Loading...
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