HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 54751
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. 5475
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO APPROVE
CITY’S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, APPROVE A
MENT PERMIT TO ALLOW A RECYCLED WATER PUMP
STATION AND OTHER WATER DISTRICT FACILITIES
LOCATED AT THE TWIN D SITE ON THE EAST SIDE OF
BLACK RAIL COURT SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASENAME: TWIN D RECYCLED WATER PUMP
A ZONE CHANGE FROM L-C TO R-1 AND AMEND THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOP-
STATION
CASE NO.: ZC 03-07/LCPA 03-08/CUP 03-15/CDP 03-23
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad Municipal Water District “Owner/
Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property
described as
Parcels 1, 2 and 3 of Deed Document No. 116507, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of
California on July 21,1958
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of October, 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 Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
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
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration,
Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated August 28, 2003, and “PII”
dated August 22, 2003, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
1.
...
...
...
...
...
...
..e
...
...
...
...
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. the Negative Declaration 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 EIA Part 11 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5475 -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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of October 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Heineman, White, and
Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioners Montgomery, Segall, and Dominguez
R, Chairperson
COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5475 -3-
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
PROJECT LOCATION:
TWIN D RECYCLED WATER PUMP STATION
East side of Black Rail Road, South of Poinsettia Lane
CASE NO: ZC 03-07LCPA 03-08/CUP 03-1 S/CDP 03-23
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Recycled Water Pump Station (under 800 square feet with 17
foot height) plus related equipment and features and inclusion of the existing Water District tanks
and facilities into one Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03- 15).
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially
significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be
recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative
Declaration are 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 the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvaVadoption by
the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be
issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Eric
Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD August 28.2003 to September 28,2003
PUBLISH DATE August 28,2003
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 0 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.c&@~-.us @
NEGATIVE DECLmTION
CASE NAME: TWIN D RECYCLED WATER PUMP STATION
CASE NO: ZC 03-07/LCPA 03-08/CUF’ 03-15/CDP 03-23
PROJECT LOCATION: East side of Black Rail Court and south of Poinsettia Lane at the existing
Twin D Water District facility site
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change zoning
from Limited Control to Single-Family Residential; and Conditional Use Permit and Coastal
Development Permit to allow for the development of a 792 square footll7 foot high recycled water
pump station and inclusion of existing Water District facilities into the site’s proposed conditional use
permit.
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above
described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the
environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
(x1
0
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant 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. (Negative Declaration applies only to the
effects that remained to be addressed).
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 copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on
file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: Januarv 20.2004, Dursuant to Citv Council Resolution No. 2004-026
ATTEST:
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC 03-07LCPA 03-08/CUP 03-15/CDP 03-23
DATE: AUGUST 22,2003
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: TWIN D RECYCLED WATER PUMP STATION
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Eric Munoz 760.602.4608
PROJECT LOCATION: East side of Black Rail Rd. south of Poinsettia Lane
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - Public Works 1635
Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad. CA 92008
GENERAL, PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM
ZONING: Limited Control (LC) Proposed for Single Family zoning (R-1)
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements):
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
LCP Amendment and Zone Change from L-C to R-1; plus the addition of a 792 square foot
recycled water Dump station and structure on the site which currently accommodated several
Water District facilities including two 1.25 million gallon water tanks and a 8.5 million gallon
water tank. The site will also accommodate one more 8.5 million gallon water tank on a pre-
graded pad portion of the existing site. Given the L-C zoning, a zone change is required to R-1
consistent with the underlying; Specific Plan. An LCPA is required to correspond with the zone
change: a conditional use permit is needed for a public buildinp and a coastal develoDment
permit is needed since development within the coastal zone is proposed. The proiect complies
with the City’s General Plan and it will enhance City’s reclaimed water services.
1 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils 0 Noise
0 Agricultural Resources 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 and Housing
Air Quality HydrologyAVater Quality 0 Public Services
0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning Recreation
Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources [XI TransportatiodCirculation
0 Utilities & Service Systems u Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[XI
0
0
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 significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact@)” on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant 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 Ih4PACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
(- c& I%/& Y.rS233
Planner Signature Date
3 Rev. 07/03/02
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 incorporatiop 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 “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could, have a potentially significant adverse
effect on the environment, but &l 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,
4 Rev. 07/03/02
and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case,
the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact’’ is checked, and including but not
- limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant 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 Em, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to
less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part II 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.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than NO
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
1. City’s General Plan Master EIR 94-01
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic hghway?
OB
0 OB c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character of
quality of the site and its surroundings?
0 0 d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
11. AGRICULTURAL 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:
OB 0 0 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Fannland, 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?
0 0 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
0 0 Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
111. 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:
0 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (Source Document 1)
0 0 OB Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
1. City’s General Plan Master EIR 94-01
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)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would thd
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 Iocal 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,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
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?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than Significant Significant
Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
IXI
Ix1
Ix1
IXI
UIXI
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
1. City’s General Plan Master EIR 94-0 1
IV.
Significant Significant significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
0
o
0
a) Cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a Substantial adverse change in the sigmikance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? c)
0 0 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
OB
om
OB
OB
IV. 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 om
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 0
0 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides? 0
0 a) Result in Substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
0 b) 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?
c) 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?
0
0 d) 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?
0
0
0
I7
0
OIXI
oIx1 om
OB
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
1. City’s General Plan Master EIR 94-01
IV. 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?
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?
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?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
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?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless Impact
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
OB
OB
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
1. City's General Plan Master EIR 94-01
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 (ie., 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)?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
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?
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.
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than Significant Significant
Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
cl 0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
IXI
OIXI
OIXI
0 0
0 '0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
1. City's General Plan Master EIR 94-01
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incornorated 0 UIXI 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)?
IX.
X.
X.
0 0 n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction?
0 0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
list?
17 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
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?
0 0 o 0
0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of fhre value to the region
and the residents of the State?
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?
NOISE - Would the project result in:
0 0
0 0
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?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
OIXI
om
0 IXI'
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
1. City’s General Plan Master EIR 94-01
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated 0 0 OIXI c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
0 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project .vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
0 0 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, wih 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 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?
X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
0 0 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)?
0 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. 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?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
om
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
1. City's General Plan Master EIR 94-01
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
XIV. RECREATION
0 0 OIXI 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?
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?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFF'IC - Would the project:
a) 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)? (Source Document #1)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Resu!t 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?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) .Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in insufficient parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
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
0 BO
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
UIXI
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
1. City’s General Plan Master EIR 94-01
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?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
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?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
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?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively 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 fbture projects?)
Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than NO
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated 0 0 OBI
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
CI 0
0 0
0
OB
OB
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:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
14 Rev. 01/03/02
review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions
for the project.
15 Rev. OJlO3IO2
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS
The project involves a 17-foot high structure with about 800 square feet of floor area to house the
proposed reclaimed water pump. The pump station structure will be architecturally designed and will be
located over 105 feet from the Black Rail public roadway. It will be located between two of the existing
onsite water tanks, which measure over 50 feet in height. The proposed project, therefore, will not create
any significant aesthetic impacts.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The site has been used as a public facility site for the City’s Water District for over 20 years. No
agricultural resources are located on-site. However, historically the site was farmed and must pay an
agricultural conversion fee for the property’s acreage prior to building permit issuance. The fee will be
based on the Council approved agricultural conversion fee per the current Fee Schedule at time of
building issuance. This provision will be condition of approval for the project’s conditional use and
coastal development permits
AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-
attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equil to
10 microns in diameter (PM,,). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards
(AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that
a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In
San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies
(RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association
of Governments (SNAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the
1991 state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-
attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November
9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog
problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that
are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each
city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan,
then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such
consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15 125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains
specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the
applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS.
The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal
ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining
whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following:
0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
16 Rev. 07/03/02
0 Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located iian area where a RAQS
is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan
and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way
conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the
City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most
recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both
2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour
state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have
been recorded recently. (Add the following text addressing short-term emissions, if there is grading
associated with the project.) The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with
grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures
such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions
associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would
be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard
(comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than
significant.
b) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and
suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively
considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however,
emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions
potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not
the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the
proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is
assessed as less than significant.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or
concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the
vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed.
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of
construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would
be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not
considered substantial.
17 Rev. 07/03/02
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES / CULTURAL RESOURCES
Since the site is already in a developed state with a pre-graded pad for a future water tank, the proposed
project including the location of the recycled water pump station and related features and equipment will
not impact any sensitive biological resources; likewise, no cultural resources exist on this developed site.
GEOLOGY/SOILS
Given the existing uses on the property (over 10 million gallons of water could be stored onsite between
the three existing tanks, no geologic instability or soils issues exist.
HAzARDS/HAzARDOUS MATERIALS 1
A Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement was submitted and signed by Public Works that the
operation will not the use of any materials on the Hazardous Wastes and Substances Sites list complied
by the California Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Given the Statement and the proposed project to construct recycled water facilities, there will not be any
significant impacts to the environment fiom hazards or hazardous materials.
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
The site is pre-graded and designed to meet current City Engineering standards. There are no significant
watercourses, drainage flow, creeks or underground water tables that could be adversely impacted by the
proposed project.
LAND USE PLANNING
The Limited Control prohibits development without a zone change to a zoning district that would be
consistent with the underlying General Plan designation. This project proposes to do that via Zone
Change 03-07 to replace the LC zone with the R-1 zone. The R-1 zone is consistent with the underlying
RLM General Plan designation and allows public buildings via the approval of a conditional use permit
(CUP 03-15). The proposed project will not have a significant impact on land use planning efforts in the
area
MINERAL RESOURCES
No mineral resources area located onsite and the project does not propose the use of mineral resources.
NOISE
The pump station will not be a loud noise generating use and no sensitive noise receptors (single family
houses) are located within 200+ feet.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Despite the proposed R-1 zoning and underlying RLM General Plan designation of the site, population
and housing impacts will not occur since the site has long been recognized as a Water District facility
that will not generate any residential uses. This is reiterated in the Zone 20 Specific Plan which covers
this site.
PUBLIC SERVICES / UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Development of this project will assist the City in providing public services compliant with the Growth
Management Ordinance so there will not be any adverse impacts to Public Services.
18 Rev. 07/03/02
RECREATION
No recreational opportunities exist onsite or are intended by the Zone 20 Specific Plan, or onsite land use
designations. No impacts to recreational resources will be created by this project.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate less than 500 Average Daily Trips (ADT).
Black Rail Road is designed to accommodate the existing traffic volume and the design capacity
respectively. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street
system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development
in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the
proposed project are, therefore, less than significant.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. SNAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has
designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two
highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout
average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Existing ADT* Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43
El Camino Real 2 1-50 “A-C” 32-65
Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77
SR 78 120 “F” 144
1-5 183-198 “D’ 2 19-249
*The numbers are in thousands of daily tips.
The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or
LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990).
Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable
standard LOS.
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and
community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was
used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS)
“E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies)
of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at
acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout.
a) 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?
19 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent
with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore,
result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed.
b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards;
and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s
general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No
impact assessed.
c) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire
and Police Departments. No impact assessed.
d) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would
comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed.
e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. (Note whether the project is near public transportation. If not, then state that the project is
not served by or not located in an area conducive to public transportation.) (Note bike racks are not
necessary for a single-family residential project. Otherwise, condition the project to install bike racks
and note here that the project has been so conditioned.)
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 ImDact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER
93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
20 Rev. 07/03/02
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (1F APPLICABLE)
NONE.
21 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
Date Signature
22 Rev. 07/03/02
~~~ ~~