Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIP 95-03; Exhibit Art Lot 43; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (7)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. PIP 95-03 DATE: February 7. 1995 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Exhibit Art 2. APPLICANT David MacKichan 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT 1313 Simtxon Way, Suite" Escondido. CA. 92029 (619) 739-9454 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: January 30, 1995 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a 25.684 sauare foot. two-story, tilt-uD concrete office/mufacturindwarehouse building in the Carlsbad Airport 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 - Transportation/Circulation - 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 - X Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 3/28/95 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. 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. 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 significant 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 REPORT/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 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 EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date CWvd 2 Rev. 3/28/95 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply dues not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact'' answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 0 "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact dues not exceed adopted general standards and policies. 0 "potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated'' applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact.'' The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 0 "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. 0 Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but 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 Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. 0 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. l/3019S If there are 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. 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 Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier Em, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (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 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (EIR 81-6, page 90) Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact . Incorporated Impact Impact b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (EIR 81-6, page 50) - - c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (EIR 81-6, page 90) - - d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (EIR 81-6, page 86) - - e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? (EIR 81-6, page 90) - - II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (EIR 81-6, page 107) - - b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (EIR 81-6, page 107) - - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (EIR 81-6, page 90) - - 5 Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Infamation Sources): III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (EIR 8 1-6, page 80) - b) Seismic ground shaking? (EIR 81-6, page 80) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (EIR 81-6, page 82) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (EIR 81-6, page 83 and EIR 93-01, page 5.1-9) e) Landslides or mudflows? (EIR 81-6, page 82) - f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (EIR 8 1-6, page 77) g) Subsidence of the land? (EIR 81-6, Page 77) - h) Expansive soils? (EIR 8 1-6, page 82) - i) Unique geologic or physical features? (EIR 81-6, page, 77) - IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (EIR 81-6, page 84) - b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (EIR 81-6, page 84) - 6 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Suppating Infamatian Sources): Discharge into surface waters or other . alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (EIR 8 1-6, page 84) - - Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (EIR 8 1-6, page 84) - - Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (EIR 81-6, page 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? (EIR 8 1-6, page 84) - - Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (EIR 81-6, page 84) - - Impacts to groundwater quality? (Em 81-6, page 84) - - Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (EIR 8 1-6, page 84) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (EIR 81-06, page 71; EIR 93-01, page 5.3-4) - 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) - - 7 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and supporting Informarial sources): VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUTION. Would the proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or tdEc congestion? (EIR 81-06 pages 31-39) - Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (See Discussion) - Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (EIR 8 1-06 pages 31-39) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (See Discussion) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (See Discussion; EIR 93-01 page 5.7-6) - Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (EIR 8 1-06 pages 3 1-39) - Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (See Discussion) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (EIR 81-06 pages 50-57) - b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (EIR 81-06 pages 50-57) - X X - X - X - X - X - X - X - X - 8 Rev. 1/3op5 Issues (and Supporting Infamnfitm Sources): c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (EIR 814% pages 50-57) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (EIR 8 1-06 pages 50-57) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (EIR 81-06 pages 50-57) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (ElR 93-01 page 5.13) Potentially Potentially Unless LessThan Significaut Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Jmpact b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (EIR 93-01 page 5.13) - - c) 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? (EIR 93- 01 page 5.13) - - IX. 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? (EIR 93-01, pages 5.10.2-1 to 5.10.2-9) - - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (See Project Description) - - 9 d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (EIR 93-01; pages 5.10.2-1 to 5.10.2-9) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or bees? (See Project Description) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (See Project Description) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (EIR 93-01 pages 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: a) Fire protection? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.5-1) b) Police protection? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.6-1) c) Schools? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.7-1) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (See Discussion) e) Other governmental services? (See Discussion) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.1-1) b) Communications systems? (See Discussion) 10 Rev. 1/30/!25 Issues (and supparti Infmatiaa Sources): c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.2-1) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.3-1) e) Storm water drainage? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.3-1) f) Solid waste disposal? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.4-1) g) Local or regional water supplies? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.2-1) Xm. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (EIR 93-01 page 5.11-1) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (EIR 93-01 page 5.11-1) c) Create light or glare? (EIR 93-01 page 5.11-1) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? (EIR 81-06 page 44) Disturb archaeological resources? (EIR 81-06 page 44) Affect historical resources? (EIR 81-06 page 44) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (EIR 81-06 page 44) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (EIR 81-06 page 44) X 7 X X - - X - X - 11 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Supparting Infarmatian Sources): XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhoqd or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.8-1) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (EIR 93- 01 page 5.12.8-1) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or 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? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X - X - X - 12 Rev. 1/30/95 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: Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. 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. 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-specifk conditions for the project. 13 Rev. 1/30/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ... .. . ... A 25,684 square foot tilt-up concrete building to be constructed on a pregraded lot within an existing industrial park. Building height will not exceed the maximum of 35 feet. Design and materials of the 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 Zoning 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, warehousing and assembly. Typically such uses will not require an above average need for energy consumption nor will they create effects that will impact the surrounding exterior environment. The following sections within this Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part II have been fully addressed within other documents which have been cited and require no additional discussion: I. II. m. Iv. V. VI. VII. VIII. Ix. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. xv. Land Use and Planning a)b)c)d)e Population and Housing a)b)c Geologic Problems a)b)c)d)e)f)g)h)i Water a)b)c)d)e)f)g)h)i Air Quality b)c)d TransportatioflCirculation c)e Biological Resources a)b)c)d)e Energy and Mineral Resources a)b)c Hazards a)b)c)d)e Noise a)b Public Services a)b)c Utilities and Service Systems a)c)d)e)f)g Aesthetics a)b)c Cultural Resources a)b)c)d)e Recreation a)b V. AIR QUALITY: a) The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result 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 San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are 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 mitigation 14 Rev. 3/28/95 h mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and 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 the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plank 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. There is no evidence that there are sensitive receptors (people susceptible to respiratory distress) proposed as part of the project. Experience has shown us that typical industrial buildings will not have an effect on the movement of air or cause a change in climate. The project description has not identified any use within the proposed building which would create objectionable odors. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: a) The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan 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-traffic over which the 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 mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of 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) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study'' checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, 15 Rev. 3/28/95 therefore, the preparation of 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 Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. The project has been designed to the preliminary design of the master plan. No changes have been made that would create conflict or safety hazards. 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. Complies with the Airport plan regarding location of buildings relative to air traffic. No conflict has been identified. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES : d) City services such as public street maintenance and administration are provided and those services are paid for out of the General Fund. The proposed project will contribute to the fund through the payment of building fees and annual tax assessments. Payment of the fees and taxes is a guarantee that the services will be provided. e) The City has predetermined the level of services needed for the various segments of the community and through the General Plan the services required by the proposed project have been anticipated and will be provided. XU. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: b) Communication systems are typically provided by the various companies that provide such services. The project will not require an increase in the core communications system nor will it require the development of a new system in order to be adequately serviced. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See the discussion under Air Quality and Traffic/Circulation. 16 Rev. 3/28/95 c LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) A'ITACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CIF APPLICABLE) 17 Rev. 1130195 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I.HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 18 Rev. 1/30/95