Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMCUP 07-03; NEXTEL RANCHO CARLSBAD SD54XC917; Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP)c:~\lwmlll1&ylou,iigpan.060!97 -35- Part B: Determine Standard Permanent Storm Water Requirements. Does the project propose: Yes No 1. New impervious areas, such as rooftops, roads, parking lots, driveways, paths and □ [Z] sidewalks? 2. New pervious landscape areas and irrigation systems? □ [Z] 3. Permanent structures within 100 feet of any natural water body? □ [Z] 4. Trash storage areas? □ [Z] 5. Liquid or solid material loading and unloading areas? □ [Z] 6. Vehicle or equipment fueling, washing, or maintenance areas? □ [Z] 7. Require a General NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial □ [Z] Activities (Except construction)?* 8. Commercial or industrial waste handling or storage, excluding typical office or household □ [Z] waste? 9. Any grading or ground disturbance during construction? □ [Z] 10. Any new storm drains, or alteration to existing storm drains? □ [Z] *To find out if your project is required to obtain an individual General NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, visit the State Water Resources Control Board web site at, www.swrcb.ca.gov/stormwtr/industrial.html Section 2. Construction Storm Water BMP Requirements: If the answer to question 1 of Part C is answered "Yes," your project is subject to Section IV, "Construction Storm Water BMP Performance Standards," and must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). If the answer to question 1 is "No," but the answer to any of the remaining questions is "Yes," your project is subject to Section IV, "Construction Storm Water BMP Performance Standards," and must prepare a Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP). If every question in Part C is answered "No," your project is exempt from any construction storm water BMP requirements. If any of the answers to the questions in Part Care "Yes," complete the construction site prioritization in Part D, below. Part C: Determine Construction Phase Storm Water Requirements. Would the project meet any of these criteria during construction? Yes No 1. Is the project subject to California's statewide General NPDES Permit for Storm Water □ [Z] Discharges Associated With Construction Activities? 2. Does the project propose grading or soil disturbance? □ [Z] 3. Would storm water or urban runoff have the potential to contact any portion of the □ [Z] construction area, including washing and staging areas? 4. Would the project use any construction materials that could negatively affect water quality □ [Z] if discharged from the site (such as, paints, solvents, concrete, and stucco)? • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM-P~EIVED BACKGROUND (TO BE C01\1PLETED BY THE APPLICAN1) SEP 1 2 2007 CASE NoCITY OF CARLSBAD DATE RECEIVED: PLANNING DEPT (To be completed by staff) 1. CASE NAivfE: P-A-t-,..::'{_.-ttO CA-(J_ 1-s 0 A-i), 2. APPLICANT: '\---5 ic: 'Y:--11::::::-7-(_,()~\.,\_,µ,. U 1\..)1_ Cy't-TI"tNS 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE Nillv1BER OF APPLICANT: ~lu l i»P LE-v .&?)Q11.lS Sv, Th too i er~:> b\~t:lo t c A '112-l\f JteD· 2.~:i.>. D;sl lo 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: \f-..L i {)_£: l.f:SS L..L\f,,q .. --tu f'-Jl <:..A Tl-D"1S. r1ttL1.--tr·/ SUMJv1ARY OF ENV1RONNIBNTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Inco11Jorated" in the checklist on the following pages. O Land Use and Planning O Population and Housing O Geological Problems O Water D Air Quality D Transportation/Circulation 0 Biological Resources D Public Services D Utilities & Service Systems D Energy & Mineral Resources D Aesthetics D Hazards D Noise D Cultural Resources 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL Il\ ACTS 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 eviden,ce 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 rs 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 all 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 ~hat 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). • \Vb.en "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 ll1Y of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment . .., .;. Rev. 03/28/96 • 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 II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fonn under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. .) Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources): I. 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)? ( ) II. 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 infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing? ( housing, especially affordable ) 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 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) 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 propeny to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) :.j. Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ D □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ D □ □ □ □ □ □ □~ □ □ □ □ D □ Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Inforr. .on Sources): 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? ( ) 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? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) 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/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 (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? ( ) t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( ) 5 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ D □ Less Than Significan t Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □. □ □ □ D □ No Impact c~r Gt Q [J Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Infonn".1on Sources): d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) 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 facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tank~? ( 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 demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) 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.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) 7 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ D □ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ D □ D □ □ □ □ D □ D Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ D □ □ □ □ □ □ D [3 Gr Q✓" Gr er O-rr Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Infom, .. don Sources): Potentially Potentially Less Than No @ifte1p@:_td1&eq1ffritnrs-iizJMk®!w@iifliiYiatmr«ca$) XVI. a) b) c) XVII. Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the □ □ □ G:Y 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 □ D □ ~· cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 L II. PARTIEIA NEXTEL -RANCHO CARLSBAD LAND USE PLANNING a) No impact. The proposed project is in conformance with the general plan and zoning designation for the property. b) No impact. The proposed project will conform with applicable environmental plans and policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. c) No impact. The project is compatible with the existing land use in the vicinity. d) No impact. The project will not affect agricultural resources or operations since the site has not been used for agricultural purposes. e) No impact. The proposed project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of any established communities. The proposed project consists of the installation of 3 antenna arrays within the existing development with four antennas per array. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) No impact. Since the proposed project consists of an addition within an existing building, it will not alter the planned distribution or housing in the area. b) No impact. The proposed project will not induce substantial growth in the area. c) No impact. The site for the proposed project will not displace existing housing since the site already contains existing buildings, and the location of the equipment is in non-residential use areas of the development. Ill. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS a) No impact. The site is not located near active faults and no geologic conditions exist that could constrain development of the property or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards. ( 1) b) No impact. Due to the distance from known active faults from the sites, the proposed project will not expose people to significant seismic ground shaking. (1) c) No impact. This project will not expose people to seismic ground failure including liquefaction, due to the distance of the know active faults from the site. d) No impact. The site is not located in an area of volcanic activity and does not have a history of seiche or tsunami hazards. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people to impacts involving seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazards. e) No impact. The project site is not located within an area of landslides or mudflows. (1) f) No impact. The site was already mass graded when the existing buildings were constructed. g) No impact. The project site is not located in an area known for subsidence and is not expected to result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land. (1) h) No impact. The proposed project will not result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils. The property is not located in an area known to have expansive soils. ( 1) i) No impact. No unique geologic or physical features are known to exist at the project site. (1) IV. WATER a) No impact. The project will have no impact on absorption rates, drainage patterns, or amount of surface runoff. The antennas are proposed on top of an existing structure. b) No impact. The site is not in an area that is prone to flooding or other water hazards. (1) c) No impact. The project will not alter the quality of any surface water body. d) No impact. The project will not significantly affect the amount of surface water in any water body since no storm water will discharge directly into any water body. (1) e) No impact. The proposed project will not significantly affect currents or the course or direction of water movements. ( 1) f) No impact. The project will not affect the quantity or the quality of ground waters either through direct additions or withdraws or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of recharge capability. (1) g) No impact. Since the proposed project does not use groundwater, the project will not alter direction of the rate of flow of groundwater. (1) h) No impact. The project will not significantly impact groundwater quality, since there will be no direct infiltration into any known groundwater supply. (1) i) No impact. The proposed project will not cause a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies since the project will not use groundwater nor impact a significant area otherwise available for groundwater percolation. (1) V. AIR QUALITY a) No impact. The project will have no affect upon air quality. b) No impact. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. c) No impact. The proposed project will not alter air movement, moisture, temperature or cause a change in climate. d) No impact. The proposed project will not create objectionable odors. VI. TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION a) No impact. The project will not increase ADT. b} No impact. The project will not result in hazards to safety from.design features. (1) c) No impact. The proposed projectwill not affect access. d) No impact. The proposed project will not affect parking. e) No impact. The project will not produce any hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. f) No impact. The proposed project will conform with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. g) No impact. No impacts to or from the railroad will result. No waterborne traffic occurs in the vicinity. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) No impact. The site does not have any endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats. It is a developed site. b) No impact. The site does not contain locally designated species. c) No impact. The site does not contain locally designated communities. d) No impact. The proposed project is not located on wetland habitat, so it will not impact wetland habitat. e) No impact. There will be no impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES a) No impact. The proposed project will conform with adopted energy conservation plans. b) No impact. The proposed project will not use non-renewable resources in a wasteful inefficient manner. c) No impact. The proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and 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 a) No impact. The proposed project will not involve the storage, application, use or disposal of hazardous materials or substances and therefore will not involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances. b) No impact. The proposed project will be designed so as not to interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. The project's circulation system will be reviewed by all pertinent City departments to ensure that there will be no impacts to any emergency response procedures or evacuation plans. c) No impact. The project will not create any health hazards or any potential health hazards. d) No impact. There are no existing health hazards on the site. e) No impact. The project will be constructed in compliance with all applicable City policies and codes regarding fire suppression and low fuel planting. X. NOISE a) No impact. Development of the site will not substantially increase noise levels beyond the short term construction noise impacts. b) No impact. The project will not involve exposure of people to severe noise levels beyond the short term construction noise impacts. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES a) No impact. The project is located within the five minute response time for fire protection. b) No impact. Police protection is provided by the City of Carlsbad and demand for additional police services beyond the demand created by a typical commercial development of this site is not anticipated. c) No impact. The proposed project will not have an effect upon or result in a need for new schools. d) No impact. The proposed project will pay appropriate public facilities fees as dictated by the City. e) No impact. The proposed project will pay appropriate public facilities fees as dictated by the City. XII. UTIL TITES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS a) No impact. The majority of utitlities have already been established for the existing structures. b) No impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to create significant new demand for major facilities of communication or cable nor will it require substantial alteration to existing facilities. c) No impact. The proposed project is in conformance with the EIR 93-01 for the site and no potentially significant impacts are anticipated. d) No impact. The proposed project is in conformance with the EIR 93-01 for the site and no significant impacts to the City's sewer or septic tanks are anticipated. e) No impact. The proposed project is in conformance with the EIR 93-01 for the site and no significant impacts to the City's storm drainage system is anticipated. f) No impact. The proposed project is in conformance with the EIR 93-01 for the site and no significant impacts to the City's solid waste disposal system is anticipated. g) No impact. The proposed project is in conformance with the EIR 93-01 for the site and no significant impacts to the City's local or regional water supplies are anticipated. XIII. AESTHETICS a) No impact. The proposed project will not affect a scenic highway or vista. All antennas will be screened from public view. b) No impact. The proposed project will not have a negative aesthetic effect. All antennas will be screened from public view. c) No impact. The project will be designed in such a manner as to not create significant off- site light or glare. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) No impact. buildings. b) No impact. buildings. c) No impact. d) No impact. e) No impact. XV. RECREATION The project has already been mass graded in the construction of the existing The project has already been mass graded in the construction of the existing No historical resources are known to exist within the project area. Unique ehnic cultural values are not known to be associated with this site. No religious or sacred uses are known to exist within the project area. a) No impact. The proposed project is non-residential, so no impact to park facilities are anticipated. b) No impact. The project will not affect recreational activities. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) No impact. The proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause 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) No impact. The project will contribute to cumulative air quality impacts, however, a statement of overriding consideration was adopted for this cumulative impact. c) No impact. The proposed site will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. XVII. Earlier Analysis a) Source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Phone (760) 438-1161. 1. "Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update", March 1994.