HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-18; City Council; Resolution 2003-3011
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-301
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2003 CITY OF
CARLSBAD WATER AND SEWER MASTER PLANS UPDATES.
CASE NAME: WATER AND SEWER MASTER PLANS
UPDATES
CASE NO.: EIR 03-01
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2001, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California
determined it necessary and in the public interest to enter into an agreement with Dudek &
Associates to update to the Carlsbad Water Master Plan and the Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan
(Project No. 3870); and
WHEREAS, Dudek & Associates completed the update to the Water Master Plan and the
Sewer Master Plan in accordance with the tasks outlined in its Professional Services Agreement
with the City; and
WHEREAS, the 2003 City of Carlsbad Water Master Plan and Sewer Master Plan
Updates, incorporated herein by reference, represent a comprehensive program for the phased
and orderly development of improvements to accommodate the future water and sewer service
needs of the City; and
WHEREAS, the 2003 City of Carlsbad Water and Sewer Master Plans Updates identify
individual capital improvement projects to construct new facilities, and modify or expand existing
facilities that would be needed to accommodate the demand from future development in the City;
and
WHEREAS, the changes in the proposed Water Connection and Sewer Capacity fees are
lot subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and thus are not
analyzed in EIR 03-01 ; and
Yi
Yi
Yl
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
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report was prepared and submitted to the
State Clearinghouse and a Notice of Completion filed, published, and mailed to responsible
agencies and interested parties providing a 45 day review period, and all comments received from
that review period are contained in the Final Program EIR 03-01 as well as the responses to
comments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 18th day of November , 2003
hold a duly noticed hearing as prescribed by law to consider EIR 03-01 for the 2003 Water and
Sewer Master Plans Updates; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors
relating to EIR 03-01.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as
follows:
1.
2.
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-01) prepared for the
above-referenced project is certified as shown on Exhibit A ("EIR 03-01"), on file with the
City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, and that the Candidate Findings of Fact
("CEQA Findings" or "Findings") and Statement of Overriding Considerations
("Statement") and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") are adopted as
shown on Exhibit A (EIR 03-01), Exhibit B (CEQA Findings and Statement), and Exhibit C
(Program) on file with the City Clerk and with the Planning Director incorporated herein by
reference.
Findinas:
1. The City Council does hereby find that it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Final Program EIR 03-01, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project; the CEQA
Findings; the Program; and the Statement prior to APPROVING the project.
The City Council does hereby find that the Final Program EIR 03-01, the CEQA Findings and Statement and the Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
2.
Page 2 of 3 of Resolution No. 2003-301. b
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
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The City Council does hereby find that the CEQA Findings, Statement, and Program
reflect the independent judgment of the City of Carlsbad City Council.
The City Council does accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and
make each and every one of the findings contained in the CEQA Findings, including
feasibility of mitigation measures pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines 15091, and infeasibility of project alternatives.
The City Council hereby finds that the Program is designed to ensure that during project
implementation the Developer and any other responsible parties implement the project
components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the CEQA
Findings and the Program.
Although certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the
project will remain, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any
feasible alternatives, there are specific economic, social and other considerations that
render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable, as set forth
in the Statement.
The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of the Report (EIR 03-01), CEQA
Findings, Statement, and Program; all reports, applications, memoranda, maps,
letters and other planning documents prepared by the project Applicant (City of
Carlsbad) and the environmental consultant which are before the decision-makers
and on file in the Public Works Department and Planning Department; all
documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies in connection
with the EIR for the project; and matters of common knowledge to the City of
Carlsbad which they consider including but not limited to, the Carlsbad General
Plan, Carlsbad Zoning Regulations, Local Facilities Management Plans, 1990 Water
Master Plan, 1992 Sewer Master Plan, the 2003 Water Master Plan Update, the 2003
Sewer Master Plan Update, and 2003-2004 Carlsbad Capital Improvement Program
which may be found at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive in the custody of the City Clerk and
at 1635 Faraday Avenue in the custody of the Director of Planning.
Conditions:
1. The City of Carlsbad shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Water and
Sewer Master Plans Updates (EIR 03-01) Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council
held on the 18th day of NOvember , 2003 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Membm Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard
ATTEST
Page 3 of 3 of Resolution No. 2003-301
(SEAL
EXHIBIT 'I El R-B"
CITY OF CARLSBAD RESOLUTION NO. 2003-301
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
FINDINGS OF FACT
and
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
for the
FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 03-01)
(SCH No. 2003051 01 4)
WATER AND SEWER MASTER PLANS UPDATES
8
Findinas of Fact and Statement of Overridina Considerations
SECTION 1. CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATIONS
In accordance with Section 15090 of the Guidelines, the City Council certifies that:
1. The Final Program EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines.
2. The Final Program EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council reviewed
and considered the information contained in the Final Program EIR prior to adopting the
proposed Water and Sewer Master Plans Updates.
3. The Final Program EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and
contains sufficient information and analysis to allow the City Council to make an informed
decision, considering the environmental implication of the proposed project, mitigation
measures. and alternatives.
4. The project qualifies as an action that has been determined by the state Legislature
pursuant to Section 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges) to be statutorily exempt from
CEQA.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING
MITIGATION
The Carlsbad City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Water
and Sewer Master Plans Updates are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of
mitigation measures. It should be noted the City has included commitments in the project design (called
project design features and construction measures) that serve to reduce the environmental impacts of the
project. The project design features and construction measures are not included in the Mitigation,
Monitoring, and Reporting Program (Exhibit C).
A. Aesthetics
Most projects are below-ground installations and would have no visual effect when completed in existing
road rights-of-way (Draft Program EIR, p. 4-8). The large majority of projects would fall in this category,
because there would be no permanent visual effects u.). Visual disturbance from construction is short
term in nature, and the City has included commitments in the project design to restore road surfaces, in
both public and private rights-of-way, to their pre-existing visual condition or better (m.).
Although the City has its own Scenic Comdor Guidelines, it is anticipated that due to the nature of the
project, motorists would not be able to view project construction for any substantial length of time. Any
project-related lighting would be short-term and would not remain after the construction period. New light
sources associated with the project would be regulated by local ordinance and are not expected to result in
an intrusion to the surrounding area. Impacts would not be significant (Draft Program EIR, p. 4-5).
Although some of the aboveground projects would be located near scenic vistas in the City, these facilities
would be designed to protect those vistas through the use of vegetative screens, fencing, and paint. Also,
there are no State scenic highways in the project study area; therefore, no impacts would occur m.). No
mitigation is required m.).
4
Findinas of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Cumulative impacts related to aesthetics for the CIP projects are not considered significant, since they are
expected features in the developed landscape, are mostly underground, are modifications to existing
facilities, and would receive design review for conformance with community aesthetic standards in future
environmental documentation and/or project design review (Draft Program EIR, p. 5-2).
B. Air Quality
All project components would result in less than significant effects for air quality (Draft Program EIR, pps.
4.2-8; 4.2-9; 4.2-10). Also, no long-term effects to air quality are anticipated as a result of implementation
of the Master Plan Updates (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.2-9).
Air quality impacts will result primarily from short-term construction activities, emissions from vehicles
used by the Districts’ employees, the operation of other power-consuming city facilities and from dust
generated by surface disturbance to construct the project (Draft Program EIR, pps. 4.2-8; 4.2-9). Heavy
equipment (mainly diesel-powered) will generate exhaust emissions from on-site activity (Draft Program
EIR, p. 4.2-9).
During construction, it was determined that the active disturbance area on any given day would be no more
than approximately 200 feet by 30 feet at any given site, or 0.14 acre. Daily regional PMlo emissions
would be approximately 3.5 pounds per day for each area of construction. Even if multiple segments were
under construction, the PMlo emissions would still be substantially less than the significance threshold of
150 pounds per day (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.2-8).
PMlo emissions resulting from project construction would be considered less than significant m.).
However, the PMlo levels in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) are above the state standard; therefore,
therefore, while PMlo emissions during construction are short-term and less than significant, measures are
required to minimize the generation of airborne dust to the maximum extent feasible m.). These
measures have been incorporated into the project by design (m.).
Dust deposited on parked cars, outdoor furniture or other exposed surfaces from construction related
activities may create a soiling nuisance. Project design features included in Table 2-5 of the Draft Program
EIR (p. 2-27) would ensure effects would be less than significant (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.2-8).
Total daily construction activity impacts from equipment exhaust and fugitive dust would not likely result
in impacts that would exceed identified significance thresholds, and would be less than significant (Draft
Program EIR, p. 4.2-9). However, the O3 and PMlo levels in the SDAB are above national and state
AAQS; therefore, while combustion emissions during construction are short-term and less than significant,
project design features have been incorporated into the project to reduce effects to the extent feasible (M.).
Findinas of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The air basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The
proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in
emissions throughout the air basin (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.2-10). However, emissions associated with
the proposed project would be minimal (m.). Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the
proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is
implemented. The proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is not meaningful, and
impacts would be less than significant m.).
The proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations m.). While
sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) exist in the vicinity of most of the project components,
project design features to limit emissions and dust would help to maintain impacts at less than significant
levels m.).
The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction
equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term
or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered
substantial, and odor impacts during construction of the project components would be less than significant W.).
Cumulatively, strategies for the control of both point-source and mobile pollution generation are the
responsibility of the APCD. APCD rules and regulations apply uniformly throughout the District and the
rest of the air basin and to all potential sources of pollutant emissions. Thus, air pollution control is
applied on a cumulative basis. As noted in Section 4.2 of the Draft Program EIR, the proposed Master
Plan Updates are consistent with the growth assumptions of the regional air quality plan and incorporate all
feasible and available air quality control measures through regulation by APCD. Also, the RAQS is based
on development as planned under the applicable general plans. The Master Plans are consistent with the
planned development as identified in the City of Carlsbad General Plan; therefore, the project is consistent
with the RAQS (Draft Program EIR, p. 5-2). Cumulative effects would be less than significant w.).
C. Biological Resources
Fifty-eight of the project components would not result in significant biological resource impacts based on
the program level of analysis (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.3-14). The majority of these facilities are located in
existing disturbed areas including road rights-of-way. Impacts to biological resources would be less than
significant due to the levels of disturbance resulting from previous development activities m.). Impacts
would be less than significant to vegetation species and communities, wildlife, wetlands and waters,
regional corridors and linkages, and regional resource planning, and no mitigation is required for impacts
resulting from the 58 components m.). Additional biological resource impacts are identified in Sections
3 and 4 below.
D. Cultural Resources
A total of 63 cultural resource sites have been identified within the study area (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.4-
8). Thirty out of 50 Water Master Plan projects would not result in significant impacts to cultural
resources, as they are located in urban and disturbed settings such as within streets or parking lots (Draft
Program EIR, pps. 4.4-8, 4.4-9, and 4.4-10). For projects in the Sewer Master Plan Update, 19 out of 34
would not result in significant impacts (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.4-10, 4.4-11, and 4.4-12). Impacts to
cultural resources would be less than significant due to the levels of disturbance resulting from previous
development activities, and no mitigation is required for impacts for these project components (Draft
Program EIR, p. 4.4-8). Additional cultural resource impacts are identified in Section 3 below.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Regarding potential cumulative effects, the City requires an evaluation of cultural resources as a part of
environmental review for land development projects needing discretionary approval from the City. As part
of that review, all cultural resources sites would be evaluated for importance and, if found to be significant,
either preserved or mitigated by the recovery of all relevant scientific information represented by the site.
The same procedures are followed by other agencies whose projects may affect cultural resources in the
City, such as Caltrans and SDGE. Section 4.4 of the Draft Program EIR established similar mitigation
requirements for all Master Plan components that may impact cultural resources. Because this uniform
policy is designed in each case to reduce impacts on cultural resources to below a level of significance on
site-specific basis, cumulative impacts would be less than significant (Draft Program EIR, p. 5-3).
E. Geology and Soils-
At this program level of analysis, the actual level of impact to geology and soils cannot be determined
(Draft Program EIR, p. 4.5-5). That is, project components would require site-specific geotechnical
studies for engineering and design, which would determine the actual level of environmental impact (u.). These future geotechnical investigations will describe site-specific conditions and suggest
mitigation measures for the issues outlined in the Program EIR. As such, impacts would be presumably
reduced to less than significant at the project level once detailed project data can be assessed and
mitigation measures are implemented m.). No unmitigable significant effects are anticipated m.).
Potentially significant construction-related impacts associated with the Master Plan Updates include
encountering unstable soil and rock conditions and exposure of oversize rock material during grading
(W.). The design of each project component would be accompanied by a geotechnical evaluation that
would indicate if such hazards were present. If the geotechnical study so indicated, the proposed facility
site would be relocated to a nonhazardous area.
The specific soil types each project component will impact at this time are unknown m.). Assuming a
site-specific geotechnical study is completed, additional information regarding content, expansiveness,
stability, potential for subsidence and compactibility will be determined during project planning and
design. Appropriate mitigation measures would be incorporated into the design to reduce the potential for
significant effects. Also, septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal methods are not proposed as part
of the Master Plans. For this program level of analysis, impacts would be less than significant m.).
During the construction of proposed Master Plan components, erosion could be accelerated which could
undermine slopes, create siltation of surface waters, and expose and damage underground facilities m.).
All construction must be performed in accordance with the requirements of the Carlsbad Grading
Ordinance, which requires the control of erosion during construction and the stabilization of all disturbed
surfaces upon completion of construction. It is not anticipated that the project would result in substantial
soil erosion or significant losses of topsoil m.).
The proposed project components may be locally subject to seismically induced secondary effects related
to liquefaction, lateral spreading, local subsidence of soil, and vibrational damage (Draft Program EIR, p.
4.5-6). Pipelines are replaced or rehabilitated typically by trenching and backfill, underground. The pipe
is supported on bedding material, and at least six to eight inches of clearance is left between the pipe and
trench walls. Suitable granular pipe zone material is placed around and on top of the pipe. Backfill must
consist of suitable material, free of organic material, debris, and large rocks. This construction method
absorbs energy during seismic events and relieves susceptibility to ground motion that would cause rupture
of the pipe. Because of the construction specifications described above, impacts associated with seismic
hazard are not considered significant m.).
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
No project components are located within designated Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-1 or MRZ-2 zones
(Draft Program EIR, p. 4.5-7). The South Coast Materials Company Carlsbad Quarry and associated
MRZ-2 zone are located east of and away from project components. There would not be impacts to the
known aggregate resources associated with the quarry (m.). The remaining components of the Master
Plans are all located within MRZ-3 zones m.). Due to the necessity of performing a site-specific
geotechnical investigation, additional information regarding the unknown content of MRZ-3 zones will be
explored at the time of project-specific detailed planning and engineering studies. Due to the general
nature of information available at this program level of analysis, impacts are anticipated to be less than
significant (m.).
Regarding cumulative impacts, geologic/soils hazards associated with cumulative development within the
City would be evaluated on a site-specific basis (Draft Program EIR, p. 5-4). Geologic and soils impacts
and required mitigation would be evaluated on the respective properties and projects on a project-by-
project basis through the use of geotechnical reports and Phase I Site Assessments m.). Therefore, with
implementation of recommended mitigation measures on a project-by-project basis, no significant
cumulative geologic/soils impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required (m.).
F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The storage of chemicals and use of petroleum fuel will be required for stationary engines present at some
of the pump stations during operation of the proposed project (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.6-4). The use,
storage, transportation, and disposal of these substances is regulated by the County Department of
Hazardous Waste Management, and will be conducted according to all applicable state, federal and local
regulations. The adherence to statutory standards and practices of the proposed project components will
reduce the risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances to the environment due to an accident or
upset conditions. Also, no use of extremely hazardous materials such as gaseous chlorine or other
chemicals is proposed; therefore, impacts would not be significant (m.).
Several project components would be located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area and
Flight Activity Zone (FAZ) (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.6-5). The project does not propose “intensive
development” involving large groups of people, and a permanent hazard within the airport land use plan
would not occur m.). Impacts would not be significant u.).
Due to the undeveloped nature of land and potentially flammable materials surrounding several project
components, construction would pose a slight risk of wildland fires (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.6-6). The
project design feature listed in TubZe 2-5 of the Draft Program EIR to prepare a brush management plan
and to disseminate fire safety information to construction crews would help to ensure impacts would not be
significant (Ibid.).
Due to the unknown nature of potential hazardous material sites in the project area and other potential
impacts discussed in Section 4.6 of the Draft Program EIR, additional project-level analysis is required to
determine the significance of potential hazard effects for all project components (Draft Program EIR, p. 4-
6.5). However, with implementation of standard conditions, any potential impacts to hazards and
hazardous materials will be reduced to a less than significant level (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.6-4).
Cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts and any potential mitigation would be evaluated on a
project-by-project basis as minimal information is available at this program level of analysis (Draft
Program EIR, p. 5-4). No significant cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts are anticipated
(Ibid.).
Findinas of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
G. Land Use and Planning
Most of the projects included in the Master Plan Update are below-ground facilities such as pipelines
which are installed in easements or rights-of-way and do not have local land use effects of significance
after installation or rehabilitation, except when maintenance is required (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.8-3). No
mitigation is required m.).
The Master Plan Updates have been designed to be consistent with and implement the policies of the
affected jurisdictional general plan land use elements and community facilities elements in an orderly and
integrated fashion (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.8-6). From a standpoint of local land use designations and
zoning, all of the project components in the Master Plan Updates are either compatible with local land use
regulations or would be compatible, subject to use permit limitations m.).
The coastal zone for the City of Carlsbad is located to the west of El Camino Real. As portions of the
proposed project are located to the west of El Camino Real it has the potential to affect the Coastal Zone
and will be subject to a Coastal Development Permit. The project would not conflict with any existing
general plan, coastal plan or any other land use plan or policy (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.8-7).
Consequently, no adverse impact to land use planning would result from implementation of the Master
Plan Updates and no mitigation is required m.).
Facilities and improvements proposed in the Master Plan Updates are based on growth and population
projections derived from SANDAG population estimates and projections. In the course of preparing the
Master Plan Updates, existing, proposed and designated land uses were used to generate the capacity data
for the modeling of the systems that revealed deficiencies and indicated the need for improvements or new
facilities. The location, capacity, and phasing of projects in the Master Plan Updates conform to existing
and planned uses overall (Draft Program EIR, p. 5-5) The Master Plan Updates projects do not affect land
use in the affected jurisdiction, but are designed to match the necessary infrastructure for wastewater in
support of the land uses m.).
Adoption of the Master Plan Updates, when considered together with the general plans and other planning
for the affected jurisdictions, would not result in significant land use impacts, but would support the
jurisdictions’ existing land uses, and development in conformance with applicable general plans (Tbid.).
No significant cumulative land use impacts would occur with the proposed Master Plan Updates (m.).
H. Agricultural Resources
Implementation of the two Master Plan Updates will not result in significant impacts to agricultural
resources (Draft Program EIR, p. 6-4). The project, located mostly within existing or future streets and
disturbed areas, would not result in the conversion of important farmlands to non-agricultural uses, and
will not conflict with any Williamson Act contracts in the City (Draft Program EIR, pps. 6-4 and 6-5).
1. Energy
The projects proposed in the two Master Plan Updates would not significantly affect local or regional
energy supplies, nor would the projects conflict with adopted energy conservation plans (Draft Program
EIR, p. 6-5). The proposed power-consuming facilities (ie., pump stations and lift stations) would
incorporate new energy-efficient technologies, which utilize non-renewable resources in an efficient
manner. Energy consumption from construction-related activities necessary for development of the
proposed facilities would be relatively minor and impacts would not be significant to existing energy
resources w.).
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
For some project components, use of SDGE's rights-of-way may be required. In these instances,
coordination would be made with SDGE to ensure that the utility provider would be able to adequately
access their facilities. It is not anticipated that relocation of any SDGE facilities is required for
implementation of the various water and sewer project components. Nonetheless, access and potential
relocation issues, as well as grading or encroachment into SDGE rights-of-way, would be determined at the
project level of analysis for each project component m.). Impacts would not be significant at this
program level of analysis m.).
J. Population and Housing
The proposed Master Plan Updates would extend and improve existing water supply and sewer
infrastructure within the City in accordance with regional population projections and as needed by the
demand that the forecasted additional population would place upon these services. The proposed projects
would be phased so that the infrastructure would be developed concurrently with the increased housing
demand and population. The Master Plan Updates would not result in significant impacts to the City's
projected population and housing needs (Draft Program EIR, p. 6-5).
K. Public Services
The implementation of the Master Plan Updates would not require new services for the following: fire
protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities; no impact would occur (Draft
Program EIR, p. 6-5).
The project would not affect existing primary and secondary schools within the area (Draft Program EIR,
p. 6-6). Implementation of the project in the manner or location planned would not result in impacts to
proposed schools (w.). Additional demands on existing public parks would not occur m.). New or
improved park facilities would not be necessary as a result of implementing the project m.).
The proposed project would not exceed official regional or local population projections m.). The size,
capacity, and location of all facilities would be based on the population and land use analysis contained in
the Master Plan Updates which, in turn, is based on forecast growth identified in the City of Carlsbad
General Plan, and systems would be sized appropriately to serve projected service populations m.).
L. Recreation
Implementation of the Master Plan Updates may cause potential conflicts with existing parks or
recreational uses where facilities are proposed adjacent to these facilities (Draft Program EIR, p. 6-6).
Potential conflicts with these types of facilities will be identified in the engineering and design stage of all
phases of the project. The Districts are both obligated to coordinate all construction, repair, and
maintenance activities with all park and recreation agencies whose facilities may be affected in the
planning stage. Consequently, the required coordination with the affected agencies would reduce the
potential conflicts to a less than significant level (m). The project would not result in increased demand
for recreational uses, or prevent access to parks or recreational facilities (u).
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
M. Utilities and Service Systems
The proposed projects to be developed with implementation of the two Master Plan Updates would not
significantly affect utilities and service systems (Draft Program EIR, p. 6-6). The proposed facilities would
not place substantial demands upon the City’s utilities such as power and natural gas (Ibid). The project
facilities’ impacts on the area’s communications systems would occur as necessary safety and operating
measures. Overall, these would be short-term minor impacts m.).
SECTlON3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
The Carlsbad City Council hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in the Draft Program
EIR that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a
less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts and the mitigation measures that will reduce
the impacts to a less than significant level are as follows:
A. Biological Resources
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Twenty-six (out of a total of 84) project components would result in potentially significant impacts to
biological resources (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.3-14). Each of these components occurs within or adjacent
to known sensitive habitat or species localities and most are within designated standards or hardline
conservation areas w.). As such, implementation of each component identified below has the potential
to directly or indirectly affect a sensitive resource and/or affect the establishment of an effective regional
preserve system (w.).
2. Findings
The Carlsbad City Council hereby finds that with the implementation of the following mitigation measures,
potential biological resource impacts will be reduced to the extent feasible:
Following project-level resource mapping and identification of precise implementation methods and
location, significant adverse impacts to biological resources can generally be avoided or mitigated through
incorporation of one or all of the following measures:
Avoidance and minimization of impacts through project redesign or implementation of construction
restrictions including seasonal restrictions (these measures would likely need to be ensured through
construction monitoring adjacent to sensitive resource areas);
0 Conservation of like habitat near to project impact area through dedication of a conservation easement
and management endowment; and/or
0 Enhancement, restoration, and/or creation of habitats affected by the project with methodologies
approved by the City and resource agencies.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
3. Supporting Explanation
Project components would temporarily and directly impact agriculture, grassland, riparian scrub, riparian
forest, oak woodlands, oak riparian forests and eucalyptus woodland habitats during construction of the
project (Draft Program EIR, pps. 4.3-14 through 4.3-21). Direct impacts to these vegetation communities
are considered significant and mitigation is required.
Direct impacts to wildlife species may occur for project components as a result of habitat removal or
specific impacts to individual species m.). Many components are proposed in habitats that support one
if not all life cycle stages of narrow endemic or federally or state-listed threatened or endangered species m.). Direct impacts to wildlife species are considered significant and mitigation is required m.).
Indirect impacts to wildlife species would occur as a result of both construction and operation of the
project components (m.). Indirect impacts would be associated with an increase in human presence and
noise generated from construction m.). Indirect impacts associated with increased human presence as a
result of potential new maintenance roadways or paths would occur once construction is complete m.).
An increased ability for humans to access sensitive habitat areas can increase the chances for illegal
hunting or harvesting in addition to general disturbance (m.). These potential indirect impacts are
considered significant, and mitigation is required (m.).
Project components may impact wetland and water resources during project rehabilitation and maintenance
activities (m.). Direct impacts to wetlands, including draining, filling or otherwise manipulating the
natural hydrologic regime or vegetative community, are considered significant, requiring mitigation
measures to reduce the level of effect m.).
Project components may indirectly impact wetland and water resources in the form of water pollution as a
result of runoff from construction staging areas and permanent maintenance access roads (m.). Indirect
impacts to these sensitive resources would be considered significant, requiring mitigation m.).
Project components may impact designated wildlife corridors within the study area (Tbid.). Although these
impacts could be temporarily significant due to obstruction of wildlife pathways or vegetation disruption
during construction, all project areas would be covered and vegetation would be restored to its previous
condition (m.). Long-term, direct impacts would be less than significant, since no long-term linear
barriers to wildlife movement would result m.).
Implementation of these components within wildlife movement areas could have indirect impacts
related to increased human presence and noise both during and after construction m.).
Increased human presence could reduce the likelihood of future wildlife use of the area and
therefore push species into more marginal habit or cut off wildlife movement m.). Indirect
impacts to wildlife movement corridors are considered significant, requiring mitigation w.).
Project components may impact areas designated for protection under the MHCP or the specific guidelines
of the City of Carlsbad Subarea Plan m.). Potential conflicts with a regional resource planning tool such
as the MHCP is considered a significant impact; therefore mitigation is required m.).
With implementation of standard conditions and the above listed mitigation measures, any
potential impacts to biological resources will be reduced to a’less than significant level (Draft EIR,
p. 4-47).
Findings for additional biological resource impacts are described in Sections 2 and 4. I7
Findinas of Fact and Statement of Overridina Considerations
8. Cultural Resources
1. Potential Significant Impacts
A total of 63 cultural resource sites have been identified within the study area (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.4-
8). Twenty out of 50 Water Master Plan projects would result in potentially significant impacts to cultural
resources (Draft Program EIR, pps. 4.4-8, 4.4-9, and 4.4-10). For projects in the Sewer Master Plan
Update, 15 out of 34 would result in potentially significant impacts (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.4-10, 4.4-11,
and 4.4-12). Mitigation would be required (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.4-8). Due to the site-specific nature
of cultural resources, a mitigation program must be implemented, as identified in pps. 4.4-12 through 4.4-
21 of the Draft Program EIR.
Additional cultural resource impacts are identified in Section 2 above.
Implementation of the proposed Master Plan facilities could involve grading and excavation activities
within fossil-bearing geologic formations which could potentially impact significant paleontological
resources (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.4-12). Specific locations of potential impact would be those locations
considered to be high- to moderately sensitive in paleontological resources. It should be noted that specific
information would become available at the time of grading.
Construction of new facilities may disturb fossil-bearing geological strata in almost any location in the city (m.). Pipelines are generally constructed in road rights-of -way or existing easements where strata have
already been disturbed, so that the potential for intact fossils representing significant paleontological
information is low (u.). The same condition will prevail at sites of lift stations, reservoirs, and pump
stations where prior construction has extensively disturbed the underlying earth materials m.).
2. Findings
The Carlsbad City Council hereby finds that with the implementation of the following mitigation measures,
potential impacts to cultural resources will be reduced to less than significant:
Obtain permission from private landowners to survey the fields and yards in order to determine
presence/absence of cultural resources. If cultural resources are located then mitigation measure [2] is
recommended.
Test those sites that have not yet been tested so a determination of significance can be made. If the
resource is determined to be significant, mitigate through avoidance. If avoidance is not feasible, then
mitigation through a data recovery program (see mitigation measure [3]).
If site avoidance, the preferred mitigation measure, is not feasible, then a data recovery program should
be completed to recover a large enough sample of cultural material so that information of importance
in addressing regional research questions will not be irretrievable lost through impacts.
Provide a qualified archaeological monitor during construction so that buried cultural resources can be
identified in the field. Upon identification, the resource should be tested (mitigation measure [2]) to
determine significance with appropriate mitigation measures as necessary.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Monitoring Program
An additional mitigation measure is intended for many sites within the study area that are located within
developed areas. For these sites, a monitoring program, rather than a test program, is recommended if
construction is to occur within or adjacent to the site. Components of such a monitoring program would
include, but not be limited to the following:
Prior to Preconstruction (Precon) Meeting
1.
2.
3.
Planning Department Plan Check
a. Prior to the first Precon Meeting, the Environmental Compliance OfficerPlanner (ECOP)
of the Planning Department shall verify that the requirements for Archaeological
Monitoring and Native American monitoring, if applicable, have been noted on the
appropriate construction documents.
Submit Letter of Qualification to the Planning Department
a. Prior to the first Precon Meeting, the applicant shall provide a letter of verification to the
ECOP stating that a qualified Archaeologist has been retained to implement the
monitoring program.
Records Search Prior to Precon Meeting
a. At least thirty days prior to the Precon Meeting the qualified Archaeologist shall verify
that a records search has been completed and updated as necessary and be prepared to
introduce any pertinent information concerning expectations and probabilities of discovery
during trenching and/or grading activities. Verification includes, but is not limited to, a
copy of a confirmation letter from South Coast Information Center or, if the search was in-
house, a letter of verification from the Archaeologist stating that the search was
completed.
Precon Meeting
1. Monitor Shall Attend Precon Meetings
a. Prior to beginning any work that requires monitoring, the Applicant shall arrange a Precon
Meeting that shall include the Archaeologist, Construction Manager, and/or Grading
Contractor. The qualified Archaeologist shall attend any grading related Precon Meetings
to make comments and/or suggestions concerning the Archaeological Monitoring program
with the Construction Manager and/or Grading Contractor.
2. Identify Areas to be Monitored
a. At the Precon Meeting, the Archaeologist shall submit to ECOP a copy of the site/grading
plan (reduced to 11x17) that identifies areas to be monitored as well as areas that may
require delineation of grading limits.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
During Construction
1. Monitor Shall be Present During GradingExcavation
The qualified Archaeologist shall be present full-time during grading/excavation of native soils
and shall document activity via the Consultant Monitor Record. This record shall be sent to the
ECOP, as appropriate, each month.
a. Monitoring
Trenches Will Include Mainline, Laterals, and all Appurtenances. Monitoring of trenches
is required for the mainline, laterals, services and all other appurtenances that impact
native soils one foot deeper than existing as detailed on the plans or in the contract
documents identified by drawing number or plan file number. It is the Construction
Manager's responsibility to keep the monitors up-to-date with current plans.
b. Discoveries
Discovery Process: In the event of a discovery, and when requested by the Archaeologist,
or the Principal Investigator (PI) if the Monitor is not qualified as a PI, the Construction
Manager (CM), as appropriate, shall be contacted and shall divert, direct or temporarily
halt ground disturbing activities in the area of discovery to allow for preliminary
evaluation of potentially significant archaeological resources. The PI shall also
immediately notify ECOP of such findings at the time of discovery.
C. Determination of Significance
The significance of the discovered resources shall be determined by the PI. For significant
archaeological resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program shall be
prepared, approved by the agency and carried out to mitigate impacts before ground-
disturbing activities in the area of discovery will be allowed to resume.
d. Minor Discovery Process for Pipeline Projects
For allprojects: The following is a summary of the criteria and procedures related to the
evaluation of small cultural resource deposits during excavation for pipelines.
2. Coordination and Notification
a. Archaeological Monitor shall notify PI, CM and ECOP, as appropriate.
3. Criteria used to Determine if it is a Small Cultural Resource Deposit
a. The deposit is limited in size both in length and depth; and,
b.
C.
The information value is limited and is not associated with any other resources; and there
A preliminary description and photographs, if available, shall be transmitted to ECOP.
are no unique features/artifacts associated with the deposit.
Findinqs of Fact and Statement of Overridinq Considerations
d. The information will be forwarded to the Planning Department for consultation and
verification that it is a small historic deposit.
4. Procedures for documentation, curation and reporting
The following constitutes adequate mitigation of a small historic deposit to reduce impacts due to
excavation activities to below a level of significance.
a. 100 percent of the artifacts within the trench alignment and width shall be documented in-
situ, to include photographic records, plan view of the trench and profiles of sidewalls,
recovered, photographed after cleaning and analyzed and curated.
b. The remainder of the deposit within the limits of excavation (trench walls) shall be left
intact.
C. The Final Results Report shall include a requirement for monitoring of any future work in
the vicinity.
5. Human Remains
If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area and procedures set forth in the
California Public Resources Code (Sec. 5097.98) and State Health and Safety Code (Sec. 7050.5)
as follows:
a. Notification
1)
2)
Archaeological Monitor shall notify the PI, CM and ECOP.
The PI shall notify the County Coroner after consultation.
b. Stop work and isolate discovery site
1) CM/ECO/P, as appropriate, shall stop work immediately in the location of the
discovery and any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent human
remains until a determination can be made by the County Coroner in consultation
with the PI concerning the origin of the remains and the cause of death.
The County Coroner, in consultation with the PI, shall determine the need for a
field investigation to examine the remains and establish a cause of death.
If a field investigation is not warranted, the PI, in consultation with the County
Coroner, shall determine if the remains are of Native American origin.
2)
3)
C. If Human Remains are Native American
1)
2)
3)
The Coroner shall notify the Native American Historic Commission (NAHC). (By
law, ONLY the Coroner can make this call.)
NAHC will identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely
Descendent (MLD ) .
The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or PI responsible for the
excavation work to determine the treatment, with appropriate dignity, of the
human remains and any associated grave goods (PRC 5097.98).
21
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
d. If Human Remains are not Native American
1)
2)
3)
4)
The PI shall contact the NAHC and notify them of the historical
context of the burial.
NAHC will identify the person or persons it believes to be the MLD.
The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or PI responsible for the
excavation work to determine the treatment of the human remains (PRC 5097.98).
If the remains are of historic origin, they shall be appropriately removed and
conveyed to the Museum of Man for analysis. The decision for reinterment of the
human remains shall be made in consultation with ECOP, the landowner, the
NAHC and the Museum of Man.
e. Disposition of Human Remains
The landowner, or his authorized representative, shall reinter the Native American human
remains and any associated grave goods, with appropriate dignity, on the property in a
location not subject to further subsurface disturbance, IF:
1)
2)
The NAHC is unable to identify the MLD, OR the MLD failed to make a
recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission; OR;
The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the
MLD and mediation in accordance with PRC 5097.94 (k) by the NAHC fails to
provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
6. Notification of Completion
The Archaeologist shall notify the ECO/P, in writing of the end date of monitoring.
Post Construction
1. Handling and Curation of Artifacts and Letter of Acceptance
a. The Archaeologist shall be responsible for ensuring that all cultural remains collected are
cleaned, catalogued, and permanently curated with an appropriate institution; that a letter
of acceptance from the curation institution has been submitted to the Planning
Development; that all artifacts are analyzed to identify function and chronology as they
relate to the history of the area; that faunal material is identified as to species; and that
specialty studies are completed, as appropriate.
b. Curation of artifacts associated with the survey, testing and/or data recovery for this
project shall be completed in consultation with ECOP and the Native American
representative, as applicable.
2. Final Results Reports (Monitoring and Research Design and Data Recovery Program)
a. Within three months following the completion of monitoring, two copies of the Final
Results Report (even if negative) and/or evaluation report, if applicable, which describes
the results, analysis, and conclusions of the Archaeological Monitoring Program (with
appropriate graphics) shall be submitted to ECOP for approval.
Findinas of Fact and Statement of Overridina Considerations
b. For significant archaeological resources encountered during monitoring, the Research
Design and Data Recovery Program shall be included as part of the Final Results Report.
3. Recording Sites with State of California Department of Park and Recreation
The Archaeologist shall be responsible for recording (on the appropriate State of California
Department of Park and Recreation forms-DPR 523 AB) any significant or potentially significant
resources encountered during the Archaeological Monitoring Program in accordance with the
City's Historical Resources Guidelines, and submittal of such forms to the South Coastal
Information Center with the Final Results Report m.).
Paleontological Resources
1. Projects that may impact paleontologically sensitive areas (i.e., formations that have been assigned
high or moderate paleontological resource sensitivity), will require paleontological monitoring
onsite during all phases of initial and subsequent cutting of undisturbed formational sediments in
order to make salvage collections of any invertebrate, vertebrate or paleobotanical fossils that are
encountered or unearthed.
2. Collected fossils shall be cleaned and/or prepared to a point of identification, and then curated to
museum standards (cataloging of locality and specimen data, numbering, identification, labeling)
before being deposited in an appropriate public facility (or facilities) that can provide permanent
archival storage (so that specimens are available for future scientific study). A report detailing the
mitigation shall be prepared, even if negative, which will include necessary maps, graphics, and
fossil lists to document the paleontological monitoring program.
3. Paleontological monitoring will be required for all exposures of the Santiago Formation and of
Pleistocene marine terrace and estuarine deposits. A museum collections and records search will
precede any field work, in order to more precisely define any areas that might need particular
attention during monitoring of construction related activities. Monitoring is not necessary in areas
mapped as granitic (tonalite, gabbro) or metavolcanic rock.
4. These general guidelines shall be followed when planning for a project component which requires
paleontological monitoring:
a. The paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall attend any preconstruction/ pregrading
meetings to consult with CityDistrict staff and the excavation contractor.
b. The paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall be onsite full-time during excavation
into previously undisturbed formations. The monitoring time may be decreased at the
discretion of the paleontologist in consultation with the CityDistrict.
C. If significant fossils are encountered, the paleontologist shall have the authority to divert
or temporarily halt construction activities in the area of discovery to allow recovery of
fossil remains, and shall immediately contact the CityDistrict. The determination of
significance shall be at the discretion of the paleontologist.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
d. Construction activities in the area of discovery shall resume upon notification by the
paleontologist that fossil remains have been recovered. The paleontologist shall be
responsible for preparation of fossils to a point of identification and submittal of a letter of
acceptance from a local qualified curation facility. The paleontologist shall record any
discovered fossil sites at the San Diego Natural History Museum.
e. Within three months following termination of the paleontological monitoring program, the
contractor shall provide a monitoring letter report (with appropriate graphics) to the
CityDistrict summarizing the results (even if negative), analyses and conclusions of the
above program.
3. Sumorting Explanation
Gallegos & Associates performed a Cultural Resources Study for the project in May 2003 (Draft Program
EIR, p. 4.4-1). The Cultural Resources Study included archaeological record and data review of the
project area to determine the recorded patterns of cultural resources within the study area boundaries (m.). From this information and current aerial photographs of the project locations, assessments could be
made regarding the potential for cultural resources within the general vicinity of pipelines and facilities.
This information also indicated where existing development has precluded the possibility of any cultural
resources (m.).
A record search was conducted at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University and
Gallegos & Associates library m.). The record searches principally focused on the locational
information for recorded sites. The data from the Information Center was transferred onto the project maps
to assess possible conflicts with proposed master plan components m.). The data was also compared to
the project aerial photograph series to determine where recorded archaeological sites were destroyed by
previous development m.). No surveys were conducted, principally due to the number of projects and
miles of project components m.). The Draft Program EIR section identified those project components
that would require additional cultural resource investigation when more detailed design project information
becomes available m.).
The Cultural Resource Study identified 20 'out of 50 Water Master Plan projects that would result in
potentially significant impacts to cultural resources (Draft Program EIR, pps. 4.4-8, 4.4-9, and 4.4-10).
For projects in the Sewer Master Plan Update, 15 out of 34 would result in potentially significant impacts
(Draft Program EIR, p. 4.4-10, 4.4-11, and 4.4-12). Because it is unknown whether cultural resources
exist in undeveloped or undisturbed areas or the importance of known sites near the project components,
cultural resource impacts are potentially significant, and mitigation would be required (Draft Program EIR,
p. 4.4-8).
Construction of new facilities may disturb fossil-bearing geological strata in almost any location in the city
(Draft Program EIR, p. 4.4-12). Pipelines are generally constructed in road rights-of -way or existing
easements where strata have already been disturbed, so that the potential for intact fossils representing
significant paleontological information is low (Tbid.). The same condition will prevail at sites of lift
stations, reservoirs, and pump stations where prior construction has extensively disturbed the underlying
earth materials m.).
With implementation of standard conditions and the above listed mitigation measures, any potential
impacts to cultural resources and paleontological will be reduced to a less than significant level (Draft
Program EIR, p. 4.4-21).
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
C. Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Construction and operation of a number of project components may require dewatering in pipeline
trenches in order to place infrastructures underground. Dewatering of groundwater may result in potential
impacts to surface water quality due to the unknown chemical makeup of groundwater (Draft Program
EIR, p. 4.7-8). Dewatering and discharge activities are subject to water quality guidelines outlined by the
NPDES administered by the San Diego RWQCB. In addition to dewatering, stockpiling of soil removed
during construction of trenches may result in sediment-laden runoff from construction sites a.). The
increase in total dissolved solids, minerals and other inorganic materials may enter local drainages and
exceed water quality standards a.). Because violation of water quality standards may occur during
dewatering, discharge, and trenching associated with construction of project components, impacts to water
quality are considered potentially significant (m.).
There are a number of project components located adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon, and
the Buena Vista Lagoon. These water bodies are identified on the SWRCB’s 2002 Section 303(d) List of
Water Quality Limited Segments. Under Section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act, states, territories
and authorized tribes are required to develop a list of water quality limited segments. The project
components under both master plans that have the potential to affect the 303(d) water bodies are identified
in Tables S-I and S-2 of the Draft Program EIR and would result in potentially significant impacts to water
quality (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.7-9).
Impacts would also potentially occur to all project components located within the 100-year floodplain, as
defined by FEMA (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.7-10). The potentially significant impacts would be associated
with the loss of any project components as result of the scouring action by a flood a.).
2. Findings
The Carlsbad City Council hereby finds that with the implementation of the following mitigation measures,
potential impacts to hydrology and water quality will be reduced to less than significant:
For projects proposed with the 100-year floodplain, a scour analysis of the floodplains associated with
Buena Vista and Agua Hedionda creeks shall be completed during final project design to determine
the likelihood for washout of a pipeline or project facility during a flood event. Design and
construction specification of the pipeline will incorporate recommendations from the report to ensure
that potential impacts from scouring do not comprise the integrity of the pipeline. The list of projects
located within the 100-year floodplain is found in Tables S-I and S-2 of the Draft Program EIR.
Dewatering activities will be conducted in accordance with standard regulations of the RWQCB. A
dewatering permit will be obtained.
Discharge of groundwater will require a NPDES General Storm Water Permit that will include
provisions for implementation of BMPs to reduce potential water quality impacts.
Material stockpiled during construction shall be placed such that interference with onsite drainage
patterns will be minimized or avoided. During rain events, stockpiles shall be covered with
impermeable materials such as tarps in order to allow flow from the construction site to occur without
excessive sediment loading.
25
Findinas of Fact and Statement of Overridina Considerations
0 Potential water quality impacts to 303(d) listed water bodies (Agua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon,
Buena Vista Lagoon) will be assessed as part of project-level water quality analyses for each individual
project component with a potential to affect these water bodies. The list of project components that
would potentially affect the 303(d) water bodies is found in Tables S-I and S-2 of the Draft Program
EIR.
3. Supporting Explanation
Construction and operation of a number of project components may require dewatering in pipeline
trenches in order to place infrastructure underground (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.7-8). Dewatering of
groundwater may result in potential impacts to surface water quality due to the unknown chemical makeup
of groundwater m.). Dewatering and discharge activities are subject to water quality guidelines outlined
by the NPDES administered by the San Diego RWQCB. Because violation of water quality standards may
occur during dewatering or discharge, and trenching associated with construction of project components,
potential impacts to water quality are considered significant m.).
Regarding cumulative effects, runoff from project construction areas would contribute an incremental
increase in flows within the Buena Vista and Agua Hedionda Creek basins and would combine with
increases attributable to adjacent developments (Draft Program EIR, p. 5-4). Total runoff in the creek
basins would be short-term and would be cumulatively considerable m.). Project-by-project BMPs,
including completing scour analyses for projects within 100-year floodplains and obtaining dewatering
permits from RWQCB, would reduce sediment loads and downstream erosion to less than significant (m.). In addition, compliance of all future projects with applicable federal, state and local regulations for
stormwater and construction discharges would reduce cumulative impacts to water quality to a level below
significance m.).
With implementation of standard conditions and the above listed mitigation measures, the potential
impacts related to hydrology and water quality described above will be reduced to a less than significant
level (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.7-1 1).
D. Noise
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Temporary impacts are usually associs ed with noise genera :d by construc ion activities. Long :rm
impacts are associated with impacts on surrounding land uses generated from operation and maintenance
of the project related facilities. The construction noise specifics of the various phases of the project warrant
additional analysis by technical noise studies prepared in accordance with the applicable CEQA guidelines;
all project components would result in a potentially significant noise effect that would require site-specific
mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels (Draft Program EIR, p 4.9-3). It is
assumed that potentially significant impacts would be mitigated by mitigation measures developed at the
project level of analysis.
Project related construction noise would have no impact within Open Space areas, as these areas are
located in remote locations and devoid of sensitive receptors (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.9-5). However, the
associated noise could potentially affect wildlife species which utilize the affected Open Space areas for
habitat or migration (m.).
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Operation of the project facilities would not create a significant impact on any sensitive receptors with
regard to noise (m.). Once constructed, the pipeline segments would not result in any noise impacts as
the fluid flow of wastewater within an underground pipeline would not be audible m.). Occasional
maintenance and emergency repair activities will generate some additional noise; however, these activities
are sporadic in nature and do not occur at the same location for long periods of time (Draft Program EIR,
p. 4.9-6).
The following projects in the Master Plan Updates have the potential for significant noise impacts on
nearby receptors:
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
0
2.
New water reservoir next to existing D-3 Reservoir (water component 27)
New water reservoir adjacent to the existing Maerkle Reservoir (water component 28)
Maerkle Pump Station Capacity Improvements (water component 29)
Calavera PS Upgrades (water component 36)
Lift station upgrades at the Terramar, Villas, and Gateshead Lift Stations (sewer component 7)
Home Plant Lift Station Improvements (sewer component 9)
Agua Hedionda Lift Station Improvements (sewer component 32)
South Agua HediondaKelly Ranch Lift Station (sewer component 34) (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.9-5).
Findings
The Carlsbad City Council hereby finds that with the implementation of the following mitigation measures,
potential noise impacts will be reduced to less than significant:
The projects designated for a noise study in TubEes S-1 and S-2 of the Draft Program EIR shall be
evaluated in the design and environmental Initial Study phases to determine if potential noise impacts in
excess of City Noise Control Ordinance limits or the City’s Noise Guidelines Manual would result. If such
a potential exists, a noise study shall be conducted including recommendations for mitigation. Mitigation
shall be designed to assure that noise produced by operation of the facility shall not cause the limits in the
Noise Control Ordinance or Noise Guidelines Manual to be exceeded, and any such mitigation shall be
required as part of the project.
Also, a site-specific acoustical analysis will be required for any project located within 500feet of any
residential dwellings, which will ensure compliance with the City’s construction noise and outdoor noise
standards.
3. Supporting Explanation
The highest noise levels associated with construction typically occur with earth moving equipment which
includes excavating machinery (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.9-4). Noise levels at 50 feet from earth moving
equipment typically range from 73 to 96 dBA m.).
Findinas of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Construction and rehabilitation efforts for the project components would result in noise impacts to various
types of sensitive receptors including, residences, businesses, schools, and libraries m.). However, this
impact is temporary and would disappear once construction is completed m.). Provided that all
construction activities take place between the hours of 7:OO a.m. and 1O:OO p.m., no significant impacts
would result from construction m.). Construction activities are not anticipated to exceed the noise
standards of affected jurisdictions m.). To help minimize the impacts of construction the City shall
provide public noticing for their proposed construction activities, and will appoint a public liaison who will
respond to concerns of neighboring residents about noise and other construction disturbance m.).
Noise impacts from construction activities would be minimal within industrial and manufacturing districts,
as these areas do not contain sensitive receptors and their associated ambient noise levels are generally
high m.). Similarly, project related construction noise would have no impact within Open Space areas,
as these areas are located in remote locations and devoid of sensitive receptors (W.). No significant noise
related impacts would occur within industrial, manufacturing or open space areas as a result of short-term
construction activities (m.).
Once constructed, the pipeline segments would not result in any operational noise impacts as the fluid flow
of wastewater within an underground pipeline would not be audible m.). Occasional maintenance and
emergency repair activities will generate some additional noise; however, these activities are sporadic in
nature and do not occur at the same location for long periods of time (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.9-6).
Regarding cumulative effects, as development increases in the City, some increases in ambient noise levels
is inevitable, with localized effects (Draft Program EIR, p. 5-5). This increase would be due primarily to
traffic noise, as roads are constructed to serve new development, and to point sources of noise, such as
manufacturing operations, auto repair shops, power tool use at residences and businesses, and a host of
other activities associated with urban and suburban life (m.). Some projects would contribute
incrementally to this general pattern, especially during short-term construction activities m.). The City’s
Noise Ordinance and Noise Guidelines Manual is designed to control the exposure of residents to
excessive levels of noise. All CIP projects with a potential for long-term noise production would be
evaluated for excessive noise generation and mitigation would be applied on a project-specific basis (m.). Combined with regulation and attenuation of other sources consistent with the Noise Ordinance,
the proposed Master Plan Updates’ contribution to cumulative noise impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required m.).
With implementation of standard conditions and the above listed mitigation measure, any potential noise
impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.9-7).
E. Transportatioflraff ic
1. Potential Significant Impacts
The project would predominantly result in short-term traffic effects during construction of the various
project components (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.10-3). The short-term effects would require additional
review once detailed project construction plans become available, and accordingly, traffic impacts for the
project components identified in Tables S-1 and S-2 of the Draft Program EIR would be potentially
significant.
Findinas of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Pipeline construction activities would require lane closures which could result in short-term impacts to
traffic patterns and result in temporary traffic congestion and potential traffic hazards m.).
Consequently, portions of the affected roadway links may require detours or flagger assistance to maintain
acceptable operation of the roadways, and access to all properties m.). Closing or altering access to
individual properties, lane closures, and subjecting any portion of existing roadways to notable increases in
construction traffic are considered significant, and mitigation is required m.).
SANDAG’s Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requires an enhanced CEQA review for all large
projects that are expected to generate more than 2,400 ADT or more than 200 weekday peak hour trips.
Since the project is calculated to generate less than these amounts, this level of review is not required of
the proposed project and the project is consistent with the goals of the CMP (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.10-
5 )*
Similarly, SANDAG has produced a 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in April 2000 that
identifies those project needed to improve transportation significantly over the next 20 years. The RTP
contains plans and policies to improve mobility in the region by recommending new facilities and the
expansion of transit services, programs to manage travel demand, and changes to local land use policies.
The proposed project, although temporarily disrupting traffic flow on regional roadways during
construction, would not conflict with overall goals of the RTP m.).
2. Findings
The Carlsbad City Council hereby finds that with the implementation of the following mitigation measures,
potential short-term noise impacts will be reduced to less than significant:
0 The Districts will obtain an encroachment permit from respective local and state authorities, as
required prior to the commencement of the construction phase within the affected right-of-ways. This
process will include submittal of project plans, review of plans by the respective authorities, possible
revisions of the plans relative to concerns brought forth by the issuing agency and issuance of the
respective permit. Potential permitting agencies include Caltrans, North County Transit District
(NCTD), Cities, and the County of San Diego. All roadway features (signs, pavement, delineation,
roadway surface) and structures with the State right-of-way shall be protected, maintained in a
temporary condition, or restored.
A TCP shall be prepared prior to construction and implemented for all affected roadways. The TCP
shall be prepared in accordance with Caltrans Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and
Maintenance Work Zones [1996 (Revision 2) edition], and with the City of Carlsbad’s traffic control
guidelines. It will be prepared to ensure that access will be maintained to individual properties and
businesses, and that emergency access will not be restricted. Additionally, the TCP will ensure that
congestion and delay of traffic resulting from project construction are not substantially increased and
will be of a short-term nature.
The TCP will show all signage, striping, delineate detours, flagging operations, and any other
procedures which will be used during construction to guide motorists safely through the construction
zone and allow for a minimum of one lane of travel. The TCP will also include provisions for
coordinating with local emergency service providers regarding construction times and locations of lane
closures as well as specifications for bicycle lane safety.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The limits of construction work area(s) and suggested alternate traffic routes for through traffic will be
published in a local newspaper periodically throughout the construction period. In addition, the
construction contractor or the Districts shall provide not less than a two-week written notice prior to the
start of construction by mailing to owners/ occupants along streets to be impacted during construction.
During construction, the Districts shall ensure that continuous, unobstructed, safe and adequate
pedestrian and vehicular access to and from public facilities such as public utility stations and
community centers will be provided, and to commercial/ industrial establishments. If normal access to
these facilities is blocked by construction alternative access shall be provided. Should this occur, the
Districts shall coordinate with the businesses or each facility’s administrators in preparing a plan for
alternative access.
During construction, the Districts shall maintain continuous vehicular and pedestrian access to
residential driveways from the public street to the private property line, except where necessary
construction precludes such continuous access for reasonable periods of time. For example, when a
given pipeline segment is initially being excavated, access to individual driveways may be closed during
the course of a workday. Access shall be reestablished at the end of the workday. If a driveway needs to
be closed or interfered with as described above, the construction contractor shall notify the owner or
occupant of the closure of the driveway at least five working days prior to the closure.
Methods to maintain safe vehicular and pedestrian access include the installation of temporary bridge or
steel plates to cross over unfilled excavations. Whenever sidewalks or roadways are removed for
construction, the contractor shall place temporary sidewalks or roadways promptly after backiilling until
the final restoration has been made.
The TCP shall include provisions to ensure that the construction contractor’s work in any public street
does not interfere unnecessarily with the work of other agencies vehicles, such as emergency service
providers, mail delivery, school buses, waste services, or transit vehicles.
During project design, the Districts shall coordinate with each jurisdiction, as well as its own transit
division which may be affected by the project to determine the exact limits of project construction. All
work proposed within the State right-of-way shall be dimensioned in metric units. The coordination
effort shall be followed by specific measures to avoid conflicts resulting from other construction projects
occurring within the direct vicinity of the project and within the same time period.
Coordination with the following entities shall occur in conjunction with the proposed project:
a. NCTD
b. caltrans
C. Carlsbad Traffic Engineering
d. Oceanside Traffic Engineering
e. San Marcos Traffic Engineering
3. Supporting Explanation
Impacts were generally evaluated for portions of the proposed project that would require construction within
existing streets (Draft Program EIR, p. 4.10-2). The operational phase of the proposed project would
generate minimal traffic required for routine maintenance and emergency repair (Draft Program EIR, p.
4.10-3). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in long-term impacts to traffic (m.). Short-term
construction traffic would require implementation of a TCP m.). The project TCPs would need to be
developed in accordance with City of Carlsbad and Caltrans traffic control guidelines and that specifically
address construction traffic, traffic safety measures, and use of signage and flag personnel where necessary (M.). 30
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Traffic will be generated during project construction m.). The primary sources of construction traffic
would be workers, delivery of materials and removal of excess material. Approximately 8 to 12 construction
workers are expected on a daily basis for each segment of pipe being constructed and/or rehabilitated. An
average of four trucks per day to and from the site is anticipated for delivery and removal of materials. A
typical pipeline construction area is approximately 30 feet wide and would progress at a rate of
approximately 200 feet per day m.).
Regarding cumulative effects, the proposed project components in the Master Plan Update would contribute
to short-term impacts to traffic circulation on local roadways (Draft Program EIR, p. 5-6). Potentially
significant cumulative traffic circulation impacts could result over the short-term if multiple projects were
under construction simultaneously and in the same general location (m.). Short-term traffic impacts
caused by construction of the projects proposed within the study area would result from street closures,
increased truck traffic, and disruption of local traffic to residences and businesses (m.). As the CIP
projects would be phased over a 20-year period and would not proceed simultaneously, it is anticipated that
cumulative short-term impacts to project component roadways could be mitigated to a level of less than
significant through coordination and implementation of traffic control plans at the time of construction with
the City Engineering Department (for impacts to City roads) and with the planning entities for the Cities of
Oceanside and San Marcos (for impacts to roads within their respective jurisdictions) m.). Encroachment
permits are required for all construction affecting public rights-of-way. This permitting process is the
control point for the maximum possible reduction of cumulative traffic impacts, and is designed to reduce
direct and cumulative impacts to below a level of significance m.).
With implementation of standard conditions and the above listed mitigation measures, any potential
transportation/traffic impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level (Draft Program EIR, p. 4-107).
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
SECTION 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Carlsbad City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the
Draft Program EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level:
A. Cumulative Impacts-Biological Resources
1. Potential Significant impacts
The City is participating in the MHCP, which is intended to mitigate for the biological impacts of planned
growth through the creation of a new process for the issuance of federal and state permits and other
authorizations under federal and state law. The City of Carlsbad is developing its own Subarea Plan (the
Habitat Management Plan) within the MHCP framework. The end result of the MHCP planning process is
to provide a regional conservation plan to mitigate the cumulative effects of growth in the region.
Cumulative impacts of Water and Sewer Master Plan projects occurring in the MHCP focused planning
areas would be cumulatively significant considered together with other development projects in the City and
region, due to temporary losses in habitat value. Mitigation would be accomplished through the assessment
and mitigation of project-specific impacts as individual components of the Master Plans are implemented
and, when the MHCP is implemented, through a regional conservation plan in cooperation with CDFG,
USFWS, and other cities in the area. The City of Carlsbad HMP will address cumulative biological effects
as part of the MHCP process; however, until that document is implemented, cumulative impacts would be
significant and would remain unmitigated (Draft Program EIR, p. 5-3).
2. Findings
The Carlsbad City Council hereby finds that with the implementation of the following mitigation measure,
potential biological impacts of the Project will be reduced to the extent feasible:
0 Mitigation would be accomplished through the assessment and mitigation of project-specific impacts as
individual components of the Master Plans are implemented and, when the MHCP is implemented,
through a regional conservation plan in cooperation with CDFG, USFWS, and other cities in the area.
(Draft Program EIR, p. 5-3).
The Carlsbad City Council hereby finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives that would sufficiently reduce
Project impacts to a less than significant level at this program level of analysis.
3. Supporting Explanation
Although the City of Carlsbad draft HMP has been approved by the City and California Coastal
Commission, the City is awaiting a Biological Opinion (and Take authorization) from USFWS (Draft
Program EIR, p. 4.3-12.). Impacts would be significant and would remain unmitigated until the Hh4P
documents are approved by USFWS.
Findinas of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
SECTION 5. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The Carlsbad City Council hereby makes the following findings regarding the feasibility of project
alternatives.
A. “No Project” Alternative-
1. Description
Under this alternative, the proposed Water and Sewer Master Plans Updates would not be adopted by the
City of Carlsbad. This does not mean, however, that the facilities in the Master Plan Updates or other
facilities based on development and need in the city, would not be constructed. All projects in the Master
Plan Updates could be constructed or implemented on an individual project basis whether or not the Master
Plan Updates are adopted (Draft Program EIR, p. 7-2).
2. Findings
The Carlsbad City Council hereby finds that the “No Project” Alternative is not feasible because it is not
environmentally superior to the proposed Project and it fails to meet Project objectives.
3. Supporting Explanation
Potential environmental impacts identified in the Draft Program EIR would still be likely to occur under the
No Project Alternative (Draft Program EIR, p. 7-2). This alternative would, however, deprive the City of
Carlsbad of a valuable planning tool, and one that is informative for those interested in the City’s future
plans and facilities m.).
Many of the projects in the Master Plan Updates are intended to remedy deficiencies that were identified in
the modeling of the City’s water and sewer systems or to correct problems or potential problems in the
operation of those systems. If the Master Plan Updates were not adopted, the deficiencies and potential
problems would remain and would still require remedy through, in most cases, the improvement projects
that make up the integrated programs in the Master Plan Update m.). Likewise, the new projects in the
plan are predicated on the improvements needed to make the system adequate to serve the city’s planned
future growth (IbkJ.). Under the No Project alternative, the same improvements would likely be brought
forward for approval as individual projects, but in piecemeal fashion and not as an integrated program that
had been evaluated as a single environmental project m.). In addition, the No Project alternative would
deprive the City of the opportunity to streamline environmental review of future projects through the use of
the Program EIR and subsequent updates m.). For these reasons, the No Project alternative offers no
environmental advantages in procedures, impacts, or public information over the proposed Master Plan
Update m.).
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
B. Planninq and Land Use Alternatives
1. Description
The Water and Sewer Master Plans Updates were developed using the best available information on
population growth; proposed, planned, and forecast growth and development; means of effluent disposal;
requirements and recommendations for peak flows, volumes, and facility capacities; and other factors
affecting future City wastewater utilities planning. The planning period for the Master Plan Updates is long-
term, extending to 2020, and that almost all the factors in such long-range planning are to some degree
uncertain. Most land use planning, until projects are implemented as buildout of the City proceeds, is
subject to change for a variety of reasons. Thus, District staff will continue to monitor factors likely to affect
land use in the City and identify changes that could affect the forecasts and assumptions used to develop the
improvement programs in the Master Plan Updates (Draft Program EIR, p. 7-3).
Most of the projects in the Master Plan Updates are upgrading and modification of existing facilities. In
such cases, the location of the project is usually fixed. Nonetheless, adjustments are possible because the
Master Plan Updates are guiding documents rather than rigid templates w).
2. Findings
The Carlsbad City Council hereby finds that while the Planning and Land Use Alternatives meet the project
objectives, the alternative is not considered environmentally superior.
3. Supporting Explanation
Flexibility in the implementation of the Master Plan Update will occur at the specific project implementation
level. Partly as a result of the mitigation program in the Draft Program EIR, evaluation of the individual
projects in the Master Plan Updates can occur at the stage of project approval or implementation. Given the
speculative and to some degree uncertain nature of future conditions, this process is the only practical way to
assure that feasible alternatives to each project, if desirable or necessary, are developed m.). As an
example, if development plans approved for a given area change the street pattern in that area, the location
of pipelines projected in the Master Plan Updates may change. If density or type of development in a given
area changes, the storage capacity needed to serve that area, and thus the size of water reservoirs may
change, and the capacity of sewer collection facilities may also change. Individual project review in the
planning stage is the only time an informed decision on such matters can occur (IbkJ.). Overall, this
alternative would meet the project objectives, but would cause the same environmental impacts as the
proposed project (m.).
C. Environmentally Superior Alternative
The Guidelines require identification of an environmentally superior alternative. None of the alternatives
discussed in the Draft Program EIR is environmentally superior to the proposed Project. Therefore, the
Draft Program EIR determined that the proposed Project is the environmentally superior alternative (Draft
Program EIR, p. 7-3).
Findinas of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
SECTION 6. FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCEMENT
The Carlsbad City Council hereby makes the following findings regarding potential growth-inducing
impacts:
1. Potential Significant impact
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 (d) requires that an EIR evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of a
proposed project (Draft Program EIR p. 6-2). This evaluation should address the ways in which the
proposed project could encourage economic and population growth, or the construction of additional
housing, either directly or indirectly (a).
2. Findings
The Carlsbad City Council hereby finds that adoption of the proposed Project will not cause significant
growth-inducing impacts.
3. Supporting Explanation
Generally, growth-inducing projects possess such characteristics as being located in isolated, undeveloped or
underdeveloped areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure (e.g., sewer and water facilities,
roadways, etc.), or those that could encourage “premature” or unplanned growth (i.e., “leap-frog”
development). While infrastructure improvements, like those planned in the CIP, raises the issue of growth
inducement, the proposed project is not considered to be growth inducing because the proposed project
would not provide additional long-term employment opportunities, no residences are planned as part of the
proposed project, and no extension of services beyond that currently planned for in respective planning
documents (e.g., City of Carlsbad General Plan) is associated with the proposed Project (Draft Program EIR,
p. 6-3).
In calculating flow projections for the project, the Master Plan Updates relied on recent regional population
projections published by SANDAG. The ultimate flow projections were based on existing unit flow
generation rates which were then applied to SANDAG 2020 population projections. Therefore, the CIP
projects would not generate additional population or cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections w). In addition, because no unplanned growth would be served by the project, the
project would not remove an obstacle to growth w).
The facilities in the proposed Master Plan Updates are community service facilities, serving an urban
infrastructure necessary to support economic and population growth. Their size and capacities are
predicated on the projected growth that relates to the type of land use and the SANDAG population
estimates and projections (SANDAG 2020 CitiesKounty Forecast). For that reason, the facilities in the
Master Plan do not induce growth guided by the City’s planning documents w).
SECTION 7. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council hereby declares that pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council
has balanced the benefits of the Project against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining
whether to approve the Project. If the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered “acceptable.”
35
Findinas of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City Council hereby declares that the Final Program EIR has discussed significant effects that may
occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the
Program EIR, these effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except for unavoidable
significant impacts as discussed in Section 4 of these Findings.
The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or
substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project.
The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the Program
EIR and/or Project could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would
impose restrictions on the Project that would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social, and other
benefits that this City Council finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts. The City Council finds that except
for the Project, none of the other alternatives set forth in the Program EIR are environmentally superior to
the Project or eliminate the unavoidable significant impacts associated with the Project.
The City Council hereby declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the
Project to the extent feasible by adopting the proposed mitigation measures, having considered the entire
administrative record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable
adverse impacts after mitigation, the City Council has determined that the following social, economic, and
environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those
potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:
The Project would make facility improvements on aging water and sewer infrastructure (Draft Program
EIR, p. 2-1).
The Project would increase capacity as necessary w).
The Project would facilitate identified expansion needs (Ibld).
The Project would reduce maintenance costs for the respective Districts (m).
The Project would reduce the potential for wastewater overflows cn>id.).
The Project would afford the City of Carlsbad a valuable, integrated planning tool that is informative for
those interested in the City’s future plans and facilities (Draft Program EIR, p. 7-2).
The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through the approval and
implementation of the Project outweighs the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the
Project that cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that the Project benefits outweigh the unavoidable
adverse environmental effects identified in the Program EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be
acceptable.
SECTION 8. FINDINGS REGARDING THE MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit “C.” In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth
herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program shall control.
Findinqs of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
SECTION 9. FINDINGS REGARDING THE STATUTORY EXEMPTION FOR PROPOSED
CONNECTION FEE PROGRAM
The City Council hereby certifies that the proposed connection fee program qualifies as an action that has
been determined by the state Legislature pursuant to Section 15273(a)(4) (Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges)
of the CEQA Guidelines to be statutorily exempt from CEQA. The connection fee program proposed under
the Water and Sewer Master Plans Updates is necessary to fund the construction of capital improvement
projects proposed in the Master Plans Updates. The proposed fee changes are also necessary to maintain
service within the existing service areas of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District and Carlsbad Sewer
District. The connection fee program would result in economic effects in that it would update the fee
structure used to obtain funds for capital projects (Draft Program EIR, p. 2-6). However, the connection fee
program is not subject to CEQA (Ibid.) and is exempt from review under CEQA.
I I
I
W
I I
I- - m
X W
rl 0 m I
IT 0 0 N
0 z z 0 F 3 A 0 cn W U n a m cn A U
u a
L 0
c)
5 a
)I I-
J -
U
a c z W =r z 0 U - > z W a - z U 0 L - J a 0
a
U e
F U 0 e W U
0 2
(3 2
a
z 0
)I
2 -
0 z
2 0 -
cn W I- a n e 3 cn 2
A
U W I- cn
z
U
a
e
a
: W cn
z
U W
)I
n
a
E
I a a
(3 0 a e
(3 Z i= a 0 e u a n
a
6
a
Z
2
0 I-
Z 0 I
2 0
(3 F
0 +
I X w
I
-
5
s
= ..
I
C 0
U
.- i
a b z 0 0
OO C .- L a"
G 0
U .3 i
a 4 Y z s
5 a
M C .- bn? C .e 2
m e, U c e, z
2 M
i E e, 0 Ld 3
s
E
Lt: 0
2,
e
-0 e,
U
a
c
2
& 2 a
5
.-
e, .C
e, 9
Ld
M C
bn
C 0
U
- -
5
-2: .-
.e -
.e Y
2. 2 w
3
.. 3
c
3
-
b
2
Y u
C Y s
E 0
u
1 4 Y
.- Y
2 3
bo E
a
.C 5
k 9 3 z
5
0
Q .*
c z
i?.
Y c 9
2
-2
0 Y
a
Y
Y !z Y 0 E
9
5 2
3 Q c
c
v) v) e, c 3
mo
-
v) xli
32
2s 2%
E 0
0 .C Y
2 Y VI E 0 u
bo C .- 2 5 n
c 0
0 3
.- Y
2
2
0 u
bn e .C
c 0
u 3
E
bo E
.C Y
b VI s
.e 2 e 2 a
E
t
6
i
C
c S
C c d
‘c S
(1 c S
.I t + .I C i
C C
(1 c
.I t
.I t .I I
C 0
0 .A Y
2 2 Y s Y
v1 2
E 9 0
U
.. ? 2
8
E
Y 0
C Y
3
C 0
0 3
.e U
4 U 2 s
C 0
u
k
.e Y
a
Y 2 0 u M C .- a;
.. rl rl
c 0 .- Y u 2 Y m c 0 0
.. N 7 2
.. s i P
x .z c u .o
€ E
6
i
c C
c S
C f d
T S Q c S
.I t + .I C 2
C C
cr c
.I t
.I t 5
Y E : 5
a" a
M C
C E cd
.C
z s e,
0
C 0
cd 0
4
.- Y
5
cd 6
2
rcl 0 b Y Y
Y T D s VI d d
2z
mg
0 u'O
E 2
ti
5 a
a
c C
c C
c QJ
C G
D C
.I 8 c1 .I C
C 0
cu U
.I c1
.I c1 .I I
3
m
Q
fi 0
cd
9
.3 c)
Y 3 5
c) 4
8
L
* e
2 a B 00 c c .3
cdcd
.- ce
a
0 0 C cd
R e, 0
Y
Y
b
3
9
3 4
rr 0
a
GY
0 Y
Y
% 0 C 0 .- c1 E
9
3
-0
bn C .d a
U
- m E D cJ5
Pi
U
.. c?
c;l d
E 0
0 s L c1
.- Y
2 s bo C .- L a'
8 Y .- E 5
id 0
M 0
0 e
.C -
CI
8 e cd a
U
E 2
6
f
c C
c C
C S d
'c C ct c S
.I t + .I C
C C
ir c
.I t
.I
.I t I
C 0
V s L.
.- Y
Y 2 0 0
Do C .e 2
C 0
u s
e
.- U
b v1
8 2 a
U
C 0 .* Y u 2. z c)
0 0
00 e .C 2
8
2
CI 0
E Y
3 E 0
u a
.C CI
b 2 3
0 c)
..
E Q
U 0
U C z 0 Q Ql U m C Q a C
L
k
.I
.I 8 CI .I C
C 0
cu a
.I c1
.I CI 5
E 0
0 .e *
2 2
e
CI
8
a
L
e,
.. z c m
E 0
u .- -
2 2
2
-
8
a
8
9 E
E
x Y .- u
.. 3
2 x
e
E 0
u .e *
2 * v, E 0 u
00 C .e E
E 0
0 .e Y
2 2 8
i
M E .e E
8
9 ii
5
C
x i
.. 7 0 p! * X
n
i;
x
.. op 0 p! E
.. ? 3 z 2 e
M C .- 2
.. rl Y 0 M * X
n
2 e cd
x z
i3 Y
3
9 E
t?
E
x c)
- E 0
0
.3 Y
2
8
c) v) E
on E .& 6
8
2
Y 0
E Y
3 E 0
0 .3 Y
2
2 c)
3
E 0
0 .3 Y
2 2 8
c
e0 E .3 i
8 Y 0 03
E b
3 E 0
0 .3 c)
2
2 c) s
8 Y 0 cd
E b
3 E 0
0
.3 i
2
2 c
3
- E 0
0
.3 Y
2 2 8
c)
on E .& z
8
2
Y 0
E Y
3 E 0
0 a L
.3 Y
c) 2 3
- E 0
.3 Y
0 2
8
c) v) E
on G .3 L & -
8
2
Y V
E Y
3 E 0
0 .3 Y
2
2 c)
6
C 0
u .3 Y
?; 2 c.l
0 0 M C .3 6
C 0
0
.- c)
a b m C 0 V M c .C 8
a 3
..
E: 0
u a L
.3 Y
Y 2 8 I 2 a
c 0
0 .3 Y
2
3
Y m c
I 2 a
c 0
0 3
.3 c)
5 2 3
bo c .e 8
8
2
Y 0
c Y s e 0
u a
C
.3 Y
5 M
3
c C 0 0
0 u
C 0
0
.- Y .+ Y .- Y
2 Y 2 Y 2 Y 2 8 u 0 2 2
M c .- L E
rc 0
8
E * 0
C Y
3 C 0
0 s
.- Y
b 2 3
5
E
Y 0
Y C 3 C 0
0
.- Y
2 Y m C 3
E 2
k
U 0
U C r 0 Q a
m C a
U C
.I
a
.I 8 CI .I C z
C 0
a U
.I c1
.I CI 5