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