HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 46950 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. 4695
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ADDENDUM,
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO ACCOMPANY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 99-52 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A WATER
PIPELINE UNDERNEATH THE 1-5 FREEWAY, JUST NORTH
OF THE BATIQUITOS LAGOON IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONES 9 AND 19.
CASE NO. : CDP 99-52
CASE NAME: 1-5 WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, “Developer”, h8
filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding properties owned by the State ’
California, the Aviara Master Homeowners Association, and Greystone Homes Inc
“Owners”, described as
Existing public utility easements on portions of Lot 49 of CT
89-19, Map No 12902, and on CT 98-06, and transecting the
right-of-way of the 1-5 Freeway approximately 400 feet north
of the Batiquitos Lagoon shoreline.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and addendum, and Mitigati
Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of December, 19
and on the 5th day of January, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by lau
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimc
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, i
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fad
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planni
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planni
Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration accordi
to Exhibit “ND” dated November 12, 1999, and “PII” dated December 21, 19!
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinm:
9 II 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration
1-5 WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING CUP 99-52, the environmen
impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thereon, and 1
Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to APPROVING the proje
and
B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reportj
Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the Califon
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmen
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City
Carlsbad; and
D. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission, fir
that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect
the environment; and
~
E. Recirculation of the Negative Declaration is not required pursuant to Secti
15073.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that:
1. Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effect
measures pursuant to Section 15074.1 of CEQA guidelines; and
2. New project revisions are added in response to written or verl
comments on the project’s effects identified in the proposed negat
declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects; and
3. Measures or conditions of project approval are added af
circulation of the negative declaration which are not required
CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects a
are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect; and
11 PC RES0 NO. 4695 -2-
0 0
1 4. New information is added to the negative declaration which merc
2 clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to t
negative declaration.
3
5
1. The Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the 1-5 WATl 4
Conditions:
PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING CDP 99-52 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporti
Program.
6
7
8
9
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planni
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of January 2000, by t
following vote, to wit:
10
11
12
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas and Welshons
NOES:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
hL&?ubwb
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpersoa
CARLSBAD PLANNJNG COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. IWLZMIYLER
Planning Director
I
11 PC RES0 NO. 4695 -3-
-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: Located just north of the Batiquitos Lagoon and crossing
underneath the 1-5 Freeway within Local Facilities Management
Zone 9 and 19.
Project Description: To allow the construction of a water line project within the City’s
Coastal Zone.
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, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 Jason Martin in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4515.
DATED: NOVEMBER 17,1999
CASE NO: CDP 99-52
CASE NAME: 1-5 WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 1999
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOIZM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CDP 99-52
DATE: December 2 1, 1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: 1-5 Water Pipeline Undercrossinv
2. APPLICANT: Carlsbad Municiual Water District
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: September 17, 1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Installation of a underground water pipeline in the coastal zone which requires a Coastal Development
Permit. (A more detailed description is provided in the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Section)
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.
c] Land Use and Planning c] TransportatiodCirculation c] Public Services
Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources c] Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems [7 Energy & Mineral Resources c] Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards
[x1 Air Quality Noise
Cultural Resources
Recreation
c] Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128196
0 0
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
IXI I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
[7 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 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
Environmental Impact Reportmitigated Negative Declaration is 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 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 Environmental Impact
Report pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier Environmental Impact Report, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has
been prepared.
%G P(""lG14 Piker Signature Date
I ./zz/sGi
Date
2 Rev. 03128196
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.
0 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 Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
0 “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 & 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).
0 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.
0 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. 03128/96
0 a
0 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.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part 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. 03128196
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?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
(Source #l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) O
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the 0
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible I7
land uses)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
established community (including a low-income or I7
minority community) ? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) o
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
0 0
5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 0
5.1-15) 0 0
17
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 0
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#I:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15) 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
11)
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved 17
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
5
0
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 I7 0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
ow
UIXI
OB
0.H
OH
UIXI
OH
OH
ow 0151 UKI om
UIXI OH
0151 OH 0151
om
0.151
UH
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
1 1)
0
0
I7
0
El
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
- 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
txl
0
0
0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
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?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
proposal result in:
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
0
I7
0
0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
0
0
El (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
6
0
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0 o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
El
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
OH ow utxl
OB
OB
OH
nu
Elm
OH
UIXI
OIXI ntxl
OB
OBI
OB
OH
ow
OB
OH om
Rev. 03128196
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs 5.4- 1
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24) 0
0
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
proposal:
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) I7
17 1 - 5.13-9)
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
healthhazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
I7
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) 0
1 - 5.9-15) 0
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
0
[I] 0 (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-7) 0
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0
7
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
17
0
0
0
IXI
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
OH ow
Elm om
ON
UN
om
OH om ow
on
ON
ow OH OIXI 0151
OIXI
OIXI
Rev. 03128196
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
fJ Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.12.3-7)
Potentially
Significant Impact
I7 0
0 El
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated 0 0
0
0 I7
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0 0
0 0 17 0
No
Impact
[XI lxl
[XI El El El
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
El 0
0 0
0 0 ON
0 OM
0 0 OIXI
0 0 o[XI I7 0 UM
0 El om
5.11-1 - 5.11-5) OM
5.11-1 - 5.11-5) OM
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
10)
10)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
0 0 o[XI
0 0 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) UIXI
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 of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
0 0 0 El
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated 0 om
0 urn
9 Rev. 03128196
e 0
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project involves a request by the CMWD for a CDP to allow the installation of an
potable water pipeline. The pipeline would complete a important link in the water delivery
system and connect two existing water pipeline stubs. The pipeline will span a distance of
approximately 780 feet and be entirely underground. The two existing stubs are located on either
side of the 1-5 Freeway, approximately 400 feet north of the Batiquitos Lagoon shoreline. The
stub on the west side of the Freeway is located in “Area C” of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan
area. Area C is currently undeveloped but is being prepared for a 85 unit residential development
previously approved under CT 98-06. Surrounding uses are either vacant with pending
residential, or developed residential. The nearest developed homesites are approximately 180
feet from the connectiodconstruction site.
The stub on the east side of the Freeway is in a developed area of the Aviara community.
Specifically, the connection would occur in an graded and landscaped, open space lot which is
situated in between the Lagoon and the single family neighborhood known as Azure Cove. The
connectiodconstruction site is in very close proximity to homesites and would be immediately
adjacent to the home located at 880 Piovana Court. This site is the primary construction staging
area for the project.
Installation of the underground water pipeline is proposed to be conducted via a directional
drilling method, which eliminates the need for open trenching. Use of this method will enable
the installation to occur under the Freeway with no disruption to traffic flow. The method is also
considered to be, in some respects, environmentally friendly since it involves little disruption to
topography and surface vegetation. For logistical purposes the drilling activity, the primary
construction staging area, will occur on the east side of the Freeway. Construction staging will
necessitate the temporary removal of a relatively immature street tree and other introduced
landscape materials. The tree will be re-planted, and other shrub and ground cover materials will
be replaced, after the project has been completed. A subgrade utility vault, with a surface area of
48 square feet, is also proposed and will be installed adjacent to the pipeline connection in the
open space area. Pipeline and vault installations would occur in existing easements when outside
of the Freeway right of way. Installation under the Freeway (in the right of way), will require an
encroachment permit from Caltrans.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
11. ENVIRONMENTAL, ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Land Use and Planning
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Population and Housing
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Geologic Problems
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
f) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
g) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
h) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
i) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Water
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
f) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
g) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
h) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
i) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Air Quality
a) The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfwr, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air
12 Rev. 03128196
0 0
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
b) No Impact
c) No Impact
d) No Impact
TransportatiodCirculation
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion..
b) No Impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
e) No Impact, see referenced sources for discussion
f, No Impact, see referenced sources for discussion
Biological
a) No Impact
During the public comment period on this project, specifically at the Planning Commission
public hearing, an issue was raised regarding the project’s construction noise and its potential to
impact California Coastal Gnatcatcher. The item was continued to allow additional
investigation. As a result of that research it is not expected that the Gnatcatcher would occupy
the vegetation area in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. The area is small and of a
less than high quality. The area is approximately ?4 acre in size and is coastal sage scrub
interspersed with, or disturbed by, introduced vegetation species. The Gnatcatcher typically
occupies large undisturbed areas of coastal sage scrub. Additionally, it is expected that the high
levels of Freeway noise experienced in the project area (calculated at between 62 and 70 decibels
in previously prepared noise studies) have driven the Gnatcatcher from the area.
13 Rev. 03128196
0 0
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Energy and Mineral Resources
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Hazards
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Noise
a) As indicated in the project description section, the primary construction staging area is on the
east side of the Freeway and in close proximity to residential uses. The CMWD has indicated
that given the topography of the project site and the technological requirements of the directional
drilling construction technique, staging is necessary on the east side of the Freeway.
Construction will occur over a six week period. Residential uses are expected to be temporarily
impacted by noise associated with construction activity. The CMWD is proposing to mitigate
the temporary noise impacts by limiting construction hours and installing a “noise blanket”.
Hours of construction activity would be consistent with to those prescribed in the City Municipal
Code. Construction activity would be limited to between the hour of 7 AM and dusk, Monday
through Friday and between the hour of 8 AM and dusk on Saturdays. No construction activity
would be permitted on Sunday. Additionally the CMWD is proposing the installation of a noise
blanket to minimize the impacts to the immediately adjacent homesite. The “blanket” is actually
a specially designed noise attenuation wall temporarily installed between the noise source and
the homes. The wall is 16 feet tall and 80 feet long. According to data provided by the CMWD,
the anticipated noise level, with the proposed mitigation, can be brought down to 60 dB
(decibels). Staff believes that although the noise would be considered annoying by most people,
a 60 dB level is not considered severe. (To assist in illustrating dB, consider the following
scenario based on standards fi-om the Noise Element of the City General Plan. An individual
standing adjacent to the 1-5 Freeway, at the same grade of the road and with no noise attenuating
devices such as landscaping, freestanding masonry block walls, or the exterior wall of a
residence, the experienced noise level would be 75 dB).
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Public Services
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
14 Rev. 03128196
e 0
e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Utilities and Service Systems
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
f) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
g) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Aesthetics
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Cultural Resources
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Recreation
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
15 Rev. 03128196
0 a
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 438-1161, extension4515.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
16 Rev. 03128196
0 e
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Hours of construction shall be limited to those prescribed in the Carlsbad Municipal Code
(CMC) which are between the hours of 7 AM and dusk, Monday through Friday and between
the hours of 8 AM and dusk on Saturday. No construction activity is permitted on Sunday or
holidays specified in Section 8.84 of the CMC.
2. A noise attenuation wall shall be installed and maintained between the construction staging
area on the east side of the Freeway and the developed residential home during construction.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
17 Rev. 03128196
e e
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.
13/3-d k! 7 j2.,J4 ]d&Ad
Date Signature '
"
18 Rev. 03128196
ENVIRONMENTAL MlTl br ION MONITORING CHECKLIS a ge I of 1
cv
Q, Q,
9
n n
i/j .. CY6
26 =)w zz w_I 44 LZ G t n Z 0 PO
0
$3
.- S
in in 13 2 a 'CJ S 3 a S
a - .-
.- n
L Q) gg
SL;
04
Q,(u 23
?T
w+ w za an
~a ;& 6s:
LC (u -
z_r
CYCL yaa
352-
.?+ E (uta
.- +ma)
(u
uo L c- a, .- +
3a
€3 2 ,o .o a
:E$
.G 3 ; + : EG .-c 3 LOO az .% .g a, 5.- E LEE p c '7
-OD 93E
bs .E
agg
m2 E 6 ""m
0 05
a? m 5 (uE szz .- a, 7 uEa S€ (u 0 ui b o3 Ea 6 Q,E
a,5g & 2 .- 3y=Tri
m.z)(umrq E gF-
2% SZ
Ezgc
0 Eo 'FrnOa) g.)s "m = m a,u sa,
E-tiUO -(uOO ,m Qm
Q'= m
OL
Q- L
-24 s 000
.= u >r .- u a, .=
s k; 0 .-
si-
.- s 022
3 .- .e co
a,"ohl
ss Qg
.-
&.E? g €Zg5 ESZZ .sEaa) c c OW a, g E.2 m.5 cz
'3 a,%&
22% E;;; 2 &u,=
c c.o 3
- .a, :e co 0-0 mg -
t-225.5
% 5
v)
ix
c 0 .- zs c
S Ea, $E >a,
E -
c
Ov) ss v) 0 ;: c =
0
a2
kE c cr
n sa, 8
a a
c c a a, .- n
c m .-
E
c
5 S a a
S .- si El -
a S .-
Y 5%
6 6
0 gk
ci, ci, .- &C .- S .-
UJ 0 a 2
a,bco s 5%- 0 0 0-0 .r c 2 2
u 3 3= 5s 0oE zJ=c $ :$ '= a, a, aO; a,$? :ss CnI .- SLL
ha, a+. a, c 5 ,o .G s e sa,
aa,-F.& Eoc (IJb 0 $22"
0 Ql a, $% -00 snn rb SUJ
3 SmS:" E=ocq =+s
v) m'i* 2%:: -
a.0 2Z.g c maa z Epso v) a,.& .- Loa .E 6 5
.- a zcg s.g malo
a S$:m.G - - v) a- 0.2
5 go0 2 g:;
su as am
.-
0
2 mcnm
m uJ= 3s
c- 0 =oa =qz; m
a, c- a,ocos '3 -U- 00
z-F% v)
ms 0 XP g Soa3v)
J= LC u- ;f:
=mE
ass Ioaav) hZ25
.- v)oa, ElZCUCOU
v)a %%uu &
m+.- uu k
$C Q, zzE h33 v)uJL
3 .o U c 3x-A 0
as!? b'G2 sE
3 '5 &
.- Y
v) .E
QCSm a,c>
0 0-a Ca,a,
5 ij
u- L
1 ae 58
0
- kg
.- E2 =E 2s
2cn a, .G
._ $$O C
a,
v)Z mm -c .o, g= SE
E+ cn
ZU%
c C 2 Em, rutj a,p 0)
II .- 5 Eg
0
._ 0-0 v)
2 $ .G
?+ a, 5s
KB 07 ._ -.- 0-8
&t?l E $.E
E.?? ords L e,- LL m E
>E ijE
- 5
5
.- P
0 S ._
Q m
s L
C 0 E
,o
2
L
- e,
(0 c 0 Q v) 2
>; 2 a, $2
G?& E.?%$
._ ZO 5 +- €S
g %n E o -. C
0 " a.9 0 a,% c an O) .o ma.= E .F u) E = II 0 m a.g 820 w+-H
L
I C II
.I-
c