Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 52351 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5235 4 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW THE TEMPORARY USE OF VACANT PROPERTY AS A MATERIALS STORAGE YARD FOR THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS OF THE CITY’S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PALOMAR OAKS WAY AND THE FUTURE CARRIER AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. CASE NAME: PUBLIC WORKS MATERIALS STORAGE CASE NO.: CUP 02-02 WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lots 65 and 66 of Carlsbad Tract No. 81-46, Unit 3, according to Map No. 11289, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on July 16, 1985, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of July, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit "ND" dated June 27, 2002, and "PII" dated June 11, 2002, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinm: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and D. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 1. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, latest version. Developer shall provide improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifylng prospective owners and tenants of the following: A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products. B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers. C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. PC RES0 NO. 5235 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. 3. 4. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... Prior to the occupancy of the storage yard, Developer shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).” The SWPPP shall be in compliance with current requirements and provisions established by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall address measures to reduce to the maximum extent possible storm water pollutant runoff at both construction and post-construction phases of the project. At a minimum, the Plan shall: A. Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants. B. Recommend source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to filter said pollutants. C. Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee and customer education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants. D. Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity. E. Identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities for a 10-year 6- hour event. Prior to development or occupancy of the site, the limits of the existing habitat shall be staked and flagged to preclude disturbance by a certified biologist. No encroachment into the native habitat shall occur. Should encroachment occur, the Developer shall consult with the City Planning Department and the California Department of Fish and Game regarding remediation of the encroachment. Upon termination of the storage use, the developer shall remove all improvements and return the site to it pre-existing condition to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and Public Works Director. PC RES0 NO. 5235 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of July 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, White, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Segall ABSTAIN: None -3& 1UL4 SEENA TRIGAS, Chairpersdn CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. mZMIkkER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5235 -4- - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddressLocation: Southwest comer of the intersection of Palomar Oaks Way and future Carrier Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California Project Description: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the temporary use of a vacant lot as a materials storage area for Public Works mdntenance and construction activities throughout the City. 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 Mitigated 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: JUNE 27,2002 CASE NO: CUP 02-02 CASE NAME: PUBLIC WORKS MATERIAL STORAGE PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 27,2002 Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 vyww.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 43 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CUP 02-02 ’ DATE: June 1 1,2002 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Public Works Materials Storage 2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad Public Works Deuartment 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad. CA 92008 (760) 434-2722 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITIED: Januar~ 15,2002 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the temuorarv use of vacant orouertv as a materials storage area for Public Works reuair and construction activities throughout the City. on urouertv generally located at the southwest comer of Palomar Oaks Way and the future Carrier Avenue. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning TranspOrtatiodCirculation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics 0 Water DHazards Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 IXI 0 0 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. ,/, Date I Date I 2 Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. Based on an “EIA-Part 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. 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 Ovemding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier ER, (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. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or 0 0 OM policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the 0 IXI on (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 0 0 am 0 0 o(xI 0 0 UIXI minority community)? (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) UIXI indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0 OIXI 5.5-6) housing? (#l:PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) ‘0 0 OB 4 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 111, GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1- 5.1-15) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 5.1-15) 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 5.1-15) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2- Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 1 1) body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 11) 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 Less Than Significanl Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact Ixl IXI Ixl IXI Ixl IXI IXI €4 Ixl IXI IXI 0 IXI IXI IXI 0 OIXI 0 OIXI 0 OIXI 0 on 0 OB 0 OIXl 0 OB 5 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 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 transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - proposal result in: 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 5.7.22) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant lmpact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated IXI 0 I7 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish. insects, 0 IXI animals, &d birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 1 5.4-24) . b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. mars4 riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration comdors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 0 0 0 0 (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) - 5.4-24) 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- proposal? (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) o 0 - 1 - 5.13-9) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral n resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & U 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 0 0 5.10.1-5) OIXI ON ON oIx1 OIXI ON OIXI ON OIXI 0 ON 0 0 OIXI 0 OIXI 6 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, hazards? (#l:PgS 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) 1 - 5.9-15) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & Communications systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 5.12.3-7) AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.11-5) 5.11-1 -5.11-5) 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10) 7 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 [11 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 i3 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact ix1 El Ixl El IXI IXI IXI (XI 1x1 (XI Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8- Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 1 - 5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL,. Would the proposal: Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 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? Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incomrated 0 -0 nIXI 0 0 nIXI 0 0 0 0 OIXI 0 0 OIXI 17 0 0 UIXI DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The City of Carlsbad Public Works - Maintenance Department is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of vacant property as a temporary materials storage yard. The project site would encompass two parcels located west of the McClellan-Palomar Airport at the northern terminus of Palomar Oaks Way and its intersection with future Carrier Avenue. The site is designated Planned Industrial (PI and P-M) in both the City’s General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed outdoor storage use is consistent with these industrial designations. The site is also located within the Airport Influence Area of the McClellan- Palomar Airport and, therefore, subject to the provisions of the corresponding Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). Since the project is conditioned to record a noise notice and avigation easement, and no employees will work on site, the project is consistent with the provisions of the McClellan-Palomar CLUP. To the south of the site are graded industrial pads fionting on Dryden Place. To the east of the site, across Palomar Oaks Way, are a mini-storage facility and the McClellan-Palomar Airport. 8 Rev. 03/28/96 North and west of the site are vacant, mdeveloped industrial lots owned by the City and part of the City golf course site. Due to the topography, the site is not visible from the public street or the adjacent graded pads and no visual aesthetic concerns exist. The proposed materials storage yard would cover approximately one and one-half (1.5) acres of the 5.84 acre site. The relatively level site has been used for illegal dumping in the past and is mostly clear of vegetation. There are some areas of disturbed native habitat within the property boundaries, however these areas are outside of the proposed footprint of the storage yard. The project is conditioned such that all habitat areas are to be staked and flagged by a certified biologist prior to development and occupancy of the site; no encroachment into habitat areas is permitted and no impacts to biological resources would occur. As shown on Exhibit “A”, dated July 17, 2002, the actual storage yard would measure approximately 220 feet by 180 feet and would be surrounded by a chain link fence with slats to provide screening. The storage yard would be used to temporarily store materials derived from the repair and maintenance of streets, underground lines, and parks. The materials of be stored include asphalt, concrete, dirt, pipes, valves, green waste, and similar items. No hazardous materials would be stored at the yard, and a detailed outdoor storage plan must be submitted to and approved by the City Fire Marshal prior to occupancy. All stored materials would be accumulated on site and then taken to their appropriate destination (e.g. recycling center, landfill, etc.) Therefore, no hazard-related impacts would occur. In addition to the open storage of asphalt, concrete and other building materials, the yard would include three bins for the storage of trash, green waste, and metals. The site would also incorporate Best Management Practices to address off-site erosion and pollutant discharge. The project is conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Pollutant Prevention Plan prior to occupancy of the site to confirm that Best Management Practices are being used. Therefore, no impacts due to erosion or storm water pollution would occur. The storage yard would be served by an all- weather access road off of Palomar Oaks Way, portions of which are asphalt and decomposed granite. Due to fact that no employees would work within the yard, the only traffic generated by the use would be delivery and removal of stored materials that can be accommodated by Palomar Oaks Way, an industrial local street with a capacity of 10,000 average daily trips. Currently, the Public Works Department is using the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) yard for storage of these materials however the ability to use that yard will expire shortly. It is anticipated that the proposed temporary materials storage yard would be needed for three (3) years, at which time the Public Works Department would have a permanent site for materials storage. As described in the above analysis, the proposed materials storage yard would not create any significant adverse environmental impacts provided that the mitigation measures listed below are implemented. AIR OUALITY: In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR that analyzed the impacts that will result from 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 9 Rev. 03/28/96 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 MER This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result fkom 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 EKR. 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 ER 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246,-included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of 10 Rev. 03/28/96 Overriding Considerations’’ applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR. 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 MER was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. 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. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, latest version. Developer shall provide improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook'' to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products. B. Toxic chemicals- or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifkeeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers. C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. 2. Prior to the occupancy of the storage yard, Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)." The SWPPP shall be in compliance with current requirements and provisions established by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall address measures to reduce to the maximum extent possible storm water pollutant runoff at both construction and post-construction phases of the project. At a minimum, the Plan shall: A. Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants. B. Recommend source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to filter said pollutants. C. Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee and customer education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants. D. Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity. E. Identify how post-evelopment runoff rates and velocities from the site will not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities for a 10-year 6-hour event. 3. Prior to development or occupancy of the site, the limits of the existing habitat shall be staked and flagged to preclude disturbance by a certified biologist. No encroachment into the native habitat shall occur. Should encroachment occur, the Developer shall consult 12 Rev. 03/28/96 with the City Planning Department and the California Department of Fish and Game regarding remediation of the encroachment. 4. Upon termination of the storage use, the developer shall remove all improvements and return the site to it pre-existing condition to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and Public Works Director. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 13 Rev. 03/28/96 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 I PROJECT NAME: Public Works Materials Storacle FILE NUMBERS: CUP 02-02 APPROVAL DATE: July 17.2002 CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.: June 27.2002 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City’s monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Explanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. . Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P.