Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIP 95-11; P.E.D.I.; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (9)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. PIP 95- 11 DATE: MARCH 8 1996 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: PIP 95-1 1 - P.E.D.1 2. APPLICANT: KENNETH D. SMITH ARCHITECT & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 435 W. Bradley Avenue #C, El Caion. California, 92020, (619) 444-2182. FAX (619) 442-2699 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: DECEMBER 19,1995 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 49,639 SOUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON A 3.2 ACRE GRADED PARCEL IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL ZONE 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 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. la 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. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR / 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 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 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). 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. 3/28/95 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier 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. 3/28/95 -. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 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)? 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: X - X - X - X - X - Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X - Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? X - X - Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: X X X X - - - - a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 5 Rev. 3f28f95 P Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 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? 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 6 Rev. 3/28/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? - d) Create objectionable odors? - VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCTION. Would the proposal result in: X X - - Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? - Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 7 X - X - - X X - X X X - - - X X - - Rev. 3/28/95 ? Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? - d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? - e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? - VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? - 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? - 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 hazard? - 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? - Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than X - - - - X X - - - - - - X - Rev. 3/28/95 8 h Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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? Police protection? Schools? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? 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? Communications systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Less Than Significant Impact - No Impact X - 9 Rev. 3/28/95 ,- bsues (and Supporting Information Sources): -. Potentially Significant Significant Mitigation Potentially Unless Impact Incorporated XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? XVI. 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 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? - 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) - Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X - - - X - X - X - X - X - 10 Rev. 3/28/95 ,-- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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)@). 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. 11 Rev. 3/28/95 I. 11. III. -. ,- LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Source 1 pg 3.0-8, Source 2 b) The project does not conflict with any policies or plans adopted by City, County, State or Federal agencies. The project is not located within any habitat preservation or open space corridors established by City or County agencies. The property is rough graded and within the interior of an existing office/industrial park; therefore, the project will not harm or harass any plant or animal species on federal or state endangered species lists. c) Source 1 pg. 3.0-8, Source 2 d) The site is not being used for agricultural operations nor is it designated for such a use. The site and surrounding sites are designated for industrial and office uses. e) No communities are planned within the industrial park and none exist within the vicinity. Therefore, the project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of a community. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Source 1 pg. 5.5-3 b) Source 1 pg. 3.0-8 and 5.5-1 through 5.5-3 c) No housing exists on the subject property nor in the vicinity. Therefore, existing housing will not be displaced. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Source 1 pg. 5.1-5 through 5.1-7 Source 1 pg. 5.1-5 through 5.1-7, Source 1 pg.5.1-9 Source 1 pg. 5.1-9. No known volcanic activity exists within the vicinity. The subject property generally consists of land sloping at 2% grade for drainage. Small landscaped banks separate subject property's building pad from the surrounding industrial pads. No conditions for landslides or mudflows therefore exist. Only minor changes for surface drainage will occur through final grading. The overall terrain will not be altered. Erosion control techniques will be administered as required per the City's grading ordinance. Source 1 pg. 5.1-11 According to the Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, dated November 1992 and on file with the City of Carlsbad, the subject property does not contain highly expansive soils. The terrain is considered "generally stable" and of "insignificant or minor risk to persons or 12 Rev. 3/28/95 property. If unstable or expansive soils were discovered upon a soils test as required before building permits can be issued, corrections would be required per the 1994 Uniform Building Code prior to construction of the site. i) The site has been disturbed by previously authorized grading. No unique geological or physical features are known to exist on site. IV. WATER Absorption rates will decrease with an increase in proposed impervious substances (the building, driveways, walkways, etc.). Water which would have otherwise infiltrated into the ground will be channeled into the storm drain just as surface runoff is currently directed. The increase in surface runoff would be negligible given the area of proposed impervious ground coverage. In addition, the existing storm drains were designed to accept this increased runoff and to adequately channel the water to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Source 1 , pg 5.2-6 Water runoff will carry particulants and chemicals (i.e. motor oil, gas, tire ware, pesticides) from the surface area of the lot once developed, but impacts from these substances will be mitigated as discussed under Source 1, pg 5.2-8 and 5.2-9. Proposed irrigation. needed to maintain project site landscaping often results in excess runoff due to over watering, misalignment of sprinkler heads, malfunctioning equipment, or over-spray. This runoff may ultimately reach Agua Hedionda Lagoon, assuming that the runoff does not evaporate before reaching its averted destination. Considering that trivial amounts of irrigation water would be released into the Lagoon, changes to the Lagoon‘s surface water would be inconsequential. With the exception of minor drainage diversions proposed on site, all surface drainage will be channelized as it exists today. f-i) Source 1, pg 5.2-3 V. AIR QUALITY a-c) 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 implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand 13 Rev. 3/28/95 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 ‘Inon-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. d) The proposed development is not expected to emit any odors. The property is subject to the Carlsbad Airport Business Center Specific Plan, which establishes performance standards for businesses operating on the property. One such standard ensures that any occupants of the industrial zone will not emit any unpleasant odors. Therefore, assurance is given that odor emissions will be controlled to acceptable levels. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a) The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, 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 14 Rev. 3/28/95 P ,? “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. All driveway entrances will comply with safe traffic standards. These standards include ensuring that visibility for motorists is not impaired by landscaping, walls, or other obstructions when exiting the property. Internal circulation complies with City standards including adequate sized driveway isles and truck turning radius. Current street systems linked to the project site provide adequate ingress and egress within the industrial park. The amount of on-site parking is sufficient as it complies with City requirements. The sizes of the stalls also comply with City standards. The site is designed such that hazards are minimized for pedestrians and bicyclist. No obstructions will impede safe site distance for pedestrians or bicyclists. This site was designated for development of an industrial use. The project will not interrupt the flow of any alternative modes of transportation, including bicycling or car pooling. No rail or waterborne facilities exist or operate within the vicinity. The building height will not exceed 35 feet in height which has been determined to be a height that will not interfere with flight paths or landing patterns associated with Palomar Airport. The project will not include any lighting which would cause temporary blindness to pilots. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-e) The project site has already been disturbed by previous grading and is without any vegetation native to the region. The site does not contain wetland habitat or locally designated natural communities. Since the little amount of vegetation existing on-site is exotic and the site is only 3.2 acres, the site cannot support significant numbers of animals, let alone any rare, threatened or endangered species. Upon field verification, no animals were identified on-site. The site is surrounded by other vacant building pads and industrial buildings and is part of a larger industrial park. Development of the site could not intensify the impediment of wildlife migration above and beyond that which the park itself could have possibly created. The park has already undergone environmental review prior to its development and it was determined that the park would not significantly impact wildlife migration. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES a) Source 1, pg 5.12.1-5 b) Source 1, pg 5.12.1-5 c) Source 1, pg 5.13-1, 5.13-2 15 Rev. 3/28/95 IX. X. XI. XII. r' HAZARDS a-d) Source 1, pg 5.10.2-4 through 5.10.2-6 e) Currently, neither the site nor the surrounding area contains highly flammable vegetation. Vegetation consists of bare soil and ground cover on the subject site and surrounding undeveloped sites. Developed sites consist of irrigated landscaping consisting of low fuel species. The threat of a fire hazard from burning vegetation is therefore insignificant. NOISE a) Noise levels would increase due to vehicles traveling to and from the site, but these noise levels were anticipated under the previous Specific Plan and will be minor. A tower fan, pump motor, drier, and compressor will be placed outdoors on the south side of the building. This equipment will emit noise levels at 60, 50, 20, and 75 decibels, respectively, as measured ten feet from the equipment. City standards limit noise levels to 65 Ldn as measured at the property line. At these projected decimal levels, the noise at the property line, which is approximately 50 feet from the source, will be well below 65 Ldn. b) The greatest noise exposure for occupants of the site will be from aircraft descending to Palomar Airport. The site is within the Airport Influence Area and is therefore subject to the 1994 McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This plan restricts land uses on properties which are subjected to certain noise intensity levels as measured in CNELs. The noise intensity levels are displayed as contour lines on the Plan's map. Those properties located outside the 60 CNEL contour are not restricted. The subject property is located outside the 60 CNEL range and therefore no restrictions to land use or mitigation of noise impacts is necessary. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Source 1, pg 5.12.5-4 b) Source 1, pg 5.12.6-2 c) Source 1, pg 5.12.7-1 and 5.12.7-4 d) All roads servicing the site are in place. Therefore, there is no need for additional roads or the alteration of government services. e) No additional public services require analysis. Impacts to all other government services are analyzed in other sections of this EIA (i.e. Section XV. RECREATION). UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS a-g) Utilities, such as gas, electric, telecommunication, sewer, potable water, and storm drains are all currently available to serve the property. Refuse and recyclable materials will be collected and removed for sanitary disposal by Coast Waste Management. All refuse bins will be enclosed by solid walls in accordance with City standards. Local or regional water supplies will adequately serve the site since adequate water capacity has already been planned for in anticipation for 16 Rev. 3/28/95 development of this site. Regardless, water conservation measures will be incorporated into various aspects the project, including the instillation of landscaping and irrigation water conservation techniques. XIII. AESTHETICS a) The closest scenic roadway is Palomar Airport Road. Because the proposed project is located a distant 2,000 feet from the roadway and will be designed with attractive amenities such as landscaping, visual impacts from Palomar Airport Road are not anticipated. Because of the building's location, no scenic vistas will be affected by this project. b) The project will not demonstrate any negative aesthetic effects. Attractive landscaping will be incorporated and the building will contain attractive features such as sandblasted concrete, tempered glass, slate tile, and intersecting vertical and horizontal v-grooves. c) Wall-mounted and pole lights are proposed. These lights will be directed downward so as not to create glare to surrounding property owners. The project will not be approved without a condition stating that all lights shall be directed downward so as not to flood onto adjacent properties. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-e) The discovery of any archeological or paleontological resources on the property would have been made during rough grading of the property in 1987, which occurred as part of the massive grading of the industrial park. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. No impacts to historical structures will occur since none exist within the vicinity. The proposed development will resemble other development within the vicinity and none of these developments have been known to affect ethnic cultures. No existing religious or sacred uses are known to exist on-site. XV. RECREATION a) As determined by the City's Growth Management Plan, demand for park land will increase due to an increase over time in the number of workers in the industrial parks. Recognizing this need for additional park land created by an increase in the local work force, a Local Facilities Management Fee of 40 cents per square feet of building area is charged when building permits are issued. This money will be used to purchase park land needed to serve the industrial users. The proposed development will be subject to this fee which mitigates their impact on park demand b) No existing park facilities exist within the vicinity. The project will affect existing recreational opportunities by improving the opportunity for a future park through payment of the Local Facility Management Fee. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) The proposed development will be located on a previously graded property within the perimeters of the Carlsbad Oaks Business Park. The property is generally flat except for perimeter manmade slopes and slight grades for pad drainage. Vegetation consists of sporadic weeds and 17 Rev. 3/28/95 ground cover on the pad and planted ground cover on the slopes. None of the vegetation is suitable for supporting wild life species including rare or endangered animals. No fish can survive on the property due to the absence of any water. As already stated, the property does not support plant communities or any rare or endangered plants. No examples of California history exists on the site and any prehistorical artifacts would have been discovered during previous grading of the site. b) Development of this site will contribute to buildout of the Carlsbad Oaks Business Park. Since the proposed development will add additional impacts within the Park, the impacts can be considered cumulative to the impacts already created and to be created by other businesses of the Park. However, the impacts will be insignificant since the park was designed to support development of an industrial building on this lot. All of the public facilities necessary to serve the site will be in place. As already mentioned, all impacts to wildlife and vegetation have already occurred do to past grading. Impacts on air quality and traffic, as discussed earlier, are considered to have significant impacts but the Master EIR for the General Plan issued a "statement of overriding considerations" thereby rendering these impacts unavoidable beyond the mitigation measures mentioned. c) The building will be constructed in compliance with the 1994 Uniform Building Code which maximizes a safe work environment against fires, explosions, chemical spills, structural failure and other similar hazards. Circulation in and around the project site complies with traffic safety standards, including safe site visibility for motorists exiting the project site. SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: all the source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (6 19) 438- 1 161) 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994. 2. Official City of Carlsbad Zoning Map, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Revised 3/95. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed project consists of developing a 49,639 square foot building on a 3.2 acre lot at 2731 Laker Avenue. Most of the building will be occupied by P.E.D.I., a plastics engineering firm which will operate its business out of newly established offices, as well as manufacture and store products at this facility. The remaining portion of the building will remain unoccupied for either a different tenant or future expansion. This type of land use is compatible with the uses permitted under the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Specific Plan. The pad, which was established by authorized grading in 1987, is surrounded by four to six foot high perimeter man-made slopes. The slopes are landscaped with ground cover and the pad is mostly bare with sporadic weeds and other low lying immature vegetation dispersed throughout. The property's isolation from native land and its small amount of vegetation makes this lot unsuitable for supporting wildlife. No unstable or hazardous geological conditions exist on-site. Any effects to the Agua Hedionda Watershed would be insignificant due to the small amount of particulant discharge from surface runoff and due to required mitigation measures incorporated in to the project such as grass swales located at drainage outlets. Although hazardous materials may be stored, handled, or transported on site, use of these materials are regulated by the Uniform Building Code and numerous federal, state, and local agencies to protect the health of humans. The 18 Rev. 3/28/95 City’s Growth Management Plan ensures that all necessary public facilities will be in place concurrent with development. Fire, police, school, and park services are capable of servicing the proposed project. The project design will resemble other developments within the park which have been considered aesthetically pleasing and no historical or prehistorical impacts are anticipated since the site has already been disturbed by authorized grading. A “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been issued under the Master EIR for the General Plan for impacts to air quality and traffic circulation (See V.a-c and V1.a of this EIA Part 11). LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) N/A ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) N/A 19 Rev. 3/28/95 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFV THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 20 Rev. 3/28/95