposed with the land use and zoning designation change therefore no
increases traffic generation will occur. No further subdivision of the subject property is allowed by virtue of the land
use change. Given the above, no adverse impacts to transportation or traffic will occur.
UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
No Impact. The proposal involves no construction and therefore no increase in utility and service system demand
would occur with the land use and zoning designation change. Therefore, no adverse impacts to said services would
occur.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of ths project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
16 Rev. 07/03/02