HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 46040 0
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4604
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE REPLACEMENT AND
RELOCATION OF THE CHINQUAPIN SEWER LIFT
STATION WITHIN THE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RTGHT-
OF-WAY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD 180 FEET SOUTH OF
CHINQUAPIN AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CHINQUAPIN SEWER LIFT STATION
CASE NO.: CUP 99-12
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, “Developer” and “Owner”, has filed 2
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
A 2,000 square foot section of the Carlsbad Boulevard right-of-
way on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard and approximately
180 feet south of Chinquapin Avenue.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction 7
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of August, 1’
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 1
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according 1
“ND” dated June 29, 1999, and “PII” dated June 21, 1999, attached h
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
I
0 e
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
Findinm:
1. The Planning Commission has reviewed, analyzed and considered the
Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project
comments thereon prior to APPROVAL of the project.
2. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requiremen
California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Envir
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the :
Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and
4. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evic
project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of August 199'
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L'Heure
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
- COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
I I i I/ PC RES0 NO. 4604 -2-
-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: East side of Carlsbad Boulevalrd approximately 180 feet soutl
of Chinquapin Avenue.
Project Description: Replacement and relocation of an existing sewer lift station locatec
at the western terminus of Chinquapin Avenue.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projec
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act an(
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, :
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on tht
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in thc
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannini
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments fiom the public arc
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department
at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4448.
DATED: June 29,1999
CASE NO: CUP 99-12
CASE NAME: Chinquapin Sewer Lift Station
PUBLISH DATE: June 29,1999 &@+ P ICHAEL,/. HOLZMJLLER
Planning Clirector
2075 La Palmas Dr. 0 Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-089.
0 0
-_
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
CASE NO: CUP 99-
DATE: June 23,19
1. CASE NAME: Chinquapin Sewer Lift Station
2. APPLICANT: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad (
92008
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: June 21, 1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replacement and relocation of an existing sewer lift station locat
at the western terminus of Chinquapin Avenue
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this proje involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Imp;
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning c] TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing
0 Geological Problems
Water
c] Air Quality
Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Energy & Mineral Resources c] Aesthetics
c] Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Noise c] Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0
DETERMINATION.
c
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tl
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatic
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but i
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlit
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatio
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR :
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential1
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant t
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier E11
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
/jy+k;- !y;l/;4&;kt; ;,~ \.$&&.e $5 * a,+ e"'- -I" .--I \ i <,
y fL + Date '. ,'
li Planner Signature
j-wd 2</957
Date v
2 Rev. 03/28/96
b. 0 e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cil
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa~
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followir
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum2
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information 1
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negatil
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
a A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that a1
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved.
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, (
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that th
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopte
general standards and policies.
a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatio
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and th
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce th
effect to a less than significant level.
a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a
effect is significant.
a Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa
effect on the environment, but fl potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicabl
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigate
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upo.
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to o
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prio
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additions
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
a When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily require
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier E11
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement c
Overriding Considerations’’ has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
a A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence thz
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
-_ 0 0
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing a
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, an
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporatec
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includin
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect hi
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, an
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tha
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact hi
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not redut
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is nc
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, (
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of th
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentio
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determine
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
*. 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 #(s): (Final Master EIR 93-01)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
0
0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
o
0
0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Final Master
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Final
Master EIR 93-01)
0 0 0
0 o 0
0 0 0
(Final Master EIR 93-01)
EIR 93-01)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
h) Expansive soils? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Final
Master EIR 93-01)
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 o
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
No
Impaci
IXI w
w
lxl
txl
IXI
IXI
[XI
IXI IXI IXI
IXI
[XI Ix1
w IXI Ixl
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff! (Final
Master EIR 93-01)
0 OIXI
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Final Master EIR 93- 0 ow
01)
5 Rev. 03128196
._ 0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
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? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(Final Master EIR 93-01)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Final Master EIR
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
93-01)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 17
0
0
0
LessThan No
Significant Impac Impact
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Final
Master EIR 93-01)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Final
Master EIR 93-01)
0 OH
0 0 OH
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (Final Master EIR 0 OH
93-01)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Final Master EIR 93-
01) 0 OH
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Final
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Final Master EIR 93-
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Master EIR 93-01) 0 0 OH
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible 0 0 OH
01)
uses? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
(Final Master EIR 93-01)
(Final Master EIR 93-01)
0 0 OH
0 0 OB
0 0 OH
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.n. bus turnouts, 0 OH
bicycle racks)? (Final Master EIk 93-01)
Master EIR 93-0 1)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Final I7 0 OH
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
6 Rev. 03/28/96
._ e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). ’. Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (Final Master EIR 93-
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Final Master EIR 93-01)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Final Master EIR 93-
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Final
01)
01)
pool)? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
Master EIR 93-01)
0
0
0
17
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(Final Master EIR 93-01)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? (Final
Master EIR 93-01)
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)? (Final
Master EIR 93-01)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Final Master
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
0
0
0
I7
0
EIR 93-01)
health hazards? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
health hazards? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
grass, or trees? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Final Master
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Final
EIR 93-01) 0
0 Master EIR 93-01)
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? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
b) Police protection? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
c) Schools? (Final Master EIR 93-01) 0 0
7
e
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless Impact
I7 OH
0 OH
OH
0 OBI
0 om
0 OH
0 OIXI
OH
0 OH
0 OM
UIXI
0 OBI
0 OB
0 OH
0 ON
UH I7 OH UIXI
Rev. 03128196
d. e e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No -. Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (Final Master EIR
(Final Master EIR 93-01) 0 17 0K.I
93-0 1) 0 0 ON
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? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
b) Communications systems? (Final Master EIR 93-
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
0 0 OB
01) 0 17 OH
facilities? (Final Master EIR 93-01) 0 0 OH
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
e) Storm water drainage? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Final Master
EIR 93-01)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (Final
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
Master EIR 93-01)
(Final Master EIR 93-01)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Final Master
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Final Master
c) Affect historical resources? (Final Master EIR 93-
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(Final Master EIR 93-01)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (Final Master EIR 93-01)
EIR 93-01)
EIR 93-01)
01)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (Final Master
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Final
EIR 93-0 1)
Master EIR 93-01)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
0 0 0 17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
[XI [XI
[XI [XI
OB o[XI
OH
OBI n[XI
OB
OB
o[XI
OB
UIXI
8 Rev. 03128196
1. 0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
”.
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 of 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 future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impacl Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incomorated 0 OM
0 0 OB
0 0 OM
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The site to which tl
lift station will be relocated is within the Carlsbad Boulevard right of way approximately 18
feet to the south of the existing lift station. The site is not known to have any significant specic
of plants or animals which would be jeopardized by the relocation of the lift station.
The scope of the replacement will not increase flow capacities, however, the new equipment wi
greatly reduce the existing potential for pump failure since the existing equipment is old. Tl
proposed site plan will benefit pedestrian and bicycle circulation along Carlsbad Boulevard :
that an onsite parking and turn-around area is provided. Currently maintenance vehicles, whic
call on the site daily, are required to park on the sidewalk and in the bike lane. Onsite parkir
will allow for unobstructed pedestrian and bicycle flow past the lift station.
The design of the facility will preclude the possibility of effluent flows directly into the lagoon
outer basin in the event of pump failure.
Access is being provided through the site to the existing informal trails along the outer basin
edge. The site will also be landscaped to enhance the visual quality of the facility.
9 Rev. 03/28/96