Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIP 00-04A; Carlsbad Airport Center Lot 24; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (7)Project Addresshcation: Project Description: NEGATIVE DECLARATION That area covered by the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego Revisions to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan to conditionally allow industrial uses within the 75 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour interval. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above-described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: PUBLISH DATE: August 15,2001 EIA 01-02 McClellan-Palomar Airport CLUP Revisions August 15,2001 Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ~~ ~~~~~~~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART-17 (TO bil COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 CA>E NO: EIA 01-02 DA? E: August 9. 2001 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: McClellan-Palomar Airport CLUP Revisions 2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad. CA 92008 (760) 602-4600 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: nfa 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revisions to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) to conditionally allow industrial uses within the 75 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour interval. 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 H TransportationfCirculation Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water H Air Quality OHazards 0 Noise 0 Cultural Resources 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have 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. A(n) 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 pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. / 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 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. 0 “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. 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 11”, 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). 0 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. 03/28/96 a 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. e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant 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 sipficant; (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 -_ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation .moporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the 0 0 om 0 0 om project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? 0 0 om cl 0 OB Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or 0 LI OIXI minority community)? 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infiastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? 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? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 0 0 om 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 om 5 Rev. 03/28/96 /h Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 0 0 OIXI capability? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 0 0 OIxl 0 0 OB 0 0 OIxl V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? existing or projected air quality violation? IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI Ixl Ixl VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses IXI 0 0 0' 0 0 OB - (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? 0 0 OB 0 0 om 0 0 OIxl 0 0 OIxl 0 0 OH transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ixl Ixl IXI IXI El VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wastehl and 0 0 ON 0 0 OIXI inefficient manner? 6 Rev. 03/28/96 -4 h Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 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 0 0 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 frre 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: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact OB OB n[xI OB om OB 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? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 facilities? ,o 0 d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 0 0 0 0 17 7 Rev. 03/28/96 P Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities Affect existing recreational opportunities? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively. considerable? (“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)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? h Potentially Potentially Less Than NO Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 cl OB 0 om 0 0 om 8 Rev. 03/28/96 h -. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposal involves an amendment to the Comprehensive Land. Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan-Palomar Airport. The amendment would conditionally allow industrial uses within the 75 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour interval. Currently, the CLUP states that only agriculture, extractive industry, fishing and golf courses are allowed inside of the 75 dBA CNEL noise contour. The proposed amendment would allow industrial uses within this noise contour interval provided that certain restrictions and conditions are incorporated into the project. These restrictions and conditions would include internal noise levels not to exceed 50 dBA CNEL, provision of adequate indoor employee eating areas, limits on maximum occupancy, requirements for hold harmless agreements, additional height restrictions, and mandatory fire safety measures. Prior to the 1994 amendment of the CLUP, the 75 dBA CNEL noise contour was completely contained within the airport property. Consistent with the location of the noise contours, the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designated the surrounding properties for industrial development. In 1982 the Carlsbad Airport Centre Specific Plan (SP 181) was adopted, allowing industrial development in accordance with the City’s General Plan and Zoning designations. Subsequent to the adoption of the Specific Plan, a subdivision map (CT 81-46) was approved and recorded with the County Recorder in July of 1985. This map created industrially designated, legal parcels around the western and southern boundaries of the airport property. In 1994 a revision to the CLUP was approved. This revision included a modification of the noise contours that showed the 75 &A CNEL contour extending off of the airport property; however, the text of the CLUP still stated that the 75 dBA CNEL contour was completely contained within the airport property. This inconsistency remained largely undetected until the City received an application for development of two lots on Dryden Place. The subject area covers approximately 37 acres and includes 25 legally created parcels. The lots were created through Carlsbad Tract No. CT 81-46, Carlsbad Tract No. CT 95-04, and Parcel Maps No. 17721 and 18313 and some of the lots are developed with industrial and office uses. Of the 20 parcels partially within the 75 dBA CNEL noise contour, 12 have already been developed with industrial uses. These developments were designed such that the building and employee outdoor eating areas were on that part of the parcel that is outside of the 75 dBA CNEL contour. One development, a mini-warehouse/storage use, is located completely within the 75 dBA CNEL contour. Of the remaining 12 currently undeveloped parcels, nine are located such that either the entire parcel or a large majority of the parcel lies within the 75 dBA CNEL contour. The proposed revisions to the CLUP would conditionally allow industrial and office uses, with appropriate restrictions and conditions. These additional restrictions and conditions would include: 0 Occupancy of the building is limited to 100 persons at any one time; 0 Interior noise levels must be mitigated to a maximum of 50 dBA CNEL; 0 Building height is limited to 35 feet, precluding use of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance allowance for 45-foot building height with increased setbacks; 9 Rev. 03/28/96 Requirement for a Hold Harmless Agreement to the City and other appropriate agencies for aircraft noise and operations; Requirement for a Notice of Restriction to be filed on the property, noting the site’s location within the 75 &A CNEL aircraft noise contour and listing the required mitigation and restrictions; 0 Inclusion of additional fire safety measures in the building construction as deemed necessary by the Carlsbad Fire Marshal; 0 Exemption from the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance requirement for outdoor employee eating areas. The above listed measures would reduce the potential impacts of development within the 75 &A CNEL aircraft noise contour on the subject properties to an acceptable level. The appropriate locations within the CLUP for these revisions would likely be in Figure 3, “McClellan-Palomar Airport NoiseLand Use Compatibility Matrix (page 9). Some discussion of the conditionally allowed uses could also be added to Section IV. - Noise Contours on pages 7 and 8 for clarification. In addition, the CLUP text on within Section IV, page 8 currently states, “CNEL’s above 75 remain within the airport boundary”. This statement would also need revision. It is anticipated that these revisions will be processed by the SANDAG Airport Land Use Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting. LAND USE AND PLANNING Since the existing CLUP does not allow industrial development on industrially designated properties, the CLUP is not consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning designations. The proposed CLUP amendment would conditionally allow industrial uses on these lands, thereby providing consistency between the CLUP, Carlsbad General Plan, and Carlsbad Zoning. Incorporation of the conditions and restrictions listed above would allow the industrial uses to be compatible with the airport uses and the noise generated by aircraft operations. Allowance of the development of the industrial lots consistent with their existing General Plan and Zoning designations would not conflict with any applicable environmental plans or policies. No significant agricultural resources or housing communities exist within the subject area, therefore no impacts to such would occur. POPULATION AND HOUSING The proposed revisions to the CLUP have no impact to population or housing in that no residential uses are allowed or proposed within the 75 dBA CNEL noise contours. No existing housing exists within the subject area and the proposed CLUP amendment would not induce substantial growth since no alterations to the City’s General Plan buildout are proposed or required with this amendment. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS The proposed revisions to the CLUP do not affect the physical characteristics of the subject properties and, therefore, the proposal would not result in an increased exposure to geologic impacts such as seismicity, liquifaction, landslides, or other unstable soil conditions. None of the 10 Rev. 03/28/96 development restrictions proposed with the CLUP amendment deal with geotechnical or soil conditions. Future development of the undeveloped lots affected by the CLUP revisions would be consistent with the underlying subdivision map(s) and would conform to the recommendations of the corresponding geotechnical investigation and the current City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards. WATER The proposal is administrative in nature and does not change the physical aspects of the subject properties. Therefore, no changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, water related hazards, surface or groundwater levels and quality will result due to the proposed amendment to the CLUP. None of the development restrictions proposed with the CLUP amendment deal with water supply or water quality conditions. Future development of the undeveloped lots affected by the CLUP revisions would be consistent with the underlying subdivision map(s) and would conform to the recommendations of the corresponding hydrology report and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Standards. AIR OUALITY: In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result fiom the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts in the form of 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 build-out 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 build-out, 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 projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: 11 Rev. 03/28/96 In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out 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 build-out. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, 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 build-out 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 projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MER This document is available at the Planning Department. A MER may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The proposed revisions to the CLUP do not impact physical development of the subject property and, therefore, have no affect on biological resources. None of the development restrictions proposed with the CLUP amendment deal with biological resources. Subsequent development of the currently undeveloped properties would be subject to the site-specific biological evaluation and any City-wide biological regulatory documents in effect at that time (such as the City’s Habitat Management Plan). 12 Rev. 03/28/96 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES The amendments proposed for the CLUP are regulatory in nature and do not impact the physical aspects of the subject property. The development restrictions proposed with the 8 'LUP amendment, such as occupancy limits and building height limits, do not affect energy or rnmeral resources. Therefore, no conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or impacts - non- renewable resources or known mineral resources will result from the proposed amendmen:. HAZARDS The subject property covered by the proposed revisions to the CLUP is covered by a Specific Plan and was previously subdivided through an industrial subdivision. The General Plan and Zoning designations of the subject properties call for industrial uses. A large majority of the properties are located within the Flight Activity Zone and, therefore, are already restricted by the provisions of the CLUP. The CLUP calls for these properties to be free from intensive development, including residential development over ten dwelling per acre, high-rise development, and uses with an assemblage of more than 100 people. Therefore, the amendment to the CLUP to allow the continued development of the properties within the 75 dBA CNEL noise contour with industrial uses would not increase the risk of exposure to accidental explosion, release of hazardous substances, or potential health hazards. Since no emergency response or evacuation plans involve the subject properties, no impacts to such would occur. NOISE The existing CLUP states that only agriculture, extractive industries, fishing activities, utilities, public rights-of-way, and golf courses can be located within the 75 &A CNEL aircraft noise contour. The proposed revisions would conditionally allow industrial uses within the 75BA CNEL subject to soundproofing, noticing, and other conditions. These conditions include limits on interior noise levels and restrictions on outdoor employee eating areas. By ensuring that the interior noise levels of future industrial uses do not exceed 50 &A CNEL and that adequate indoor employee eating areas are provided, the proposed revisions to the CLUP would not expose people to severe noise levels. Development of the industrial properties in conformance with their existing General Plan and Zoning designations would not significantly increase existing noise levels. PUBLIC SERVICESAJTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The subject property covered by the proposed revisions to the CLUP has been subdivided and infrastructure has been provided to all but nine parcels. As required by the City's Growth Management Program all public services and utilities necessary to serve the development are already in place or are required prior to, or concurrent with, the development of the property. The proposed amendments to the CLUP would therefore have no effect on the provision of public services and utilities to the existing parcels. AESTHETICS The proposed revisions to the CLUP would not create significant impacts to the aesthetics of the subject area. There are no scenic vistas or highways within the subject property and no significant sources of light or glare are proposed with the CLUP amendment. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 , CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed revisions to the CLUP do not affect the physical development of the subject properties and, therefore, would not lead to the disturbance of paleontological, archeological, or historical resources. Future development of these properties would be subject to the provisions of appropriate site-specific cultural resource evaluations. The subject properties do not contain any existing religious or sacred uses, therefore no impact to such would occur. RECREATIONAL There are currently no recreational opportunities within the subject area. The proposed revisions to the CLUP would allow development of the properties consistent with their General Plan and Zoning designations and, therefore, would not increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. All employee eating areas would be provided indoors, where the noise levels would be limited to a maximum of 50 dBA CNEL. 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 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760) 602-4600. 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. 14 Rev. 03/28/96