The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPIP 95-08; Homes for Industry Lot 39; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (21)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. PIP 95-08PLJD 95-02/MS 95-05 DATE: November 20. 1995 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CASE NAME: HOMES FOR INDUSTRY - (LOT 39) APPLICANT: ANTHONY HAI. ST. GEORGE’S HOLDINGS ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2223 Avenida De La Playa. Suite 200, La Jolla, California 92037: (619) 551-5600 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMIITED: September 5. 1995 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subdivision of a 2.79 acre parcel - into four lots and the construction of one tilt-ut, concrete manufacturing building ranginn in size from 5.029 to 9,987 sauare feet on each lot. The parcel has been Dremded and is located within the Carlsbad Aimort Centre industrial park. 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 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 - Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 3/28/95 P 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 IMPACI' 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 REPORTFIITIGATED 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 signifcant 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. 0 0 11- 21-'15 Planner Signature Date Planning Director gptdd Date 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 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 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 significant. Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially signifcant 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 Signifkant 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. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its amts may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 3/28/95 0 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. 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 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. 3/28/95 Issues (all Potentially Sienificant d Supporting Information Sources): I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (#3: pgs. 7, 18) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l: pg. 50) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l: pg. 90; #3 pgs. 7, 18) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts 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: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l: pg. 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)? (#1: pg. 107; #2: pg. 7.0-2) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l: pg. 90) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l: pgs. 80, 83; #2: pg. 5.1-9) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l: pg. 83; #2: pgs. 5.1-9, 5.1-10, 5.1-12) LessThan Significant Impact No Impact 5 Rev. 3/28/95 /- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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. 5.1-11, 5.1-12) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l: pg. 77) Subsidence of the land? (#1: 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 surface runoff? (#1: pg. 84) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l: pg. 84; #2: pg. 5.2-6) Discharge into dace 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 body? (#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) -, Potentially Significant UllleSS Mitigation Incorporated - No Impact X - X - X - 6 X - - Rev. 3/28/95 g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l: Pg. 891 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: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l: pg. 71; #2: pg. 5.3-4) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (See Discussion) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (See Discussion) Create objectionable odors? (See Discussion) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l: pgs. 31-39) 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) Insuffkient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (See Discussion) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (See Discussion; #2: pg. 5.7-6) Potentially Sienificant -, Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - - Less- Significaut No Impact Impact 7 Rev. 3/28/95 h Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact UdeSS hThan Potentially Significaut ImPt f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l: pgs. 3 1-39) - g) 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? (#l: pgs. 50-57) - b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l: pgs. 50-57) - c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l: pgs. 50-57) - d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l: pgs. 50-57) - e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l: pgs. 50- 57) - VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (a: pg. 5.13) - b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#2: pg. 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? (#2: pg. 5.13) - 8 Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (See Project Description) - - Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#2: pgs. 5.10.2-1 to 5.10.2-9) - - The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (See Project Description) - - Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#2: pgs. 5.10.2-1 to 5.10.2-9) - - Increase fEe 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) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#2: 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? (#2: pg. 5.12.5-1) - - Police protection? (#2: pg. 5.12.6-1) - - Schds? (#2: pg. 5.12.7-1) - - Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (See Discussion) - - Other governmental services? (See Discussion) - - 9 Rev. 3/28/95 XIt. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Power or natural gas? (#2: pg. 5.12.1-1) - - Communications systems? (See Discussion) - - Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#2: pg. 5.12.2-1) - - Sewer or septic tanks? (#2: pg. 5.12.3-1) - - Storm water drainage? (#2: pg. 5.12.3-1) - - Solid waste disposal? (#2: pg. 5.12.4-1) - - Local or regional water supplies? (#2: pg. 5.12.2-1) - - XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (#2: pg. 5.1 1- 1) - - b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (#2: pg. 5.1 1-1) - - c) Create light or glare? (#2: pg. 5.411-1) - - 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 affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#1 : pg. 44) - - e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l: pg. 44) - - X - 10 Rev. 3/28/95 Potentially Sinificant Potentially UdeSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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. 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) - X - - - c) 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 c 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. 12 Rev. 3/28/95 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project consists of subdividing a 2.79 acre parcel into four lots and constructing one manufacturing building ranging in size from 5,029 to 9,987 square feet on each lot. The buildings would be tilt-up concrete and would be constructed on a pregraded lot within an existing industrial park. Building height will be approximately 26 feet. Design and materials of the proposed building will be typical of the industrial area. Access to the site will be provided 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 in substantial conformance with the conceptual landscape plan submitted. As stated by the project applicant, the uses conducted within the building will be limited to manufacturing with a limited amount of office (approximately 430 square feet per building). 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. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DISCUSSION The following sections within this Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part 11 have been fully addressed within other documents which have been cited and require no additional discussion: Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Geologic Problems Water Biological Resources 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 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 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 13 Rev. 3/28/95 d 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 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 part of the project. c. Experience has shown us that typical industrial buildings will not have an effect on the movement of air or cause a change in climate. d. The project description has not identified any use within the proposed building which would create objectionable Odors. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUL,ALATION: 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: (1) 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, 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 14 Rev. 3/28/95 b. d. f. g. XI. Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. The project has been designed consistent with the specific plan. No changes have been made that would create conflict or safety hazards. Parking has been provided according to the standards identified in the Carlsbad Parking Ordinance. Palomar Airport Road and College Boulevard have bike lanes and Palomar Airport Road has a bus route that is convenient to the project. The proposed project complies with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan regarding location of buildings relative to air traffic. No conflict has been identified. PUBLIC SERVICES: 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. 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. x][[. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: 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. XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES: This project site is within a planned industrial park which was analyzed in an earlier EIR (EIR 81-6). The current project is consistent 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 81-6), WESTEC Services, Inc., March 1982. 2. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (EIR 93-01), 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 7 LIST MITIGATING MEASURES IIF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 16 Rev. 3/28/95 P .I 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 Rev. 3/28/95