Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 4148(I) e 1 (I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4148 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE ABANDONMENT AND REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING NORTH BATIQUITOS SEWAGE FORCE MAIN AND THE REPLACEMENT OF A WATER MAIN ON PROPERTY WHICH IS LOCATED NORTH OF BATIQUITOS LAGOON AND EAST OF INTERSTATE 5 IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 19 CASE NAME: NORTH BATIQUITOS SEWAGE FORCE CASE NO.: CDP 96-10 MAIN 11 WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad and Carlsbad Municipal Water Disl 12 “developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property 01 13 by Brookfield Broccato, Inc, “Owner”, described as 14 15 16 Lot 77 of Carlsbad Tract CT 90-30, according to Map No. 13370, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on November 8,1996 and lots 49,50,51,52 and 81 of Carlsbad Tract CT 89- 19 according to Map No. 12902, filed December 11,1991. 17 18 (“the Property”); and 20 19 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of August 1997,l a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and 21 I1 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testim 22 I( and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, 23 24 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all facl 25 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plm 26 27 28 Commission as follows: ... 2D .II, 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 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plar Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Mitigation Monitoring Checklist according to Exhibit ” dated November 19, 1996, and “PII” dated October 31, 1996, attached h’ and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and consid Mitigated Negative Declaration (CDP 96-10), the environmental impacts thc identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Environmt Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, on file in the Planning Department, prio APPROVING the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Plan Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a signif effect on the environment and hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaratic 2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declarl (CDP 96-10 ) and Environmental Mitigation Monitoring Checklist have 1 prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the Cit! Carlsbad. 3. As required by the Public Resources Code Section 2108 1.6, the Planning Commis hereby ADOPTS the Environmental Mitigation Monitoring Checklist (Attach CDP 96-10 ). The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Checklist is designc ensure that during project implementation the Developer and any other respon parties implement the project components and comply with the feasible mitigk measures. 4. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (CDP 96 reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbal Conditions: 1. Prior to the commencement of project construction, the coastal sage scrub ha1 located adjacent to the project construction corridor shall be staked and flagge the field by a qualified biologist to prohibit project encroachment. 2. Subsequent the construction of the pipelines, the construction corridors shal revegetated consistent with the approved Azure Cove project (CT 89-19) landsc plans. 3. This project shall be required to comply with City Grading Standard provisions w deal with minimizing the release of construction related air pollutants (i.e.; dust and emissions fiom construction vehicles). PC RES0 NO. 4148 -2- a 4c 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plan 2 3 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of August 1997, b; 4 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Heiner 5 Monroy, Savary and Welshons 6 7 NOES: None 10 9 8 ,./e* #;/ ,,",/ ABSENT: Commissioner Noble ABSTAIN: None , ~."" . -.I-. "A ,<<* <. ,,p F ..,/>" /' ,,,...*'7 -. fc"- ,":,"c". .. . -LC, 11 L /77 _,_ ,~, .~~~-~~-~~...~=~~~..~* ,, ..,,. ., / /f 'b&.e""- .". _. -i. - _I"7 12 13 ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson l4 ATTEST: 15 16 17 Planning Director 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION PC RES0 NO. 4148 -3- MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: North of Batiquitos Lagoon and east of Interstate-5 (1-5). Project Description: This project entails the replacement of the existing North Batiquitos Sewage Force Main and a water pipeline . Both of these pipelines are deteriorating and the sewer force main has been repaired numerous times in the past. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1 161, extension 4445. DATED: NOVEMBER 19,1996 CASE NO: CDP 96- 10 CASE NAME: NORTH BATIQUITOS SEWAGE FORCE MAIN AND WATER PIPELINE REPLACEMENT PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 19,1996 Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894 e 0 jCNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CDP 96-10 DATE: October 3 1, 1996 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: North Batiquitos Sewage Force Main and Water Pipeline Replacement 2. APPLICANT: Carlsbad Municipal Water District 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA., 92008, (619) 438-3367 4. DATE EIA, FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 22, 1996 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Coastal Development Permit to replace the existing deteriorated 14 inch diameter North Batiquitos Sewage Force Main and 8 inch diameter water pipeline across existing Carlsbad Tract 89- 19. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [I] Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiordCirculation [7 Public Services Population and Housing IXI Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 e DETERMINATION. e (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 I find th.at the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. W I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. n I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. c] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 6kB I(- 13---q6 - PlZmer Signature Date Ir 11s /qb Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 0 “Less Thm Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential -impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. 0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but fl potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative :Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. a A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not lilmited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 0 a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(sj: b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 0 0 0 0 11. POPULATION .AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or population projections? indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 or extension. of major infrastructure)? housing? 0 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 0 g) Subsidence of the land? n o 0 0 0 0 h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geol.ogic or physical features? U 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significan t Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 No Impact [XI [XI [XI [XI [XI w [XI [XI w [XI [XI [XI w IXI w [XI [XI IV. WATER. Woubd the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of rate and amount of surface runoff’? such as flooding? 0 0 0 [XI surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved 0 0 0 [XI oxygen or turbidity)? body? 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 [XI d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water 5 Rev. 03/28/96 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements'? f) Changes in. the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? existing or projected air quality violation? VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (eg. farm elquipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or .barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, an'd birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? e Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significan t Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact [XI w w w [XI [XI [XI [XI w ixI w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI [XI la [XI [XI 0 [XI [XI [XI w 6 Rev. 03/28/96 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the resident% of the State? proposal? 0 0 0 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? facilities? 7 cl 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 a e Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 17 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significan t Impact 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 Rev. 031 No Impact w IXI [xi [XI w [XI !XI w w w w IXI IXI w IXI [XI w w (XI w w w 28/96 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 0 Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significan Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? n n n b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? U U 0 0 0 n n n U U U U XIV. CULTURAYL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the would affect unique ethnic cultural values? potential impact area? XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact [xi [XI [XI [XI [XI w w w [XI w XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples off the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable fhre projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 [XI 8 Rev. 03/28/96 * e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This project entails the replacement of the existing deteriorated 14 inch diameter North Batiquitos Sewage Force Main and an 8 inch water pipeline which are located on the north side of Batiquitos Lagoon to the east of Interstate 5. The existing force main alignment extends northward from the Batiquitos Lift Station ,which is located within the wetland buffer along the north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon, to Gabbiano Lane and westward through an existing 40 foot wide disturbed public utility easement to an existing upstream gravity sewer. The proposed force main alignment (see Alternative Route #3 on Exhibit 3) will extend from the existing Batiquitos Lift Station northwesterly along the proposed Batiquitos Lagoon pedestrian trail (within the Batiquitos Lagoon wetland buffer area) and westerly, up a steep hill through the existing 40 wide’disturbed public utility easement to an existing upstream gravity sewer. The proposed waterline would be 12 inches in diameter and would be installed within Gabbiano Lane and other approved streets within the Broccato project (CT 89-19). It would extend from Gabbiano Lane westward within the existing 40 foot wide public utility easement discussed above. Both of these pipelines are deteriorating and particularly, the sewer force main has been repaired numerous times in the past. I. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) The replacement sewer force main and water line would be located upon property which is designated Open Space and Residential Medium (4-8 dudacre) and zoned Open Space and R-1-7500 Q. Pursuant to the Growth Management provisions of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 2 1.90)’ public utilities are an anticipated use which are allowed within all General Plan designations and zones (including the City’s Open Space zone which allows Transportation rights-of-way as a permitted use). b) This proposed replacement sewer force main and waterline are consistent with all applicable environmental plans and policies including: the City’s Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan and Master Plan of Sewerage- 1992. c) In that the proposed sewer and water line would be located subterranean within existing utility easements, public rights-of-way or within open space they would be compatible with existing residential and open space land uses.. d) There are no agricultural uses or resources (Class I or I1 soils) located within the proposed project area which be impacted by this use. e) The construction of these subterranean sewer and waterlines will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The Broccato residential project, that these lines would be located within, is currently under development, and accordingly, this project is proposed to be constructed concurrently with the Broccato project to minimize short term construction impacts. 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING a-c) This project entails the replacement of existing sewer and water lines. The lines are proposed for replacement because of deterioration. The replacement of these existing lines is necessary to ensure that on-going sewer and water service to existing 9 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 development and additional development anticipated under the General Plan is adequate. Accordingly, the replacement of these lines will not effect (increase or decrease) population projections, induce substantial growth (the service areas are already developed1 or planned for development) or displace existing housing (no housing units will be effected through this public facility replacement project). 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS a-i) This project will be constructed within an area (the Broccato project site) which is currently under development consistent with approved geologic reports and grading plans. In fact, the alignments for these utilities were selected with reference to the findings of the geologic reports for the Broccato project. While all development within San Diego County may be subject to impacts associated with earthquakes, the development of the pipelines as proposed is not anticipated to result in or expose people or the pipelines to significant geologic impacts (i.e.; fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, seiche, tsunami, volcanic hazard, landslides, mudflows, erosion, changes in topography, unstable soil conditions, subsidence of the land, expansive soils or unique geologic or physical features). IV. WATER a-i) Replacement of the identified sewer and water pipelines will result in no significant impacts to water quality. Specifically, the pipelines will be constructed subterranean. Only minimal grading (trenching) would be required for the water and sewer pipelines and all graded areas will be compacted and revegetated to avoid short-term, incremental, non-significant runoff and erosion impacts. The project area is outside of the 100-year floodplain for Batiquitos Lagoon. The 100-year floodplain generally follows the +6 foot MSL elevation contour. The project vicinity includes marginal quality groundwater which is located at a depth of 12 to 15 feet. The construction of these pipelines will not impact these groundwater resources. V. AIR QUALITY a-d) Construction of this replacement pipeline project will result in no significant air quality impacts. The only potential air-quality impacts would be short-term and insignificant effects fi-om fbgitive dust particles and emissions fiom construction vehicles during pipeline trenching operations. The City’s Grading Standards contains provisions to minimize the release of construction related pollutants. This project shall be required to comply with the City’s Grading Standards. VI. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION a-g) This project will generate no additional trips other than construction related traffic and therefore will not create significant traffic impacts. During project construction, all circulation corridors within the project vicinity, including , Batiquitos Drive, Gabbiano Lane, Piovana Court and the Batiquitos Lagoon pedestrian access trail will remain open and fully usable, therefore no circulation impacts are anticipated. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 e e VII. a-e) VIII. a-c) IX. a-e) X. a-b) XI. a-e) XII. a-g) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to biological resources. Specifically, as discussed in the Biological Technical Report for the North Batiquitos Sewer Force Main (RECON, October 14, 1996), the vegetation in the alignment for the proposed project includes a disturbed, open stand of goldenbush scrub and eucalyptus (along the pedestrian Lagoon trail), and baccharis scrub and ruderal vegetation within an existing disturbed 40-foot wide utility easement extending westward up a steep hillside. Coastal sage scrub (CSS) vegetation exists to the south and adjacent to this 40 foot wide easement area. The California gnatcatcher was observed using this CSS habitat in 1989. The project can be constructed without encroaching into this CSS habitat. In order to ensure that no impact to this adjacent Coastal sage scrub occurs during project construction, a mitigation measure has been imposed upon this project to require that the Coastal sage scrub habitat located adjacent to the pipeline corridors be staked and flagged to prohibit encroachment during pipeline construction. The sewer pipeline, in proximity to the existing Batiquitos Pump Station, the sewer pipeline is located immediately outside (north) of the Batiquitos Lagoon wetland. ENERGY AND MINERALS Replacement of the water and sewer pipelines would not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans, use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner, or result in the loss of a known mineral resource. HAZARDS The replacement of the deteriorated water and sewer pipelines will mitigate potential health hazards that could occur in the event of breaks to the existing pipelines. Otherwise, this project will not create a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances, interfere with emergency response/evacuation plans, expose people to health hazards or increase fire hazards. NOISE This project will not increase existing noise levels (except during construction) or expose people to severe noise levels. The construction related noise impacts are considered short-term and insignificant. PUBLIC SERVICES This project will only replace existing sewer and water pipelines, and therefore, will not result in a need for new or altered government services. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This project is a public utility (sewer and water line) replacement project. Otherwise, it will not result in any effects on other utilities or service systems. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 XIII. AESTHETICS a-c) The proposed replacement pipelines will not be visible in that they will be located subterranean within existing disturbed areas. Upon completion of pipeline construction, the easements will be revegetated consistent with the approved landscape plan for the Broccato project (CT 89-19) to enhance the appearance of the existing disturbed easements. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-e) A review of the Cultural Resource Investigation for the Broccato project (RECON, 1978 and 1989) concludes that there are no significant paleontological, archaeological or historical resources which would be impacted by this project. XV. RECREATION a-b) This pipeline replacement project will have no impact upon recreation facilities. The project will not interfere with the adjacent Batiquitos Lagoon pedestrian trail which will remain open during and after project construction. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) As discussed within this document, this project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) This project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) This project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 e e LIST MITIGATION MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to the commencement of project construction, the Coastal sage scrub habitat located adjacent to the project construction corridor shall be staked and flagged in the field by a qualified biologist to prohibit project encroachment. At the conclusion of project construction, the qualified biologist shall submit a written report to the Planning Director addressing whether the Coastal sage scrub habitat has been disturbed and if disturbed, what mitigation will be required. 2. This project shall be required to comply with City Grading Standard provisions which deal with minimizing the release of construction related pollutants (i.e.; dust and emissions from construction vehicles). 3. Subsequent the construction of the pipelines, the construction corridors shall be revegetated consistent with the approved Broccato project (CT 89-19) Habitat Enhancement Landscape Plan. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ATTACHED 13 Rev. 03/28/96 a 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. //-- /8 -96 J? p/- Date Signature 14 Rev. 03/28/96 INVIRONMENTAL a ITIGATION MONITORING CHECr.JST: e Page 1 of 1 % m 0 - 0 F ZQ b ag # cr$ zn =cj 2g 6 a€ 02 .. Wl A6 LZ Q 0 z 0 .- c I" a, LL 0 Q) B 5 cn Q v) 0 z 3 0 .- g Li, 8ii 2: ZE CI c E 0 z za ig rra a6 $53 ([ICQ .E)- E .e v) a, €2 u) ([I* 2 .o Q & .r - ?E$ .E { F 8% .p g '5 m-E .$ .rr, a, 5 .E E LE2 p r '5 -8u 202 k.2 .p 02 E .- 5 Cl -(JJ .g $ 2 E 5: 0 az $2 u) 0-5 E%- u55 SE ([I 0 u- 6 08 e6 s $E .r $ a, 2 %E g!E CF.4 v).Cr,([Irq 2 gr-7 3 .- .= 03 $% sz €$Sc a,--ocu ss Q.G 0 €'ti 'E([IOa) g)s uy.) -e v) a,= sa, EZUO - 0300 s QUI sEmlZ @IC 0 c30 2a,v)* YJps~ s c @lT: a, g E.2 m.5 s 5 .g a,%& - 2 x 20 Eg E;;; Z 0s a,.'I,= uo CI O3Q - Q'F. 0 OL Q- L -x s 000 6.%g - ([I= .- a, u SQ .- Esg5 s c.G 3 .e 03 ,35z e 5 2 u- L c a.2 00 0 8L - kg ._ E!$ =E a, 26 2 'E 3 .G Eu CY 1 62: 'E c g< zx 0 cgz 3 :e .E s2 v) 0-$ 2 2; EEm =q a,= 2 E .o, gsz ._ E$ PLY ln .= mm -c .E c ma 0 8 ._ .PO m mu 0 sn II .- b == L m 3 0 r m Q m c 0 c - .- cn ._ 1 L .- 2 L P n a, m c 0 a II) - !! 5 C a, ._ q - %O EZ Lj3€@ s mm 2 -7j a, a, - ""n.0 3 " -r *- 8 Qm m 2::: .e'? * i;;z mag cnE € - a, .z Wl-I