Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 98-07; Reaches VC5B-VC9; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CDP 98-07/EIA97-10 DATE: February 2. 1998 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Sewer Replacement - Reaches VC5B - VC9 2. APPLICANT: Carlsbad Municipal Water District William Plummer. District Engineer 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5950 El Camino Real. Carlsbad. CA 92008. (760) 438-3367 EXT. 124 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 30. 1997 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site includes the pavement area within Jefferson Street between Las Flores Drive and Oak Avenue and the pavement area within Oak Avenue between Jefferson Street and the A.T.&S.F. Railroad right-of-way. The project consists of the replacement of the Vista/Carlsbad interceptor gravity sewer pipeline in Jefferson Street and the replacement and realignment of a gravity sewer pipeline in Carlsbad Village Drive to be realigned in Oak Avenue (reaches VC5B through VC9). The project will replace approximately 2,000 lineal feet of 27-inch pipeline with 36-inch pipeline, and approximately 3,700 lineal of 36- inch pipeline with 42-inch pipeline and will replace 15 access holes. The pipeline and access hole replacement is necessary due to deterioration caused by hydrogen sulfide corrosion. 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 | | Transportation/Circulation [ | Public Services | | Population and Housing | | Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems | | Geological Problems | | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics | | Water | | Hazards | | Cultural Resources | | Air Quality | | Noise [ | Recreation | | Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) ^\ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. | | I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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 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 Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. ID, Planner Signature--' Date Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMI JTS 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 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 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. 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 form 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 Information Sources). 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)? Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D D D D 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, especially affordable housing? D D D D D 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? D D D D D D D D D D D Dn IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?D D n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Inform;. i Sources). 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? Potentially Significant Impact D itentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D Less Than Significant Impact No 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? n n n n n 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? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? nn nn n nn n n n n VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernald) e) pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? D n nn n n n VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? 6 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Infornu i Sources). 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? Potentially Significant Impact D D n /tentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? n n n n X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? I—I b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (—I n nn XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? I—| Police protection? i—I Schools? I—i b) c) d) e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? n 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 tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? Dn n n n n n n XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Inform; i Sources). a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Potentially tentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated D D D D 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? D D D D D D XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?D XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the I I I I i—i 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? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually I I I I i—i 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which | I j I i—i will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: 8 Rev. 03/28/96 a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A 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. N/A 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. N/A Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIF IMENTAL EVALUATION The project consists of the replacement of an existing sewer line under the pavement in the right- of-way of Jefferson Street, the abandonment of a sewer line under Carlsbad Village Drive (CVD). and the realignment and construction of the CVD portion of the sewer under the pavement in the right-of-way of Oak Avenue. The project would replace an existing and deteriorating sewer facility and all trenching and other miscellaneous construction work would take place within existing paved streets, therefore, an environmental discussion on the environmental impact for the following environmental impact categories is not included because no impact would occur - I. Land Use and Planning, III. Geologic Problems. IV. Water, V. Air Quality, VII. Biological Resources, VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources, IX. Hazards. XI. Public Services. XII. Utilities and Services Systems, XIII. Aesthetics. XIV. Cultural Resources, and XV. Recreational. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING The proposed project would replace the existing Vista/Carlsbad interceptor sewer that currently serves existing development within the Cities of Vista and Carlsbad. The pipes would be up- sized from 27-inch to 36-inch and 36-inch to 42-inch to return the existing over-capacity pipeline system to normal flow depths. The sewer lines are located in urbanized areas which will continue to grow and intensify through infill development and redevelopment, however, the sewer lines are being resized to more safely accommodate existing flows. The lines do not connected to large tracts of undeveloped land, therefore, any potential growth inducing impacts created by the resizing of the pipes would be considered less than significant. VI. TRANSPORTATION The proposed project is for an underground pipeline that would not permanently impact traffic circulation and patterns. However, short-term pipeline construction impacts would temporarily change local traffic patterns in the area. Local ordinance requires that all construction operations located within the public right-of-way must have a Traffic Control Plan approved by the City's Engineering Department Traffic Division before construction commences. The approved Traffic Control Plan would incorporate the necessary traffic safety control measures such as signs, lane and construction barricades, designation of work zones, and phasing to ensure that traffic and pedestrian safety and emergency access is maintained In addition, when a street or portions of a street are closed due to paving or construction, substantial advanced notification is given to businesses and residents living in the area so they can plan accordingly and do not block construction access by parking vehicles in the street. Some of the construction (Portions of Jefferson Street and all of Oak Avenue) would take place in areas where the street system is comprised of a rectangular grid system. The grid layout of the streets would help to minimize traffic congestion and restricted access by allowing more convenient alternative routes around the streets being impacted by the project's construction, therefore, vehicular circulation and access impacts would be considered less than significant. X. NOISE The proposed project would not create a permanent increase in noise levels, however, people in the vicinity of the construction site would be exposed to higher than normal noise levels in the area as a result of the temporary construction noise. Local ordinance requires that all construction contractors observe strict hours of operation, including a prohibition on work during 10 Rev. 03/28/96 certain holidays and on IL days. The short-term nature of the ) je impacts and compliance with the mandated hours of construction operation would result in less than significant impacts. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES OF APPLICABLE) N/A ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) N/A 11 Rev. 03/28/96