The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPIP 95-01; American Rim Supply-Carlsbad Airport Centre; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (10)/4 ? ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II ("0 BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. PIP 95-01 DATE: A~ril25.1995 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CASE NAME: American Rim Sumlv APPLICANT Dennie Smith. Smith Consulting Architects ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT 5355 Mira Sorrento Place San Dieeo. CA 92121 (6 19) 452-3 188 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 13.1995 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a 2 1.004 sauare foot tilt-ur, concrete office/manufacturindwarehouse buildin? in the Carlsbad Air~ort Centre. SUMMARY OF 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. - Land Use and Planning - x TranS~tion/Circhtim - Public Services - Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems - Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics - Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources - X Air Quality - Noise - Recreation - Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 3128/95 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a sisnificant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have sisnificant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REFORT/MITIGATED 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 sisnificant 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 EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. KI Planning Director sipturb' Date I' 2 Rev. 3/28/95 ONMENTAL IMPAW 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 signXcant 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 infomation 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 adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. "potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated'' applies where the inmqoration 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 significant. Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but glJ potentially significant 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 (Prior compliance). When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Ovemding 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 effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 3/28195 e If there arc one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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. 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 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 impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Ovemding Considerations" for the sigMcant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier Em (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, oq (4) through the EIA-Part II 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. 4 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (#3: pgs 7,181 - - Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#1: pg 50) - - Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l: pg 90, #3 pgs 7,18) - - Affect agricultural re~~urces or operations (e.g. imp to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (#l: pg 86) - - Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority Community)? (#l: pg 90) - - II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l: pg 107) - - Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l: pg 107; #2: PI 7.0-2) - - Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l: pg 90) - - IIL GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? (#l: pgs 80,83; #2: pg 5.1-9) - - Seismic ground shaking? (#l: pg 83; #2: pgs 5.1-9, 5.1-10, 5.1-12) 5 Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l: pg 82; #2: pg 5.1-9) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l: pg 83; #2: pg 5.1-9) Landslides or mudflows? (#l: pg 82; #2: pg 5.1-1 1, 5.1-12) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l: pg 77) Subsidence of the land? (#l: pg 77; #2: pg 5.1-1 1) Expansive soils? (#l : pg 82) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l: pg 77) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surf'ace runoff? (#l: pg 84) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l: pg 84; #2: pg 5.2-6) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l: pg 84) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water My? (#l: pg 84) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l: pg 84) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#l: pg 89) 6 g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l: Pg 89) - h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l: pg 89) - i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l: pg 89) - V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l: pg 71; #2: pg 5.34) - X b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (See Discussion) - c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (See Discussion) d) Create objectionable odors? (See Discussion) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l: pgs 3 1-39) - b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (See Discussion) - c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l: pgs 31-39) - d) Insufficient parkhg capacity m-site or off-site? (See Discussion) - e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (See Discussion; #2: pg 5.7-6) - 7 f) conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l: pgs 31-39) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (See Discussion) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#1: pgs 50-57) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l: Pgs 50-57) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l: pgs 50-57) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l: pgs 50-57) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l: pgs 50- 57) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Conflict with adopted energy COflseNation plans? (a: Pg 5.13) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#2: pg 5.13) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resouTce that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#2: pg 5.13) 8 Issues (and suppati "tial Souroes): M. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (See Project Description) - b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (a: pgs 5.10.2-1 to 5.10.2-9) - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (See Project Description) - - d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#2: pgs 5.10.2-1 to 5.10.2-9) - - e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (See Project Description) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (See Project Description) - b) Expofllre of people to severe noise levels? (a: pgs 73- 76) - XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? (a: pg 5.12.5-1) - Police protection? (a: pg 5.12.6-1) - Schools? (a: pg 5.12.7-1) - Maintenance of public facilities, including ruads? (See Discussion) - Other governmental services? (See Discussion) - 9 Rev. 3/28/95 h n FkJWAtipUy signifii Potentirlly Unless LessThpn Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (pod suppating InfaIl.#ial souras): XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Impect lncorporad Impact Impsct a) Power or natural gas? (#2: pg 5.12.1-1) - - b) Communications systems? (See Discussion) - - c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#2: page 5.12.2-1) - - d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#2: pg 5.12.3-1) - - e) Storm water drainage? (#2: pg 5.12.3-1) - - f) Solid waste disposal? (#2: pg 5.12.4-1) - - g) Local or regional water supplies? (#2: pg 5.12.2-1) - - Xm. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (a: pg 5.1 1- 1) - - - - X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (#2: pg 5.1 1-1) - c) Create light or glare? (a: pg 5.11-1) - XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l: pg 44) - b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l: pg 44) - c) Affect historical resources? (#l: pg 44) - d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would afTect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l: pg 44) - e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l: pg 44) - X - 10 Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and supparti Infarmritian sourcear): XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#2: pg 5.12.8-1) - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#2: pg 5.12.8-1) XVI. 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 wild life 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? (“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) - X - - Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - - - X XVII. 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. 11 Rev. 3/28/95 b) Impads 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 refmed from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 12 Rev. 3f28p5 ,.- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DEsCRIPTION/ENvIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project is a 21,004 square foot tilt-up concrete building to be constructed on a pregraded lot within a existing industrial park Building height will not exceed the maximum of 35 feet. Design and materials of th proposed building will be typical of the industrial area. Access to the site will be provided via an existing driveway cut on Kellogg Drive, and parking will be provided onsite at the ratios required by the City of Carlsbad Parking ordinance. A variety of landscape materials will be installed substantially in conformance with a conceptual landscape plan. As stated by the project applicant, the uses conducted within the building will be limited to administration, warehousin and assembly. Typically such uses will not require an above average need for energy consumption nor will they creat effects that will impact the surrounding exterior environment. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DISCUSSION The following sections within this Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part II have been fully addressed withi other documents which have been cited and require no additional discussion: Land use and Planning Population and Housing Geologic Problems Water Biological Resou~.~s Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Public Services (see discussion regarding roads and governmental services) Utilities and Service Systems (see discussion regarding communications) Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation V. AIR OUALITY: a. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Pla will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently resul in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the Sa Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions ar considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigatio measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersectio improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through th implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternativ modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and 13 Rev. 3128/95 site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of th project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively SignXcant because the project is located within a "non attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This projec is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certificatio of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overridin Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequen projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. b. There is no evidence that there are sensitive receptors (people susceptible to respiratory distress) proposed as par of the project. c. Experience has shown us that typical industrial buildings will not have an effect on the movement of air or caus a change in climate. d. The project description has not identified any use within the proposed building which would create objectionabl odors. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: a. The implementation of subsequent projects that are! consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Pla will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-tra€€k over which th City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigatio measufes have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision o circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participatio in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstat or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. Th applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into th design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively signifkant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-trafftc, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation o an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement 0 Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, includin this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. 14 Rev. 3/28/95 b. d. f. g. The project has been designed to the prelimiwy design of the master plan. No changes have been made tha would create conflict or safety hazards. Parking has been provided according to the standards identified in th Parking ordinance. Parking has been provided according to the standards identified in the Parking Ordinance. Palomar Airport Road and College Boulevard have bike lanes and Palomar has a bus rout that is convenient to the project. The proposed project complies with the Airport plan regarding location of buildings relative to air traffic. No conflict has been identified. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES: City services such as public street maintenance and admumha tion are provided and those services are paid for ou of the General Fund. The proposed project will contribute to the fund through the payment of building fees and annua tax assessments. Payment of the fees and taxes is a guarantee that the services will be provided. The City has predetermined the level of services needed for the various segments of the community and through th General Plan the services required by the proposed project have been anticipated and will be provided. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: communication systems are typically provided by the various companies that provide such services. The project wil not require an increase in the core communications system nor will it require the development of a new system i order to be adequately serviced. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See the discussion under Air Quality and Traffic/Circulation. XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES: This project site is within a planned industrial park which was analyzed in an earlier EIR (EIR 816). The curren project is umsistent with the site development as originally anticipated and analyzed in that EIR. III. SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All of the source documents are on file in the Planning Department located .. 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161.) 1. Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Business Center (EIR 816), WESTEC Services, Inc., Marc 1982. 2. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbd General Plan Update (EIR 9341), City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994. 3. City of Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, September 1994. 15 Rev. 3/28/95 LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATI'ACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Ip APPLICABLE) 16 APPLICANT CONC THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date 17