HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIP 94-03; AALTO Scientific, Ltd.; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (15)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. PIP 94-03
DATE: October 24. 1994
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Aalto Scientific Ltd.
2. APPLICANT Ken Smith of Structureform
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 435 W. Bradley Avenue.Suite C
El Caion. CA 92020
(6 19) 444-2 182
4. DATEEIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: SeDtember 7. 1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pro~~sal to construct a 25.414.8 sauare foot industrial building with
office. storage. lab and manufacturinp mace for a biotech firm.
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 or Negative Declaration.
* 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. On the checklist, "NO will be checked to indicate
this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project
may cause a Significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however,
if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant. These findings are
shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively.
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.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(sig) (insig)
NO
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards? X
X -
X
2. Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
3.
Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
4.
X -
Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
5.
6.
X
Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? X
7.
8.
Substantially change the come or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? X
Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply? X
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources? X
X Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 10.
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object? X
-2-
r' -
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
YES
(insig)
NO
X
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
X
X
X
X
NO
X
X
-3-
- ,-7
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(sig) (insig)
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
Increase existing noise levels?
Produce new light or glare?
Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
Generate substantial additional traffic?
Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
Jrnpact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
X
NO
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-4-
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(sig) C&&
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially 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 en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory.
34. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
35. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively con-
siderable" meam that the incremental
effects of an individual 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.)
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
NO
X
X
X
X
-5-
p.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The project consists of constructing a 25,414 square foot industrial building (4,000 square feet of which will be future
expansion) on a pregraded 1.55 acre lot. The property is primarily level in grade with the exception of some 2: 1
manufactured slopes separating the subject property from adjacent streets and properties. The property is currently
graded consistent with city standards; the finished grading required to accommodate the proposed building will also
meet city standards. These standards include the incorporation of erosion control techniques and grading which will
not expose people to geological hazards or unstable earth conditions. The proposed grading will only create minor
topographical changes which will visually be undetectable. No earthquake faults have been identified on the property.
The project will not effect any water sources, as residuals from runoff will be directed into the sewer system. No
lakes, streams, oceans, or other bodies of water are in the vicinity. No substantial amounts of energy will be
consumed or used due to the nature and size of the proposed use. No archeological or historical structures or objects
have been identified on site. EIR 8 1-6, which evaluated the impacts which would result from implementation of the
Specific Plan, indicates that no archeological sites existed on the subject property prior to mass grading of the
Specific Plan area. Consumption of fossil fuels and electricity will not be above that typically associated with the
proposal. EIR 81-6 evaluated the impacts to air quality. Autos are the main contributor to air pollutants, and
recommended mitigation measures such as car pooling and locating the compact parking spaces in close proximity
to work areas have been encouraged and incorporated, respectively.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
Since the 1.55 acre property has been completely disturbed from its natural state and no vegetation other than
hydroseeded slopes exist on site, the project is not expected to affect the diversity of species, habitat, or numbers of
any species of plants or animals. New plants will be introduced as part of a landscape plan consistent with the City's
landscape manual. However, the property is not near any properties containing native vegetation so the potential for
invasive encroachment of exotic plants is not a concern. No farmland or agricultural crops are on or near the vicinity
of the property. No animals are associated with the project and any potential barriers to the migration of animals
would have already been created by development of the surrounding roads and building pads.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
The land use of the area is planned for office and industrial users. Public utilities companies, and police and fire
departments have already assessed the impacts associated with the industrial park, and incorporated all necessary
measures to ensure that development of this park will not significantly impact their level of service. Fees are paid
during the issuance of building permits to mitigate impacts to schools. The existing sewer and solid waste disposal
systems are adequate to handle waste created on site. Applicable federal, state, and county agencies will be required
to regulate the handling and disposal of any hazardous waste on site. Regulations require that such materials be
handled in such a way as to minimize impacts to human hdth and the environment. Noise levels will not increase
significantly since all business activities will be conducted indoors. As required per the McClellan-Palomar Airport
Land Use Plan, measures will be incorporated to mitigate noise impacts from Palomar Airport flight activity. The
project will be conditioned to require that all light be directed downward so as not to create glare or flood onto
adjacent properties. With only 16 employees and an expected traffic generation of 150 average daily trips, the project
will not substantially alter the density of the human population, create a significant demand for additional housing,
or generate substantial additional traffic. All required off-street parking will be provided and Kellogg Avenue can
handle the increase in traffic without the need to modify any circulation or transportation systems. No waterborne
or rail traffic are in the vicinity, and the building is located outside the Crash Hazard Zone of nearby Mcclellan-
Palomar Airport. Kellogg Avenue meets right-of-way standards, so no hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or
pedestrians are expected. Since the property was planned for the proposed use, any emergency response plans have
already been developed with the understanding that an industrial building would be placed on this lot. The building
will not be aesthetically offensive since it is designed with attractive architectural features. No recreational facilities
exist on or near the property; therefore, none will be affected.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Since the property has already been disturbed through previous grading and the grading, streets and land use for the
property, as well as surrounding property, is designed to accommodate industrial buildings, the project does not 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, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. No examples of
California history or prehistory have been identified on site, and no evidence has been documented to suggest that
such examples exist on site.
The Significant environmental effects which would have resulted from developing the business park under SP 181
have already been mitigated to a level of insignificance through certification and implementation of EIR 81-6.
Because development of the proposed project would fall within the standards and intent of the Specific Plan, it can
be concluded that the long term environmental goals can be achieved as already determined through implementation
of SP 181.
The cumulative impacts of developing all of the pads within the business park have also been evaluated through EIR
81-6. Therefore, developing the subject property will not create any new impacts above and beyond that which has
already been evaluated and mitigated.
No substantial effects to human beings are anticipated since the building must be constructed to meet safety
requirements in conformance with Title 24 (building code) and the driveway widths, the street system, and handicap
access are all adequate under existing regulations to properly provide a safe environment.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project consists of developing a 2 1,414 square foot industrial building with future expansion area for
4,000 square feet of additional floor area at 1959 Kellogg Avenue in the Carlsbad Airport Business Center. The lot
is 1.55 acre and pregraded for development of an industrial building. The property is surrounded by other graded
pads and industrial buildings, as well as McClellan-Palomar Airport to the north. Since the property is already
disturbed through previous grading and the property and street system is intended to support an industrial building,
no significant impacts to the biological, human, or physical environment are anticipated. The tenant, Aalto Scientific,
is a biotic manufacturer of hospital laboratory reagents. Reagents are a diagnostic tool used for blood tests.
The environmental impacts have already been evaluated through review of Environmental Jmpact Report 81-6. This
Report consists of a full analysis of environmental impacts which could occur through implementation of Specific
Plan 181, as well as recommended mitigation measures to soften those impacts determined to be significant. Since
the proposed project would comply with the standards and intent of SP 18 1 , and all aspects of SP 18 1 have been
previously evaluated through EIR 81-6, environmental review does not need to extend beyond previous reviews.
-7-
Page 8 of EIA Form - Part I1
is missing.
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
- I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previously
certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a Notice
of Determination has been 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 Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed.
- I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date Signature
Date Planning Director
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-9-
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING 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
-10-