HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 53431
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. 5343
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AN ADDENDUM,
AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO ALLOW A SEWAGE LIFT STATION
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF CANNON ROAD
WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 8.
CASE NAME: CANNON ROAD LIFT STATION
CASE NO.: CUP 02-1 1/SDP 02-17/CDP 02-22
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Municipal Water District, “Developer,” has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by the City of
Carlsbad, “Owner,” described as
Lots 82 and 171 of Map No. 14340
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum was prepared in
conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of January, 2003,
and on the 19th day of February, 2003 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law
to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
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
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit "ND"
dated December 12,2002, and "PII" dated November 15,2002, and Addendum
dated December 23, 2002 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings and condition:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Addendum CANNON ROAD LIFT STATION - CUP 02-11/SDP 02-17/CDP
02-22 the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any
comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum has been prepared in
accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of
Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EL4 Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the CUP 02-11/SDP 02-
17/CDP 02-22 Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5343 -2-
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
corn
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
nission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of February, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Heineman, Montgomery,
Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSTAIN: None
C~AD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5343 -3-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: Southeast side of Cannon Road, west of El Camino Real, on the
east end of a storm water detention basin on the southeast side of
Cannon Road: 2 197 Cannon Road
Project Description: A sewage lift' station
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
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 Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. 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 Elaine Blackbum in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4621.
DATED: DECEMBER 12,2002
CASE NO: CUP 02-1 l/CDP 02-22
CASE NAME: CANNON ROAD LIFT STATION
PUBLISH DATE: DECEMBER 12,2002
MICHAEL J.WLZMLLER
Planning Director
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
CASE NO: CUP 02-1 1/CDP 02-22
DATE: November 15.2002
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Cannon Road Lift Station
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faradav Avenue
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Terry Smith (760) 602-2765
4. PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast side of Cannon Road, west of El Camino Real, on the east
end of a storm water detention basin on the southeast side of Cannon Road: 2 197 Cannon Road
5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: OS (Open Space)
7. ZONING: R-3-0 (Multiple Family ResidentiaVOualified Overlay)
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): None
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The City of Carlsbad proposes to construct the Cannon Road Lift Station, referred to in the City’s Sewer
Master Plan as the South Agua Hedionda Lift Station, and to seek approval from the City for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and Hillside Development Permit
(HDP) for the lift station’s construction. The proposed site is located on the southeast side of Cannon
Road between Faraday Avenue and El Camino Real, approximately 2,700 feet southwesterly from El
Camino Real (Figures 1 and 2). The site is in the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program, where the City has permitting authority. The lift station will replace three existing temporary
lift stations and provide for increased wastewater flow from existing and proposed developments in the
northeast and northwest quadrants of Carlsbad consistent with the City’s General Plan and Sewer Master
Plan.
Effluent from the lift station will be pumped into a forcemain that will be constructed as part of a
companion project. The forcemain will be located within Cannon Road and aligned through the Cannon
Road bridge over Macario Canyon, and to the top of the hill between the bridge and Car Country Drive.
At the top of the hill, the forcemain will discharge into a gravity interceptor in Cannon Road to carry the
effluent to the Cannon Road intersection with Car Country Drive, where the gravity interceptor will
discharge into the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor Reach 4 (SAH4) and finally to the VistdCarlsbad
Interceptor Sewer.
The influent sewers, a 12-inch pipeline from Faraday Avenue and a 20-inch pipeline from El Camino
Real, are already constructed in the Cannon Road right-of-way. At the lift station location, these two
1
pipelines will connect to a 20-inch influent sewer that will direct the influent sewer to the lift station. The
segment of this pipe that extends past the Cannon Road right-of-way will be constructed with the Cannon
Road Project. The Cannon Road project was approved under a separate permit and includes the
construction of Cannon Road, sewer pipelines and water and reclaimed water pipelines.
The pumps and piping will be located below ground level in a wet well. The lift station controls, standby
power, ventilation system and chemical storage will be housed in a masonry structure approximately 60
feet long and 26 feet wide. It will be located on the east side of and partly within a stormwater detention
basin that has been constructed adjacent to Cannon Road (Figure 3). An access driveway from Cannon
Road will be constructed. The lift station building will be designed with architectural treatment and
landscaping to present an attractive appearance to public views from Cannon Road.
The pumping capacity of the lift station will enable an average daily flow of 1.5 million gallons per day
(mgd) or 1,050 gallons per minute (gpm) with a peak flow of 3.1 mgd or 2,150 gpm. This capacity will
require three electrically-powered submersible pumps, with one pump serving as a stand-by (back-up)
pump. An emergency internal-combustion powered generator will provide power if commercial power is
interrupted. Noise control will consist of placing the pumps below ground level, in the wet well, and
using sound panels on the interior of the building. An odor control system will include chemical
treatment of the effluent stream and an activated carbon adsorption system for gases fkom the wet well.
Ferric chloride for downstream odor control will be stored in a double walled, 3,000-gallon tank located
inside the lift station control building, providing storage capacity for about 15 days of operation at peak
flow. Containment of the tank’s contents will be provided by a depressed area around the tank, equaling
the tank’s volume.
The proposed site is within the Kelly Ranch development, which is now under construction. The site is
within an area in the subdivision that contains a detention basin and a temporary sewage lift station. The
slope southwest of and above the detention basin, while not planned for development, was recently
graded to correct adverse geological conditions. The site is in the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program, where the City has permitting authority. The lift station building site is just east of a
San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) powerline easement. Parts of the driveway, influent,
and forcemain pipe lines are within the SDG&E easement.
Proposed development of the lift station is the culmination of several years’ study of siting options.
Following is a discussion of how the site was selected.
In 1989, when Reach 1 of Cannon Road from the east side of Macario Canyon to near Paseo del Norte
was approved, the project included a temporary lift station on the west side of Macario Canyon that was
to be replaced by a permanent lift station on the east side of the canyon. Neither was constructed. At that
time, a forcemain around the south edge of Agua Hedionda Lagoon from the bridge to the east side of the
railroad right-of-way was also proposed.
About a year later, a gravity line in Cannon Road from El Camino Real to Hidden Valley Road was
proposed, with the pipeline continuing westward in Hidden Valley Road, which is a gravel road on a low
embankment within the lagoon wetlands at this location. Just north of the Cannon Road bridge, this
proposal would have jacked the pipeline under the wetlands in the mouth of Macario Canyon to the west
side, where a lift station would be constructed at the site of the temporary lift station proposed earlier.
2
In 2000, a pump station location northwest of Cannon Road at the south end of the Hidden Valley Road
embankment was proposed. The forcemain was to be constructed under the lagoon wetlands by
directional drilling to the south shore of the lagoon, then up the slope to Cannon Road by trenching.
Review of that project by the Carlsbad Planning Department and California Department of Fish and
Game raised concerns associated with threats to the environment of lagoon from trenchless construction,
structures, grading and runoff from the access roads. Consequently, the City directed the engineering firm
of Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. to identify alternative sites for the lift station and study the feasibility of
constructing the lift station and requisite pipelines for each alternative. Seven sites were identified
through a series of meetings with developers, engineering firms, and resource agencies. Figure 5 shows
the location of the seven sites. Three additional sites were identified in a report submitted to the Coastal
Commission presenting an evaluation of all technically feasible alternatives, excluding environmentally
sensitive areas. The site presently being proposed was selected on the basis of the consideration of
jurisdictional, environmental, public concern, and cost factors. The proposed site is preferred as having
the least total impact and an acceptable cost. This site also is the only site that has Coastal Commission
support.
The proposed lift station site is located within the Kelly Ranch development, on the southeast side of
Cannon Road just west of El Camino Real. Residential areas are being developed easterly and southerly
from Cannon Road, with clusters of housing interspersed with open space slopes. Westerly and northerly
from Cannon Road east of Macario Canyon are the wetlands and riparian woodlands of Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, which is to be an ecological preserve owned and maintained by the California Department of
Fish and Game. The only development northwest of Cannon Road in this area is a visitor’s center on an
upland area about 2,000 feet southwest of the lift station site.
The site proposed for the lift station is on a lot intended for this use within the Kelly Ranch development,
at the east end of a detention basin and adjacent to the Kelly Ranch temporary lift station that is on the
southeast side of Cannon Road. (The permanent lift station will be replace the existing temporary lift
station.) The western end of the detention basin will be regraded to ensure continued drainage. Single-
family residences are located on the cul-de-sac of Ashberry Road northeast of the lift station site, with the
nearest residential lots about 100 feet northeast of the lift station. A 50% slope is present on the southeast
side of the lift station site. This slope is to be preserved as open space.
The slope area is documented as being part of an ancient landslide, along with other slopes adjacent to
and southeast of the detention basin. Construction of the slope and excavations for the detention basin
and temporary lift station did not result in any ground movement or de-stabilization of the existing slopes.
The site is in the Mello I1 segment of the City of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program (LCP). It is
designated in the LCP as a buffer area where residential development is not allowed, but where public
infrastructure facilities (such as the lift station) are allowed under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). In the
Mello I1 segment of the LCP, the City has authority to issue Coastal Development Permits.
3
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.
Aesthetics Ix] Geology/Soils Noise
[7 Agricultural Resources [7 HazardsElazardous Materials 0 and Housing
Air Quality HydrologylWater Quality c] Public Services
Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 17 Recreation
0 Cultural Resources Mineral Resources c] TransportatiodCirculation
0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of
Significance
4
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
IXI
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a sigdkant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at
least one potentially signifcant impact 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. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
/%?-a&
Date
12-19 102”
Date
5
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.
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.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
“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.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
Based on an “EM-Part I?’, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but potentially significant adverse 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.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse 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 Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse 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.
6
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse 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 adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse 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.
7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
I.
11.
III.
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.)
Would the project:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.)
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
0
(XI
[XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
IXI
Ix1
(XI
8
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or US. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
0
0
0
IXI
Ix1
IXI
0
[XI
1x1
1x1
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species 0 0 01x1
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
9
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
cl 0
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
0 0
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive? 0
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
0 0
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
0 0
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- 0 0 cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? 0 0
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
0 cl
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? 0 [XI
iv. Landslides? 0 IXI
Less Than Significant No Impact Impact om
om
Elm
on
10
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
topsoil? 0 0 BO b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
0 0 IXIO
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
0 0
0 0 nIxI
0 0 IXIO
0 0 IXIO
0 0 OIXI
11
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two 0 0 Ixl
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
r> For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
0
0
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
0
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? 0
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
0 0
Impacts to groundwater quality? no
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the 0 El om
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
12
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff!
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction?
Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact n n nIXI Y Y u
13
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of 0 0 0
beneficial uses?
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 o
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan, 0 0 0
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation 0 0 0 plan or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) 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?
0 0 0
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
0 0 0
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
0 lxl 0
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
0 0 0
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
0 Ixl
No Impact
IXI
1x1
IXI
Ixl
Ixl
0
IXI
0
14
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
0 BO
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
0 0 OH
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
0 0 OIXI
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
(for example, by proposing new homes and 0 0 OIX]
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0 17 OH
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating 0 0 OH the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Xm. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection? 0 0 OBI
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
0 OIXI
0 0 OIXI
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
0 OH
0 0 ON
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
0 0 om
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
0 0 om
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 OH
0 om
0 om
0 OH
0 OH
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 om
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
0 0 om
16
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
0
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
0 BO
0 0 om e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
O(x1
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 OISI
XVII. 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 0 0 UISI
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
impoitant examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively considerable” means that the incremental 0 om
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?
0 OIXI
XVIII. 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:
4 Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
17
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.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than significant impact - The lift station would be located in the Kelly Ranch development, now
under construction. This location is not a designated or protected scenic vista point according to the
Local Coastal Program (LCP). The public view in which the lift station will be most prominent is from
Cannon Road, since the rising hillside to the southeast hides it from view in that direction. To assure
visual compatibility with the residential development, the architectural treatment of the lift station will be
based on materials, colors, roof design, and other features that will resemble the housing in Kelly Ranch.
The maximum height of the proposed structure will be no more than 23’6”. (The structure may be
somewhat lower than 23’6” when final design is completed.) The lift station landscaping will be
consistent with the existing subdivision. A black vinyl-coated chain-link fence will be located in the
immediate lift station vicinity. Therefore, the project will not have a substantially adverse impact on any
scenic vista.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
No impact - The site is not within the viewshed of a state scenic highway or any state highway that is
designated by Caltrans as eligible for listing. See also the preceding response.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Less than significant impact - See response 1.a.
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less than significant impact - The facility will be equipped with lights on the exterior of the structure that
will be directed downward and away from the adjacent residences to the northeast. The lights will be
mounted on the building approximately 10 feet above ground on the building wall. The lights will be
directed downward at a steep angle to prevent the light from penetrating past the property line. Routine
maintenance will be performed during daylight hours, and is not expected to occur during nighttime
hours. Lights will not be turned on during nighttime hours. A switch will be located at the entry gate to
manually turn on the light if required for un-scheduled operations or non-routine maintenance activities.
A similar switch will be located at the exit gate to manually turn off the lights after personnel have
completed their work.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No impact - On the “San Diego Important Farmland 1998” map of the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program, the lift station site is designated as “Other Land,” defined as “Land which does not
meet the criteria of any other category.” Other categories include Prime Farmland, Farmland of
Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land. No
agriculture is presently practiced on the site, which consists of a detention basin and adjacent slope in an
open space portion of a residential development. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland to
non-agricultural use.
19
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No impact - See the preceding response. The site is on a lot established for this purpose adjacent to a
residential subdivision. This lot is zoned R-3-Q (Residential) and has a General Plan designation of Open
Space. The proposed lift station is a use which is allowed on the site. The project site contains no
agricultural use and is not the subject of a Williamson Act contact. Therefore, there will be no impact to
agricultural uses from the project.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No impact - The project is adjacent to a residential subdivision across from the open space wetlands of
Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Both gravity and forcemains that serve the lift station will be in the rights-of-
way of existing roads, including the Cannon Road bridge over Macario Canyon. The project, therefore,
would not cause changes to any factors, such as water supply, access, or drainage that would affect any
active agricultural use.
111. AIR QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No impact - Emissions controls for construction equipment and procedures such as dust control during
construction are regulated by the Air Pollution Control District (ACPD). The project will comply with all
APCD Rules and Regulations. Any air emissions produced during construction would be temporary.
Operation of the lift station wduld not be a source of air pollutant emissions, since electric motors
ordinarily would be used to power the pumps and would produce no air emissions. An internal
combustion engine would be part of the equipment at the lift station to provide emergency power
generation in case of electrical supply failure. Stationary engines of this sort must be permitted by the
APCD and are subject to applicable controls and monitoring inspections.
The proposed project is in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) within the jurisdiction of the San Diego
APCD. The SDAB is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment
area for respirable particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMIo). The applicable
attainment plan for these criteria pollutants is the Regional Air Quality Strategy, which is prepared and
administered by the San Diego APCD.
Short-term air quality impacts during construction would occur from heavy equipment exhaust emissions,
construction-related trips by workers, delivery trucks, and material hauling trucks, and from associated
fugitive dust generation. Heavy construction equipment is usually diesel-powered. In general, emissions
from diesel-powered equipment contain more nitrogen oxide compounds (NOx), sulfur oxide compounds
(SOX), and PMlo, and less carbon monoxide (CO) and reactive organic compounds (ROCs), than
emissions from gasoline-powered engines. NOx compounds and ROCs are precursors to ozone
formation.
Construction equipment anticipated for this project could typically include a tractor, compactor, scrapers,
backhoe, cranes, grader, dump and concrete trucks, and miscellaneous tractor-trailer delivery trucks. The
equipment that may be found at any one time at the construction site will vary.
The APCD does not have specific significance thresholds for air pollutants generated during construction.
However, the APCD does specify Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) Trigger Levels for review of new
stationary sources. Although these trigger levels are specified for stationary sources, they are used here to
assess the potential impacts due to air emissions during project construction. The AQIA Trigger Levels
are:
20
NOx 250 pounds per day
sox 250 pounds per day co 550 pounds per day
PMlO 100 pounds per day
There are no AQIA Trigger Levels specified for ROCs. If anticipated project emissions exceed any of
these Trigger Levels, a more detailed Air Quality Impact Analysis may be required by the APCD. For
this evaluation, project construction air emissions were estimated using the California Air Resources
Board Urbemis7G version 3.2 air emission estimation program.
The Urbemis7G program does not include emission factors for SOX compounds. The equipment
emission factors used in Urbemis7G are the same as those found in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and the Handbook does include emission factors for
SOX compounds. A comparison of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook NOx and SOX compound emission
factors reveals that the SOX emission factors are consistently less than the corresponding NOx emission
factors for the same types of equipment. Therefore, it can be concluded that the total SOX emissions from
a project will be less than the total NOx emissions from that project.
The San Diego APCD Trigger Levels for NOx and SOX compounds are the same (250 pounds per day).
Consequently, for this assessment it can be concluded that if the total NOx emissions projected by
Urbemis7G are less than the AQIA Trigger Levels, then the total SOX emissions will also be below the
Trigger Levels.
As indicated, the amount and types of equipment on-site at any one time will vary. This assessment
conservatively assumes that all of the projected equipment could be working on-site simultaneously.
Under this assumption, the maximum projected daily air emissions during construction would be:
NOx 158 pounds per day
sox < 15 8 pounds per day co 92 pounds per day
PMlO 26 pounds per day
Thus, the maximum projected daily air emissions due to construction of the proposed project would be
below all AQIA Trigger Levels.
Dust control during grading operations is regulated by the APCD and must conform to APCD Rules and
Regulations. All project construction is required to incorporate best management practices that include
the following measures to reduce fugitive dust impacts:
1. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable San Diego APCD
dust-control agents during dust-generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional watering or
acceptable APCD dust-control agents shall be applied during dry weather or windy days until dust
emissions are not visible.
2. All trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be covered to reduce windblown dust and spills.
3. On dry days, dirt or debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to reduce
resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes to construction
sites shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt in dry weather.
4. On-site stockpiles of excavated materia1,shall be covered or watered.
Given the small amount of grading and construction overall, air emissions associated with this project are
not anticipated to result in any air quality impacts.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
21
No impact - See preceding response.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
No impact - See response to 1II.a.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No impact - See response to 1II.a.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Potentially significant impact unless mitigated - The flow of sewage through the lift station introduces the
potential for the release of objectionable odors. The nearest sensitive receptors would be residences on
the cul-de-sac of Ashbeny Road, within 100 feet of the lift station site. The existing temporary lift station
is 50 feet from the nearest residence and has no odor control. The proposed lift station design includes an
odor control system consisting of effluent chemical addition, and gas phase control.
Odors will be controlled in two different areas: on-site treatment and effluent. Odorous air from the wet
well will be conveyed into a dual Phoenix carbon scrubber system or equivalent, designed to reduce
sulfides by 99 percent and to a non-detectable level at the project’s property line. Effluent will be
injected with ferric chloride, which will precipitate odor-causing sulfides, further eliminating the
volatilization of sulfide compounds that are the source of objectionable odors.
Ferric chloride will be added to the sewage stream at the lift station. Ferric chloride reduces odorous
compounds by precipitating odor-causing sulfides. The addition of ferric chloride will reduce odors
downstream from the pump station, where the forcemain discharges into the gravity sewer.
Odors in the gas phase present in the influent sewer and wet well will be controlled by a dual activated
carbon adsorption system that removes up to 99 percent of the incoming sulfides. Two carbon absorption
units will be installed to provide redundancy and enhanced odor removal. Air present in the wet well and
influent sewer will be withdrawn and conveyed to the carbon adsorption system through air-tight ducts.
Upon treatment, the treated air will be dispersed through an exhaust stack with an exhaust velocity to
promote further rapid dilution of the exhaust gases. An Odor Assessment Report was prepared for the
proposed project by DHK Engineers (July 2002). That report concluded that incorporation of the odor
control system described (or an equivalent system) would reduce any potential odors to a non-detectable
level at the property line of the proposed facility. The adsorption system analyzed in that report included
Calgon’s Phoenix Odor Control System. That system, or an equivalent system from RJ Environmental
Systems which will reduce potential odors to an undetectable level at the project property line will be
incorporated into the construction of the facility. Although incorporation of this odor control system is
already included as a part of the current project plans, it’s inclusion is also being required as a mitigation
measure.
The odor control systems included in the project and included as mitigation measures will reduce
potential odors at the property line of the project site to a less than significant level
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
22
No impact - A RECON (environmental consulting company) biologist surveyed all of the alternative sites
for the lift station on September 26 and November 7, 2000. Vegetation was mapped and a list of floral
and faunal species observed was recorded. A search for sensitive plants that would have been present at
the time of surveys was conducted, and wildlife species were observed directly or detected fiom calls,
tracks, scat, nests, or other signs. A report of the surveys summarizes the findings. Responses in this
section are based on that report.
No candidate, sensitive, or special status plants were detected or expected to occur in the area that would
be affected by grading for the proposed lift station (identified as Alternative 2 in the biological survey
report). No candidate, sensitive, or special status wildlife species were observed on or near the proposed
lift station site. Because of the disturbed nature of the site and the lack of any vegetation community with
wildlife habitat value, none of these species would be expected to occur there.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or
by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No impact - Construction of the lift station would affect part of the detention basin. The detention basin
was designed to collect runoff, allow for silt to settle out, and discharge the runoff. It is therefore, at least
intermittently, a wet area. Because of its function, however, any wetland vegetation that infiltrates the
basin is regularly removed, and routine maintenance will prevent the establishment of a riparian, marsh,
or other wetland habitat. As long as the basin is maintained, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not
consider it a jurisdictional area under the Clean Water Act. The area is also not contiguous to the lagoon
jurisdictional waters. Some regrading of the western end of the desiltation basin will be done with this
project to ensure continued drainage.
On the southeastern slope dropping down into the detention basin, some vegetation with elements of
coastal sage scrub has been established as a result of hydroseeding after construction of the detention
basin. This area could be considered disturbed coastal sage scrub but has no habitat value. That portion
of the slope will not be disturbed by the proposed project. The desiltation basin and the temporary lift
station already exist, and the sites of those uses contain no sensitive natural communities. Therefore, no
sensitive natural community will be affected by the project.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No impact - See the preceding response. Because of its function and maintenance, the detention basin is
not considered a wetland under Section 404, and no protected wetlands would be affected by the project.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No impact - The project site contains no native habitat. It is an area already affected by the construction
of Cannon Road, the detention basin, and the temporary lift station. The project site is part of a larger
open space corridor established with the Kelly Ranch development. However, the site is on the outer
perimeter of that easement contains no habitat communities. Both the desiltation basin and the temporary
lift station were already existing when the open space corridor boundaries were established. Therefore,
the project site has no value or function as a wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
No impact - No resources protected by local policies or ordinances were identified in the biological
survey report.
23
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No impact - The Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) is a habitat conservation plan being
drafted for the northern subregion of San Diego and includes the City of Carlsbad (SANDAG 1998). The
City has drafted the Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP),
intended as a subarea plan of the MHCP (City of Carlsbad 1999). Although the HMP has not been
adopted yet, the Cannon Road Lift Station project is consistent with the plan. The Hh4P designates a
natural preserve system and provides a regulatory framework for determining impacts and assigning
mitigation. The project area is outside the preserve system identified in the HMP, does not contain
significant biological resources or linkages, and is not part of any designated significant biological
resource area or preserve. Therefore, the project will not conflict with any adopted or approved habitat
conservation plan and, additionally, will not conflict with the City's Draft (unadopted) Habitat
Management Plan.
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
No impact - See preceding responses.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
No impact - The project site is part of the subdivision map for Kelly Ranch. The site has been included
in a number of cultural resource surveys, including surveys for the Kelly Ranch project, for the Cannon
Road Reach 1 project, and for the South Agua Hedionda Sewer Interceptor System. In addition, the site
has been graded to construct Cannon Road and the detention basin adjacent to Cannon Road. No prior
surveys identified cultural resource sites that would be affected by the project.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
No impact - See the preceding response.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
No impact - No paleontological site or unique resources were identified at the site during the prior
grading for the detention basin.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No impact - See the preceding responses in this section. No human burials are known to exist in this
location, and none were discovered during grading for Cannon Road and the on-site detention basin.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
24
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
No impact - The project site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone quadrangle map indexed in the
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; therefore the project would not expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse effects.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than significant impact - The project site will likely be subject to ground shaking in response to
either a local moderate or more distant large-magnitude earthquake. Seismic risk at the site is comparable
to the risk for the San Diego area in general. The closest source to the site for ground motion, and the
source that would produce the greatest ground acceleration at the site, are the Julian and Temecula
segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 37 kilometers to the northeast, and the Del Mar segment of the
Rose CanyodNewport-Inglewood fault zone, about 10 kilometers west of the project site. Project design
will meet or exceed existing earthquake design standards, including the Uniform Building Code
guidelines currently adopted for seismic safety standards in California. Therefore, strong seismic ground
shaking is considered a less than significant impact.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Potentially significant impact unless mitigated - The geotechnical report prepared by Haley and Aldrich
(Geotechnical Engineering consultant) for this project explains that the soils are potentially liquefiable.
This conclusion was based upon the fact that some, but not all, of the test borings contained soils that are
prone to liquefaction. To mitigate the potential for liquefaction, the lift station will be founded on a
drilled shaft foundation rather than a slab on grade. Drilled shafts of 18 inches or larger in diameter will
be installed below the water table through the unconsolidated soils present at the site and socketed into
bedrock. A drilled pier foundation will support the building and will not be subject to settlement from
liquefaction. Additionally, pipes connecting into the wet well and valve vault are designed with flexible
couplings that will react to soil movement or liquefaction and maintain integrity in the pipelines. Trench
and excavation shoring will be required during construction to ensure that soils remain stable and sub-
surface constraint to soil movement is not altered. Caissons will be used for the wet well and valve vault.
The caissons will be installed without using open excavations, thus maintaining sub-surface soil integrity.
Settlement from liquefaction can be observed by any voids between the building foundation and the
ground. Maintenance and operations personnel will inspect the foundation for voids over the ground
level. If necessary, replacement material can be pumped under the foundation to fill any voids. However,
the presence of voids does not indicate any pending failure, since the building will be supported on drilled
piers. These mitigation measures will provide a stable foundation for the lift station and reduce any
impact from seismic-related ground failure to less than significant. Although the project is designed to
incorporate these recommended construction methods, they are also included as mitigation measures.
iv. Landslides?
Potentially significant impact unless mitigated - Published Geotechnical studies for the Kelly Ranch
development identified the slope rising to the east of the lift station site as a potential landslide area. The
Geotechnical report (prepared by Haley and Aldrich) for the proposed lift station provides
recommendations for the proposed structure and site improvements to mitigate the landslide potential.
Based on the design recommendations, several steps will be taken to mitigate the potential landslide
concern. The work associated with the construction and operation of the lift station will not de-stabilize
the slope. No deep excavations without shoring are proposed. The wetwell and valve vault will be
installed using either a caisson approach or sheet piling to maintain the existing soil structure in place. A
caisson is a circular concrete shaft initially constructed on the ground surface, and placed directly over the
wet well location. The ground in the center of the caisson is removed, which allows the caisson to sink
under its own weight. This eliminates the need for a large excavation necessary to construct a cast in
25
place concrete wetwell or valve vault. The caisson construction method significantly reduces the
possibility of a landslide; therefore the impact from a landslide is considered less than significant. The
requirement for a caisson construction method has been incorporated into the project plans and has also
been included as a mitigation measure.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than significant impact - During grading, the exposure of soils would lead to an increased chance for
the erosion of soils from the site. Grading will follow best management practices for the control of
erosion, such as straw bale or sandbag barriers, silt fences, slope roughening, and outlet protection. Since
the site is on the edge of a detention basin, any erosion products would be captured in the detention basin.
Finished grades would be promptly planted at the end of construction according to the landscape plan. If
necessary, temporary slope cover such as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to
reduce the impact to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to less than significant. Project plans show control
of drainage from the completed site. Therefore, impacts to soil erosion or the loss of top-soil will be less
than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less than significant impact - Because of previous grading for Cannon Road, the detention basin, and
remediation of the slope to the southwest, the project site does not have the conditions associated with a
potential for geological instability; therefore the impacts are less than significant. See additional response
information in VI. a) iv.
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
No impact - The geotechnical report completed by Haley and Aldrich for the Cannon Road Lift Station
concluded that expansive soils are not a geological hazard for this project; therefore there is no impact is
associated with expansive soils creating substantial risks.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No impact. There are no septic tanks or alternative disposal systems included in the project. Wastewater
from the on-site restroom will discharge into the on-site influent sewer or wet well. Therefore, there is no
impact to the on-site soils.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than significant impact - During construction of the new lift station, and from time to time during
operation, substances such as oils, paint, and solvents may be used on-site. All transport, handling, use,
and disposal of substances such as petroleum products, solvents, and paints related to construction,
operation, and maintenance of the lift station will comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating
the management and use of hazardous materials and with the chemical safety guidelines of the Center for
Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers and similar standards of the
American Petroleum Institute and Chemical Manufacturers Association. Ferric chloride will be stored in
a 3,000-gallon double-walled tank. A tanker truck will deliver ferric chloride once a month. This
chemical will be used on the site for downstream odor control. Ferric chloride is a common industrial
chemical, and is not on the list of substances requiring preparation of a Risk Management Plan under the
26
California Accidental Release Program or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s requirements
based on the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Process Safety Management
Standard. Chemical suppliers require chemical delivery truck drivers to have Hazardous Materials
Training, safety training and DOT certification in addition to chemical experience; therefore the impact to
the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is less
that significant.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Less than significant impact - See the preceding response. The project will be in compliance with state
Title 22 and federal Title 40 requirements regarding the use of hazardous materials. No extraordinary risk
of accidental explosion or the release of hazardous substances is anticipated with development and
implementation of the proposed lift station. All transport, handling, use, and disposal of substances such
as petroleum products, solvents, and paints related to construction, operation, and maintenance of the lift
station will comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous
materials.
The un-loading area for the chemical delivery trucks will be behind the building, with surface drainage
from this area collected and conveyed to a sub-surface holding tank or structure. In the event of a
chemical spill, the liquid chemical will flow towards a surface inlet that will intercept the chemical and
convey it to the holding tank. Each end of the un-loading area will also have grated cut-off trenches that
will also intercept any chemicals before they can flow off-site. The cut-off trenches will also discharge
into the holding tank. Prior to any chemical delivery, the holding tank will be inspected, and any
collected stormwater will need to be removed, to create volume for any spill event. The ferric chloride
will be stored in a double-walled tank suitable for the chemical. The tank will be installed on a concrete
platform, surrounded by a depressed area that has a volume slightly greater than the tank volume of 3,000
gallons. This depressed area would contain the tank volume in the event a leak occurred, and would
prevent any spillage outside of the building.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No impact - There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the site, and none are
designated in the Carlsbad General Plan.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or environment?
No impact - The project site is located in a part of the Kelly Ranch development which has been
disturbed by prior grading associated with construction of the detention basin and Cannon Road and
remedial grading of the slope to the east. Prior to that disturbance, the site was in an essentially natural
condition, with no previous use history that would involve the use or storage of hazardous materials.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No impact - The project site is located about a mile and a half northwest of McClellan-Palomar Airport
and is within the area covered in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for that airport. The site is outside
the 60 &(A) CNEL contour, the Flight Activity Zone, and the Airport Influence Area designated in the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
27
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No impact - The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and no people will reside on the
site and work on-site for maintenance and operations will be temporary.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
No impact - Neither construction nor operation of the lift station will significantly affect, block, or
interfere with traffic on public streets, including any streets that would be used for an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan. Routine maintenance activities will be accomplished by means of a
proposed on-site accessway. The accessway is designed to avoid any impacts to the public street system.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
No impact -The lift station will be housed in a masonry structure not readily susceptible to damage by
fire.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
No impact - The project is required to meet all federal, state, and local regulations, including the federal
Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, and specific basin plan objectives identified in
the “Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin.” The Water Quality Control Plan identifies
specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit and Agua Hedionda Hydrologic Subarea within
which the project is located. The project must also obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement
specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect water quality.
Groundwater is relatively near the surface in the vicinity of wetlands. Excavation for the pipelines and
for the lift station wet well and valve vault could encounter groundwater. If so, dewatering of the
construction area may be required. Any such dewatering would require a permit from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, with conditions designed by the RWQCB to prevent adverse water quality effects
on groundwater. Dewatering activities will be minimized by implementing specialized construction
techniques such as a caisson approach to construction of the wetwell.
Spillage of sewage into nearby wetlands located on the other side of Cannon Road is highly unlikely, due
to the installation of an emergency generator with the project. The generator will provide power to the
pumps in the event of a power outage. A stand-by pump is also being provided in case a pump is not
operational. The control system will automatically call for the stand-by pump in case a pump does not
turn on. Full capacity of the lift station will be maintained in the event a pump should be taken off-line
for maintenance.
The lift station will be telemetered by the City of Carlsbad, which will allow the City to shut off the
sewage flow to the proposed lift station in the unlikely event the lift station becomes disabled. In that
case, the sewage flow could be redirected to the North Agua Hedionda Interceptor (NAH) at El Camino
Real without any overflow at the site; therefore, no water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements will be violated.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
28
a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
No impact - The project will not withdraw any groundwater or discharge into the existing groundwater.
No existing water quality conditions will be adversely affected.
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
No impact - See response VIII. a)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
No impact - Construction of the lift station will incrementally increase the amount of impervious surface
area on the site, incrementally increasing runoff. Storm water runoff from the lift station will enter the
storm drain system in Cannon Road or be directed into the adjacent detention basin. The basic pattern of
runoff from the slope above the site northwestward toward Cannon Road and the detention basin will not
be substantially altered. The existing brow ditch along the existing slope will continue to drain into the
detention basin; therefore there is no impact to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area.
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or
amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
No impact - See the preceding response. The lift station will occupy about 20 percent of the detention
basin, reducing the holding capacity of the basin; however, the July 2002 report by Project Design
Consultants states that the “Village ‘E’ basin (the detention basin) does provide the over-detention to
accommodate the Project (Cannon Road Lift Station) and still satisfy the Kelly Ranch detention and
storm design criteria.”
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Potentially significant impact unless mitigated - A portion of the Canterbury storm flow is currently
directed into the detention basin, but will be redirected from the detention basin to discharge directly to
the existing dual 36-inch pipes located in Cannon Road. These existing pipes discharge directly into the
drainage on the north side of Cannon Road. To mitigate this direct discharge, water quality devices
representing the Best Management Practices will be installed at the inlets contributing storm water to the
existing 36-inch pipes. Installation of these water quality devices (fossil filters) has been incorporated
into the project plans and is also included as a mitigation measure.
See the preceding response. Impervious surfaces at the lift station will incrementally increase runoff from
the site but will be directed to existing storm drains or the detention basin, resulting in no net effect.
However, the operational sectors of the lift station will be enclosed and isolated from runoff, and no
substantial additional pollutant loading of runoff is anticipated due to the low level of activity associated
with the completed lift station.
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No impact - See the preceding responses. No feature of the project is likely to result in the use or
accidental discharge of substances that would substantially degrade water quality. See also response
VII1.a. All transport, handling, use, and disposal of substances such as petroleum products, solvents, and
29
paints related to construction, operation, and maintenance of the lift station will comply with all federal,
state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. Chemicals used for odor
control will be stored inside the building, with sufficient containment volume provided to prevent spills
reaching outside the building; therefore water quality will not be affected. Also, see response VII. b.
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
No impact - No housing is proposed.
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
No impact - The project is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard area as reflected in the Letter of
Map Revision (LOMR) dated October 25, 2001; therefore there is no impact associated with structures
impeding or redirecting flood flows.
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No impact - No construction of a dam or construction in an area within the flood limits downstream from
a dam is proposed.
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less than significant impact - The project site is located near the Pacific Ocean and Agua Hedionda
Lagoon with a finished floor elevation about 27.5 feet above mean sea level. Tsunami, but not seiche or
mudflow, is thus a possibility. However, because the site is inland from the lagoon mouth and a number
of structures such as railroad and highway bridges are between the ocean and the site, the potential for
tsunami damage to the completed structure is reduced, and is no higher than the risk for other structures in
the vicinity.
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
No impact - See preceding responses.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives,
synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving
surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
No impact - See response V1II.g and VI1 b
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following
construction?
No impact - See response VIII.f. No receiving water quality will be adversely affected.
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water
Act Section 303(d) list?
No impact - See response VI1 b. No pollutants will be released from the site.
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
30
No impact -No potentially significant impact. See preceding responses.
IX. LAND USE PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No impact - The project is a relatively small and compact area within the Kelly Ranch subdivision. It is
not a linear feature and would not physically separate any contiguous residential areas within the
subdivision.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
No impact - The project is a utility infrastructure project compatible with the open space land use
designation in the Carlsbad General Plan. It is also compatible with and supports the residential uses of
the Kelly Ranch subdivision. The development of public facility infrastructure in this location under a
Conditional Use Permit conforms to the requirements of the Mello I1 segment of the Local Coastal
Program. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
No impact - See response IV.f. The project site is not within an area designated in any habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan as a sensitive biological area.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) 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?
No impact - The lift station would be located within a subdivision that has beerrapproved for residential
uses and is being developed for those uses. There is no known mineral resource of regional or statewide
value that would be affected, and the project would affect a relatively small area of a residential
subdivision where any substantial mineral resource recovery would be unlikely.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No impact - The Carlsbad General Plan does not designate any mineral resource recovery site on or near
the proposed lift station site.
XI. NOISE -Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Potentially significant impact unless mitigated - The lift station will be located adjacent to a residential
subdivision, with the closest residences about 100 feet to the northeast. These residences are the only
sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site. The Noise Element of the Carlsbad General Plan states that
the City’s policy is that 60 dB(A) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is the maximum exterior
31
noise level to which residential units should be subjected, except that 65 dB(A) is the maximum for
residential units subject to noise from McClellan-Palomar Airport. The Municipal Code (Chapter 8.48)
prohibits construction activity that would create disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise after sunset of
any day, and before 7 A.M. Monday through Friday, and before 8 A.M. on Saturday, and all day Sunday
and specified holidays.
Construction of the lift station will be limited to the hours allowed in the Municipal Code. Once in
operation the features of the lift station that could produce significant noise levels that would affect
nearby receptors are (1) the operation of the pumps and the motors that drive them, and (2) operation of
the gas phase odor control mechanism. The engine driving the emergency generator is also a potential
source of noise if/when emergency power is needed. That would be a temporary and relatively infrequent
event. The lift station is designed such that the pumps will be below ground level (approximately 26 feet
below ground surface) in a wet well. This placement will absorb any noise resulting from the operation
of the pumps. Odor control scrubbers have exhaust fans to move air from the wet well to the carbon
scrubbers. These fans will be located inside the lift station in a separate enclosed room that is acoustically
treated with sound absorbing panels installed on the walls and ceiling. Ducts installed between the wet
well and the scrubbers will be installed underground and are designed to absorb any sound resulting from
the air movement. The emergency generator and the engine to drive it, and the gas phase odor control
mechanism, will be housed in an enclosure with sound absorbing panels on the walls. The emergency
generator would be operated only when electrical power is lost and during short periods when the
generator is exercised and tests (not more than one start per month). The facility will be designed and
constructed so the sound level at the property line adjoining residential lots will be less than 45 dB(A),
significantly lower than the City of Carlsbad General Plan standard of 60 dB(A) CNEL for exterior noise
levels in residential areas. The lift station is being designed for ultimate flow and no future equipment is
required. The Noise Impact Report prepared for the proposed project (DHK, July 2002) concluded that
potential noise impacts from the proposed project to nearby sensitive receptors are well below the City's
allowed exterior (60 dB(A)) and exterior (45 dB(A)) CNEL noise levels. The design features necessary
to reduce the potential noise level to a maximum of 60 dB(A) CNEL at the property line adjoining
residential lots is incorporated into the project design and is also included as a required mitigation
measure.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne
noise levels?
No impact - Although the pumps and motors will be below ground level, in a wet well, the project will
not produce groundbourne vibration or noise outside the project site boundaries.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Less than significant impact - See response X1.a. The project will result in an incremental permanent
increase in noise in the vicinity of the site. Since this increase will not exceed levels stated in the
Carlsbad General Plan, the increase is not considered substantial or significant.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Less than significant impact - During construction, a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity is anticipated. Construction will be scheduled to conform to the limitations specified in
the Municipal Code, so the increase is not considered substantial or significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
32
No impact - The project is located within the area of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-
Palomar Airport. However, the project will not expose people residing or working in the area to a
significant increase in noise levels, and operations and maintenance personnel will not be exposed to
aircraft noise levels in excess of 60 dB(A) CNEL as indicated by noise contours mapped in the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No impact -The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Xn. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
No impact - The project is an infi-astructure improvement to provide adequate sewage conveyance
capacity for existing and anticipated land developments in the northeast and northwest quadrants of the
City of Carlsbad. It does not extend sewage service to undeveloped areas or areas not designated for
development in the City’s General Plan. The South Agua Hedionda Interceptor Sewer, Reach 3 (SAH3)
requires the lift station to convey sewage from the east side of Macario Canyon to the South Agua
Hedionda Interceptor, Reach 4 (SAH4) at the intersection of Cannon Road and Car Country Drive. The
influent and effluent sewers serving the lift station are already installed, and the SAH3 facility is part of
the master planned sewer facilities for the City of Carlsbad. Therefore, the project will not induce
population growth by providing infrastructure to support unplanned growth.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No impact - No housing will be displaced by the project.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No impact - The project site is undeveloped, and no people will be displaced by the project.
Xm. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically
altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
No impact - The lift station will not generate any measurable increase in the need for fire services and
will not measurably affect current fire response times. Therefore, the proposed ,facility will not have any
affect on the fire service needs of the area.
33
ii. Police protection?
No impact - The lift station will not generate any measurable increase in the need for police services and
will not measurably affect current police response times. Therefore, the proposed facility will not have an
affect on the police service needs of the area.
iii. Schools?
No impact - The project will not generate any need for school services and, therefore, will have no impact
on schools serving the area.
iv. Parks?
No impact - The project will create no increased demand on parks serving the area, and therefore, will
have no impact on parkshecreation areas.
v. Other public facilities?
No impact - The proposed project will be constructed and operated by City of Carlsbad and will make no
demands on other public facilities or services. Overall operation and maintenance needs of the system
will not increase since the proposed lift station will replace three existing lift stations. The project will
increase the adequacy and efficiency of the City’s master planned sewage collection system.
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
No impact - The lift station will exert no added demand on recreational facilities of any kind.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No impact - No recreational facilities are included in the proposed project and none are required by the
proposed use.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system?
No impact - Operation and maintenance of the lift station will generate on the average no more than one
trip per day to and from the site. Chemical deliveries for odor control facilities will require a truck trip to
the lift station every 15 days. These low volumes to a site located on a major road will make no
substantial difference to traffic in the area.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No impact - See the preceding response. Levels of service are predicated on normal weekday traffic and
do not include temporary effects such as construction traffic. Normal traffic to the completed lift station
would not affect levels of service on roads or intersections.
34
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No impact - The project would not generate or require air traffic and would not physically interfere with
air traffic patterns.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No impact - The project will not change the geometry of public roads. The very low level of traffic using
the lift station access road would have virtually no effect on normal traffic on Cannon Road.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No impact - Emergency access separate from the ordinary access is not required, and the project would
not affect any public or private access to other property.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No impact - Sufficient space to park operations and maintenance vehicles would be provided on-site. No
vehicles would be parked on the site other than during such maintenance visits. There would be no effect
on public parking.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No impact - Because of restricted access to the site and its limited and specialized use, there would be no
effect on or demand for alternative transportation programs, facilities, or equipment. The project would
not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
No impact - The lift station is part of the master planned sewage system for the City of Carlsbad, and
would have no effect on wastewater treatment.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects?
No impact - The lift station would replace three existing temporary lift stations and will be served by
influent sewer mains that are already in place. No construction of sewerage facilities other than what is
included in the project would be required.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No impact - No new storm water drainage facilities are proposed or would be required. See also response
VII1.d.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
35
Less than significant impact - Potable water use at the completed lift station would be for washdown and
restroom use. Reclaimed water will be used for landscaping. The amount of potable water required for
the use would be relatively small and would not place an excessive demand on the municipal water
supply system. The use of reclaimed water will contribute to the area’s demand for reclaimed water,
which will help lessen the demand on potable water.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
No impact - The project only requires wastewater service from a single restroom housed in an un-
occupied facility. Adequate wastewater service capacity is available, and no determination of capacity is
necessary.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
No impact - The project will not ordinarily generate any appreciable volume of solid waste, and solid
waste collection from the site will not be required. Any solid waste generated during maintenance will be
taken off-site for appropriate disposal.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No impact - Any solid waste generated on the site during construction or operation would be removed
and disposed of in an appropriate facility in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal
regulations.
XVII. MANDATORY 3?INDINGS 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?
No impact - See the responses to Sections IV and V.
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?)
No impact - The project is an improvement identified in the City of Carlsbad’s Sewer Master Plan and as
a necessary infrastructure element for the development of Kelly Ranch. Environmental review of Kelly
Ranch included the cumulative effects of all elements included in the overall project development plan.
Because the project is part of the orderly development of a planned sewer system that has been reviewed
and approved by the City of Carlsbad, no cumulatively considerable impacts will result.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No impact - The project site is undeveloped. Potential adverse effects on the human population in nearby
current and future development have been evaluated in preceding sections of this checklist and no adverse
environmental effects attributable to the project have been identified.
36
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER
93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department(March 1994).
2. City of Carlsbad Cannon Road Lift Station Site Selection Study prepared for the City of Carlsbad
Engineering Department by Camp Dresser & McKee (February 2001).
3. South Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station Siting Alternatives prepared for the City of Carlsbad
Engineering Department by Planning Systems (September 2001).
4. City of Carlsbad Cannon Road Lift Station Odor Assessment Report prepared for the City of
Carlsbad Engineering Department by DHK Engineers, Inc. (July 2002).
5. City of Carlsbad Cannon Road Lift Station Noise Impact Report prepared for the City of Carlsbad
Engineering Department by DHK Engineers, Inc. (July 2002).
6. Final Report on Geotechnical Recommendations for Cannon Road Lift Station prepared for the
City of Carlsbad Engineering Department by Haley & Aldrich (July 2002).
7. Drainage Report for Cannon Road Lift Station Carlsbad, California prepared for the City of
Carlsbad Engineering Department by Project Design Consultants (July 2002).
8. Final Supplemental EIR (EIR 98-05) for Kelly Ranch General Plan Amendment and "Core Area"
Subdivision (CT 97-16) prepared for the City of Carlsbad by A. D. Hinshaw Associates. January
1999).
37
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
To mitigate potentially significant project impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be applied to
the development of the proposed project:
Air Quality (Odor):
1. Construction of the proposed facility shall incorporate odor mitigation equipment and/or materials
(scrubber systems, filters, chemicals, etc.) as described in the Odor Assessment prepared for the project,
or an equivalent system sufficient to ensure that potential odors from the facility are mitigated to an
undetectable level at the property line of the proposed facility.
2. Odor level measurements shall be taken at the project property line one time per week for the first year
of operation of the facility. Results of such monitoring shall be provided to the Planning Department. If
measurements indicate that the odor mitigation in place is not effective in mitigating odor to a non-
detectable level at the project property line, then additional odor mitigation shall be incorporated into the
facility.
Geology/Soils:
3. The project shall incorporate a drilled pier foundation, pipes with flexible couplings, and trenching and
shoring construction methods to ensure soil stability in the project area.
HydrologylWater Quality
4. The proposed project shall incorporate the installation of fossil filters in each curb inlet contributing
storm water directly into the lagoon.
5. Filters installed as part of the project will be inspected prior to the start of each rainy season, cleaned
and replaced as necessary, and then periodically inspected during the year for acceptable operation.
Noise:
6. The project shall be constructed (including at least: submersible pumps and motors, an enclosed, fully
acoustically-treated room for scrubber exhaust fans, and an acoustically-treated room for the emergency
generator) as necessary to ensure that the noise impacts from the project do not exceed a maximum of 60
&(A) CNEL at the property line of surrounding residences.
7. After construction, when the project is fully operational, sound measurements shall be taken once a
week during the first month of operation. Results shall be submitted to the Planning Department. If
results indicate that the project noise exceeds 60 dB(A) at the property line of surrounding residences,
then additional mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce noise impacts to a maximum of 60
&(A) CNEL at those property lines.
38
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.
39
PROJECT NAME: Cannon Road Lift Station CUP 02-1 I/CDP 02-22
APPROVAL DATE: CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.:
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate
identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that
this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City’s monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly
Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
Mitigation Measure
1. Construction of the proposed facility shall incorporate odor
mitigation equipment and/or materials (scrubber systems, filters,
chemicals, etc.) as described in the Odor Assessment prepared for
the project, or an equivalent system sufficient to ensure that
potential odors from the facility are mitigated to an undetectable
level at the property line of the proposed facility.
2. Odor level measurements shall be taken at the project property
line one time per week for the first year of operation of the facility.
Results of such monitoring shall be provided to the Planning
Department. If measurements indicate that the odor mitigation in
place is not effective in mitigating odor to a non-detectable level at
the project property line, then additional odor mitigation shall be
incorporated into the facility.
3. The project shall incorporate a drilled pier foundation, pipes with
flexible couplings, and trenching and shoring construction methods
to ensure soil stability in the project area.
4. The proposed project shall incorporate the installation of fossil
filters in each curb inlet contributing storm water directly into the
lagoon.
5. Filters installed as part of the project will be inspected prior to
the start of each rainy season, cleaned and replaced as
necessary, and then periodically inspected during the year for
acceptable operation.
Explanation of Headinas:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Monitoring
Type
Project
Project and
On-going
Project
Project
Project and
On-going
Monitoring Verified
Department I Remarks
n
Planning NIA
Planning NIA
Public Works NIA
I Public Works NIA
Public Works NIA
Verified Implementation =When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.
3
Mitigation Measure Monitoring I me
6. The project shall be constructed (including at least: submersible
scrubber exhaust fans, and an acoustically-treated room for the
pumps and motors, an enclosed, acoustically-treated room for Project
emergency generator) as necessary to ensure that the noise
CNEL at the property line of surrounding residences.
impacts from the project do not exceed a maximum of 60 dB(A)
7. After construction, when the project is fully operational, sound Project and
measurements shall be taken once a week during the first month On-going
of operation. Results shall be submitted to the Planning
Department. If results indicate that the project noise exceeds 60
dB(A) at the property line of surrounding residences, then
additional mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce
noise impacts to a maximum of 60 dB(A) CNEL at those property
lines.
Monitoring
Department
Public Works
Planning
Shown on
Plans
NIA
NIA
Verified
lmplementatio
n
Remarks
Explanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
information.
Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation =When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.
DECEMBER 23,2002 - ADDENDUM
TO EIA FOR CUP 02-1 l/CDP/02-22
FOR CANNON ROAD LIFT STATION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15 164 addresses the circumstances
under which an addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration is required and the required
procedures for an addendum. Pursuant to that section an addendum may be prepared if only
minor technical changes or additions are necessary and those technical changes or additions do
not trigger a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15 164 also directs that an
addendum need not be circulated but can be included in or attached to the final Negative
Declaration.
City staff has chosen to attach an addendum to the Negative Declaration for this project, even
though the proposed project is not changing in any way, in an effort to fully inform the decision-
makers and the public regarding one item. That item is the need for an additional permit, a Site
Development Plan (SDP), for the project. This permit is required because of the Q Overlay on
the project site.
The City will hold a public hearing on this project. No new mitigation is proposed or required as
a result of the application for a Site Development Plan and thus, is not made a condition of the
project. Therefore, no recirculation of the environmental document is required. The mitigation
measures originally included in the Mitigation Monitoring Report will continue to be adequate
for the project.