HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIP 98-06; Carlsbad Palomar Business Park; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (17)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: PIP 98-06
DATE: Mav 13, 1998
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Palomar Business Park
2. APPLICANT: Industrial Developments International
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 18 101 Von Karman Ave. Suite 120,
Irvine CA, 92612, (760) 833-9998
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 2,1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Two industrial buildings - 157,602 sq. fi. and 82,700 sq. fi. both are
two stow buildings on pre-graded pads. - Lots 32, 33, and 34 of CT 74-21. also identified as
APN’s 209-083-0 1, 02.03-00
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.
0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water
[XI Air Quality
0 Hazards Cultural Resources
0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
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 EIFUNegative
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 Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
r- f396
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
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 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.
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. 03/28/96
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 EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-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.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
r' 1
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s):
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 CI
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
population projections? 0 0
housing? 0
0 0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (# 1 :Pg 5.1-5)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (# 1 :Pg 5.1 - 12)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pg
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pg 5.1-9)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pg 5.1-1 1)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pg 5.1-11)
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
5.1-12)
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
0 IXI
0 (XI
0 [XI 0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 [XI 0 [xi 0 [XI
0 [XI 0 IXI 0 IXI
0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI
0 [XI
0 IXI o rn
0 IXI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
>?
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
f) Changes 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?
o
0
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
o 0 0 otherwise available for public water supplies?
0
0
[XI
IXI
0 0 0 0
IXI
[XI
[XI
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pg 5.3- ixI
4) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pg 5.3-4)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? 0
0 0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
IXI IXI
IXI
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pg
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
proposal result in:
. 5.7-10)
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
[XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0
0
IXI IXI IXI IXI
IXI
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?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
0 0 [XI
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
/"
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pg 5.12.1 and 5.13.1)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (# 1 :Pg 5.12.1-4)
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? (# 1 :Pg 5.13-5)
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)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
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? (#l:Pg 5.12.5-3)
Police protection? (#l:Pg 5.12.6-2)
Schools? (#l:Pg 5.12.7.4)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
Other governmental services? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg
5.12.4-1)
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-3; Pg 5.12.4-1)
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pg 5.12.2-5)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pg 5.12.3-4)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#1 :Pg 5.12.4-2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
T
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
t
o 0 0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
No
Impact
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI IXI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI IXI IXI
[XI IXI IXI
7 Rev. 03/28/96
7-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pg 5.12.2-5) 0 0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IXI
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
0 o 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
Ix1 Ix1 IXI
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? n n o 0 Ix1 IXI IXI IXI
[XI
b) Disturb archaeological resources? U U n rl
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
U 0 0 U
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 0 0
0 0
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? 0 0 0
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
parks or other recreational facilities? (# 1 :Pg 5.13.8-5) 0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
IXI
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 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?
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 the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
0 0 0
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 IXI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
Y
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.
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.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project is the construction of two industrial office/manufacturing building. The
building sizes are 157,602sq. ft. and 82,700 sq. ft. The project site is a three parcles of land
totaling 17.06 acres. The site has pregraded pads within an existing partly developed industrial
office park. The project involves balanced grading with 606 cu yds of export proposed. The
proposed buildings are designed in compliance with all City requirements.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
1. Land Use and Planning
(a-e) The project is consistent with the General Plan designation (PI-Planned Industrial)
and the zoning (PM-Planned Industrial) on the property and does not conflict with
any environmental plans. It is compatible with surrounding uses which are also
industrial office uses. The project site does not contain any agricultural uses or
farmlands.
2. Population and Housing
(a-c) The project is not expected to result in substantial growth directly or indirectly. It
is an industrial office building. There is no housing on the site or planned for the
site.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
rc -..
3. Geologic Problems
(f, h, i) The project is not expected to result in erosion, changes in topography, unstable
soil conditions, or subsidence. The applicant will be required to comply with all
normal city regulations regarding erosion control during and after grading and
construction activities. The site has no unique geologic or physical features which
would be altered as a result of development.
4. Water
(a-i) Development of the subject site will affect existing site absorption rates.
However, development of the proposed project includes all infrastructure
necessary to accommodate any increase in runoff. The project will not expose
people to flooding or other water hazards. The project also will not result in
changes to surface or ground water. There are no water bodies or ground water
sources on or near the project site.
5. 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 particulate. 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 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 krther environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This
document is available at the Planning Department.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
(c, d) The proposed project will not result in changes to air movement, temperature,
moisture, or climate. The project is designed with adequate setbacks and
complies with the City’s applicable height restrictions. The project is also not
expected to result in objectionable odors. Any user of the facility must comply
with the performance standards (including odor standards) contained in the
specific plan which governs the site.
6. TransportatiodCirculation
(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,
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.
(b-g) The project is not expected to result in negative impacts to the traffic/circulation
system as the project is designed to comply with all applicable City standards to
ensure safety of design. The design provides adequate emergency access to the
site and neighboring sites, provides sufficient parking on-site, and does not create
hazards or barriers for non-vehicular traffic. The design does not conflict with
adopted policies regarding alternative transportation and will not interfere with
11 Rev. 03/28/96
7.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
rail, waterborne, or air traffic. The site does not contain, and is not near, rail or
waterborne traffic systems and is compatible with the Palomar Airport CLUP
Biological Resources
(a-e) The project site contains no endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats, and no designated natural communities or wetlands. The site also does
not serve as a wildlife dispersal or migration corridor. The site is a pregraded pad
within an existing, partly developed industrial office park.
Hazards
The project is not expected to result in exposure of people to any hazards,
including explosions, release of hazardous substances, or fire. No storage of
hazardous materials or waste is proposed. The project is required to be designed
in compliance with the City’s Landscape Manual which addresses fire suppression
methods.
The project is not expected to result in severe noise levels. Any user of the
facility will be required to comply with the performance standards (including
noise standards) contained in the specific plan governing the project site.
Public Services
(d) The project will be served by public streets. All necessary maintenance
arrangements (public and private) will be made as conditions of approval of the
project.
Utilities and Services Systems
(b) The project site is served by all necessary public utilities and service systems.
Aesthetics
(a-c) The project site does not contain, and is not located near, a scenic vista or scenic
highway. The project lighting will be located and directed such that there will be
no negative impact to surrounding (also industrial office) uses. Therefore, the
project is not expected to create unacceptable light or glare.
Cultural Resources
(a-e) The project is not expected to result in impacts to any cultural resources. The
project site is a pregraded pad created when the original mass grading for the
industrial office park was done.
Recreational
(b) The project will not affect existing recreational opportunities. There are no
recreational opportunities on or planned for the project site.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
13 Rev. 03/28/96