Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 57281 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. 5728 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF TWO WATER PUMP STATIONS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 17. CASE NAME: BRESSI PUMP STATIONS CASE NO.: CUP 04- 16/SUP 04-08 WHEREAS, Carlsbad Municipal Water District “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Bressi Ranch Development, LLC, “Owner,” described as an approximately 0.27-acre easement within APN.213-120-03 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of October, 2004, 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: A) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration, Exhibit “ND” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated August 23, 2004, and “PII” dated August 16, 2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findinm: 1. Th a. b. C. d. Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration CUP 04- 16/SUP 04-08, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and 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 it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of October 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Vice Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Cardosa, Dominguez, Montgomery, and Segall ABSENT: Chairperson Whitton and Commissioner Heineman ABSTAIN: .~ R, Vice Chairperson Cw PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5728 -2- ,/ City of Carlsba-d NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: BRESSI PUMP STATIONS PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A water pump stations facility CASE NO: CUP 04-16/SUP 04-08 THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REm AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above- described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Lmplementation 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 (EM Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: (x1 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). 0 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 WACT 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 (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to s~ipport the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: October 6,2004, pursuant to PC Resolution No. 5728 Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: BRESSI PUMP STATIONS PROJECT LOCATION: CASE NO: CUP 04- 16/SUP 04-08 on the southeast comer of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: a water pump stations facility 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 (ETA 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 Planning Commission. 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 20 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvalladoption 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 Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (760) 602-462 1. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD August 23,2004 through September 13,2004 PUBLISH DATE August 23,3004 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CUP 04-16BUP 04-08 DATE: August 16,2004 BACKGROUND 1. 2. CASE NAME: Bressi Pump Stations LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Chris Muehlbacher. City of Carlsbad - Public Works, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008,760-602-2736 4. PROJECT LOCATION: on the southeast comer of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road 5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Carlsbad Municipal Water District, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PI (Planned Industrial) 7. ZONING: P-C (Planned Community) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): n/a 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Project Description The Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) is proposing to construct two water pump stations (one for recycled water and one for potable water) in a 0.27-acre easement granted for that purpose withn the Bressi Ranch Master Plan (MP 178) and tract map (CT 00-06). The easement is within Planning Area No. 3 of the Master Plan located on the southeast comer of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. The 0.27-acre pump station site will contain two independent subterranean pumping stations totaling 2,136 square feet (1,068 sf each). The project requires City approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Scenic Corridor Special Use Pennit (SUP) for the El Camino Real Corridor. The proposed recycled water pump station (RWPS) will be capable of supplying recycled water to the upper pressure zone. The pumping capacity is 2,160 gallons per minute (gpm). The primary components of the proposed pump station includes: a 22-foot by 46-foot subterranean building, suction and discharge piping, a flow meter, bypass piping, an electrical switchgear, and three vertical turbine pumping units (two duty, one stand-by). The Bressi RWPS will have a 2,800-gallon cylindrical hydrologic surge tank. The surge tank will be contained in the subterranean structure and will have a 6-foot diameter and be 15- feet long. 1 Rev. 07/03/02 The proposed potable water pump station (PWPS) will be capable of supplying potable water fiom Maerkle Reservoir (490 pressure zone) to the 700 pressure zone during emergencies and during routine maintenance of the San Diego Water Authority’s imported water aqueducts. The pumping capacity is 1,600 gpm. The primary components of the proposed pump station includes: a 22-foot by 37-foot subterranean building, suction and discharge piping, a flow meter, bypass piping, an electrical switchgear, and three vertical turbine pumping units (two duty, one stand-by). The Bressi PWPS will have a 2,100- gallon cylindrical hydrologic surge tank. The surge tank will be contained in the subterranean structure and will have a 6-foot diameter and be 1 1-feet long. Both subterranean pump station structures will house the pumping units and ancillary electrical and mechanical equipment. The electrical equipment needed will include distribution switchgear, motor control center, variable fi-equency drives, and a main control panel. The subterranean buildings will be cooled using roof-mounted exhaust fans equipped with roof-mounted gravity ventilators. Roof-mounted equipment hatches will be provided over each pumping unit for pump removal through the roof. There will also be roof hatches to access the pump houses. These various roof hatches, vent caps, and other equipment protrusions may project up to 18 inches above the roofs of the pump houses. An electric transformer, service meter, and circuit breaker will be located above ground adjacent to each pump station. The size and height of these components is controlled by SDG&E. Transformers/circuit breakers are typically 3 ft x 3 ft in size and approximately 4 feet high. Service meters are typically 3 R x 2 ft in size and up to 6 feet in height. Therefore, these components would be expected to project no more than 6 feet above ground. Finally, a total of two light poles (with two lights on each pole) will be placed on the interior side of the pump station facility (one pole adjacent to each pump house). These poles will be approximately 10 feet high above grade. These lights are necessary in the event of an incident requiring work to be done at night. However, the lights would not otherwise be on, and routine maintenance work and inspections would be done during daylight. In order to maintain the high aesthetic consideration necessary, the pump stations will be accessed from a future parking area (for the future industrial building) on the interior of the site. A gate is proposed on the interior side of the project area (adjacent to the future industrial development parking area) to allow for access by CMWD staff. No screening of the project is being proposed at this time, but will be provided by the Master Plan developer as the anticipated industrial project progresses. As described, the proposed facility is almost completely underground. The only components which would be above-grade would be small and would be at an elevation approximately 20 feet above the adjacent roadways. Thus, these components would not be strikmgly visible to drivers on El Camino Real or Palomar Airport Road. The developer of the Bressi Ranch industrial project will be installing and maintaining landscaping and an entry treatment on the site, including the area surrounding the proposed project, as the development progresses. However, the design of the entry treatment and landscaping has not yet been finalized. Environmental Setting The site of the proposed project (the 0.27-acre easement) is within a 47-acre pre-graded site to be developed with planned industrial uses. The industrial lot, in turn, is part of a much larger area (approximately 485 acres) being graded for approved residential, commercial, and industrial development pursuant to the approved Bressi Ranch Master Plan. The area to the west of the project site contains the existing Olympic Resort. To the north (across Palomar Airport Road) is undeveloped land belonging to the County of San Diego - Airport Division. The area east of the project site will be developed with planned industrial uses. The project site contains no vegetation or other resources and has already been mass-graded as part of the on-going development activities occurring on the site. 2 Rev. 07/03/02 Previous Environmental Documents Relevant to the Project EIA 99-09 - Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility In December 1999, City staff completed an initial study for the City's Water Reclamation Program Phase 11. The City Council then adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project (EIA 99-09). The Phase II project included construction of a new tertiary water recycling plant, installation of recycled water lines, upgrades and other improvements, and construction of three booster stations. One of the three booster stations analyzed in that document was the currently proposed project. EIA 99-09 concluded that, for this pump station, the only potentially significant impact was to aesthetics. (The location is a highly visible intersection in the City.) The adopted MMRP included a mitigation measure that required this pump station to be a subterranean facility. The currently proposed project has been designed to be a subterranean facility. Therefore, the project design satisfies the mitigation requirement to reduce potential aesthetic impacts to less than significant. EIR 98-04 - Bressi Ranch Master Plan and EIR The proposed water pump stations facility was anticipated by and included in the Bressi Ranch Master Plan and related EIR approved in June 2002. In June 2002 the City Council certified an EIR (EIR 98-04) and approved a Master Plan (Mp 178) for development of the Bressi Ranch project. The Master Plan covers approximately 485 acres and provides for residential, commercial, and planned industrial uses as well as preservation of open space. The site of the currently proposed water pump stations is within Planning Area 3 of the Master Plan. Planning Area 3 is located on the southeast comer of two prime arterial roadways (El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road) in an urbanized area. Future use of the lot will be one or more planned industrial developments. The Master Plan recognized the planned water pump facility as an anticipated use to be located in Planning Area 3. The Final Map associated with the industrial development (CT 00-06) also recognized the planned construction of the proposed water pump stations and, therefore, included an easement to accommodate the project. 3 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 c] Geology/Soils c] Noise c] Agricultural Resources 0 HazardsDJazardous Materials 0 and Housing 0 Air Quality 0 Hydrologyrnater Quality 0 Public Services 0 Biologxal Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources TransportatiodCirculation 0 Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 4 Rev. 07103l02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) (XI 0 0 0 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT ..ave 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(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. 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, nothng further is required. 5 Rev. 07103102 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 “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but &I 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 Rev. 07/03/02 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 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 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 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 highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. 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: 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 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? III. 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? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than ow 0 ow 0 IXIO 0 IXIO 0 0 ow ow ow 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 HO 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)? 0- 0 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL, RESOURCES - Would the project: 17 17 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? 0 0 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? 0 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? 0 0 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? 17 0 0 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? 0 0 Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? OIXI UIXI UIXI 9 Rev. 07103l02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ,Incorporated Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: 0 0 n1xI 0 0 OM Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Q 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 5 15064.5? o 0 UBI Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 OM Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? 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? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OIXI OIXI 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? For a project withm 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 Inipact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 ow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXIO Elm om om om ow 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 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 (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? 0 17 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 withm 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)? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 UIX] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OIX] wn wn ow 0 IX], OB 12 Rev. 07103102 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 OH n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 OH 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 0 IXIO p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. 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 lidted to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? El 0 o 0 0 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ' X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 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? o 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? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) 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? 0 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? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? OIXI OH on 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? f) For a project withm the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 UB XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 0 0 OH 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 OBI 0 0 CIH b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES 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 whch 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 0 ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? 0 0 0 0 iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? ON OH OB OH XIV. RECREATION 0 0 OM 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? 14 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 0 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/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) 0 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)? 0 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 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? 0 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 0 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Q Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: 0 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 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? Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 ow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ow OH OH om ow UIXI ow 15 Rev. 07103102 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 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 wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than ow 0 0 0 om om 05 nm 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 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. 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. 16 Rev. 07103l02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. AESTHETICS a, b) No Impact. The project site is a pre-graded lot that will be developed with a planned industrial use. The site is an intersection of two prime arterial roadways in an urbanized area. The project site does not contain any protected scenic vistas or viewpoints. One the roadways (El Camino Real) is a designated scenic corridor, which requires special landscaping, signage, and other treatments. However, the project site itself is to be developed with an industrial building. The site contains no protected vistas, viewpoints, or scenic resources. The proposed project would not damage scenic resources. c) Less Than Potentially Significant Impact. The development of a typical (i.e., above grade) pump station on this site could have a potentially significant aesthetic impact. The site (the southeast comer of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road) is a highly traveled and visible corridor in the city. Further, El Camino Real is a Scenic Corridor. Development along El Camino Real is subject to special requirements and restrictions to ensure adequate consideration for aesthetics in grading, building placement, architecture, and landscaping along the street. Because of these requirements and restrictions, the two proposed pump stations have been designed to be entirely subterranean. They will be hidden withn a slope at the intersection. Vehicular access to the pump stations will be from the interior of the site (from an adjacent future parking lot). Thus, the vehicular access area will also not be visible from the two prime roadways. A few small accessory components of the facility (electrical boxes and two light poles) will have to be located such that they either project above the roof of the pump houses or are placed above-grade in order to function properly. However, these components will be small in size and their maximum height will be no more than approximately 6 feet. The two light poles will be 10 feet high. (The height of these components will be minimized as much as possible.) Further, these components will be located on the top of the slope, which will be approximately 20 feet above the grade of the adjacent roadways. Thus, these components will be minimally visible to passing drivers. The inclusion of these design considerations into the proposed project result in the visual impact being less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will include two light poles (with two lights per pole) on the interior side of the pump houses above grade. The pole heights will be approximately 10 feet. These two pole lights are necessary in the event of an incident requiring nighttime repair activities. The lights would not be on at any other time since routine maintenance and inspection visits are scheduled during daylight hours. Because of the limited use of these lights, they will not create a new source of substantial light or glare. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a-c) No Impact. The proposed project would not convert any farmland (of any kind) to non-agricultural use and would not involve any other changes that could result in such conversion. The project site is part of a pre- graded lot already approved for planned industrial uses as part of an approved Master Plan (the Bressi Ranch Master Plan - MP 178). The zoning of the project site is P-C (Planned Community), which allows planned industrial uses and implements the approved Master Plan. The site is not the subject of a Williamson Act contract. III. AIRQUALITY a) 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 equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM,,,). The periohc 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 Governrneiits (SANDAG). 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 onNovember 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 17 Rev. 07/03/02 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 15125(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 0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? 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 in an 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 with or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. , b) 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. 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. c) 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. d) 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. e) The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionabIe 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. No Impact. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-g) No Impact. The project site is at the intersection of two prime arterial roadways in an urbanized area. The project site is a 0.27-acre easement within a larger pre-graded planned industrial lot. The project site (and the larger lot) contain: no habitat; no candidate, sensitive, or special status species; no riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or any other sensitive natural community; no federally protected wetlands; no resident native fish or wildlife species; not wildlife nursery sites; no other biological resources; no trees; and no tributary areas. The site does not serve as a wildlife corridor. Development of the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved habitat conservation plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Master Plan of development for the site (the Bressi Ranch Master Plan - MP 178) which allows planned industrial uses and the proposed water pump stations. The project is also consistent with the City’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP) in that the project site is outside of any proposed core or linkage preservation areas and is not a special resource area. 18 Rev. 07103/02 CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d) No Impact. The proposed project site is a 0.27-acre easement located at the outer perimeter of the 485- acre Bressi Ranch Master Plan. A Cultural Resource report was prepared for the Bressi Ranch Master Plan and was utilized in the preparation of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan EIR (EIR 98-04). The Bressi Ranch Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included a requirement that an archaeological resource monitor be on site during grading of the Bressi Ranch development area. That rough grading has been completed in the area of the proposed pump station facility, and no cultural or paleontological resources were found. Therefore, the proposed water pump station facility will have no impact on cultural resources. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was prepared for the proposed project in January 2003 by Krieger & Stewart, Inc. That study concluded that the proposed development of the project site is feasible. The study finther concluded that the most significant geologic hazard at the property would be related to potential ground shaking during periodic earthquakes generated along distant active faults. The study included several recommendations that will be incorporated into final plans and implemented during the construction phase of the project. ai) Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. aii) 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 24 miles to the northeast, and the Del Mar segment of the Rose CanyodNewport-Inglewood fault zone, about 5 miles 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. No Impact. The project site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone quadrangle map indexed in the aiii) Less Than Significant Impact. The Geotechnical Study concluded that liquefaction and seismically- induced settlements would not be a factor in the development of the proposed project. The project site involves a fill condition fiom CT 00-06 and project specific fill with acceptable material. aiv) No Impact. The soils report inhcates a need to over-excavate and re-compact the soil in the vicinity of the improvements due to the loose nature of the surface soil. The proposed site involves a fill condition. Any adverse conditions exposed during the grading effort for this project would be remedied prior to construction of the recycled water pump station. b) No Impact. The pump station structures are subterranean and the site is paved with asphalt concrete. The site will require fill materials to match the existing grade. Grading will follow best management practices for the control of erosion, such as straw bale or sandbag barriers, and outlet protection. Finished grades will be matted or promptly planted at the end of construction according to the landscape plan prepared by the developer of CT 00-06. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is a fill location that does not have the soil conditions associated with a potential for geologic instability. Additionally, standard engineering practices for recompaction, fill placement, etc., will be utilized during construction. d) No Impact. Expansive soils will not be utilized for fill of the subject site. e) disposal systems are proposed. The proposed pump stations will not generate or discharge wastewater on-site. No Impact. The proposed use is two subterranean water pump stations. No septic tanks or alternative VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a-d) The operation of the proposed pump stations does not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed pump houses do not include the storage of any hazardous chemicals (e.g., chlorine) and the equipment does not include any injection points for the introduction of chemicals. The site is not included on a list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No Impact. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is withm the Runway Protection Zone for McClellan-Palomar Airport. According to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the 19 Rev. 07/03/02 Runway Protection Zones (WZ) are mostly protected from private development except for open spacehecreation areas, public rights-of-way, and some storage facilities, all typically low intensity uses characterized by a low number of employees and/or customers and no hazardous materials. In addition, all structures must comply with a 35-foot height limit that will not penetrate either the approach surfaces at the runway ends of the transitional surfaces along the length of the runway. The proposed project is consistent with all of these restrictions. The proposed facility is a very low intensity use in that it would have no on-site employees and no customers. CMWD employees would visit the facility on a regular basis for routine inspections and maintenance activities. The proposed facility would not involve any storage of flammable, explosive, or corrosive materials. Finally, the proposed facility would involve no above-grade structures. The pump station enclosures would be entirely below grade. The few above-grade components (two light poles and various electrical components) would be well within the allowed height limit. The light poles would be 10 feet high. The other components would be less than 10 feet high. 0 No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. 8) Neither construction of the pump stations nor operation of the proposed facilities will significantly affect, block, or interfere with traffic on public streets, including any streets that would be used for emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No Impact. h) No Impact. No activities including the use of highly flammable products or materials will be conducted on-site. The pump stations will be housed in a subterranean structure not readily susceptible to damage by fxe. No people will reside, or work, on-site with the exception of brief site visits for maintenance and inspections. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY A preliminary SWPP was prepared for the proposed project and provides the basis for the following responses. a) control measures. Therefore, the project will not result in potentially significant impacts to water quality standards. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is designed to include a catch basin filter system and erosion b, c) No Impact. The project will not withdraw any groundwater or discharge into the existing groundwater. d, e, 0 Less Than Significant Impact. The construction of the pump stations will decrease the adsorption rates and increase the amount of surface iunoff compared to existing conditions. Impervious surfaces at the pump stations will incrementally increase runoff from the site. However, the additional runoff will be contained in existing storm drains provided by adjacent development. Storm drainage filters will reduce polluted runoff. g) No Impact. See previous responses. h,i) housing. No Impact. The project site is not within the 100-year flood hazard area and does not propose any j) such facilities. No Impact. The project does not propose construction of flood control facilities or risk danger of failure of k) No Impact. The project site is two miles from the coastline and the project soils condition would not support liquefaction. 1) phase of the project. Gravel bags, filters, and erosion control will prevent sediment from draining off-site. No Impact. The project is designed and conditioned to provide erosion control during the construction m) to drainage off-site. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is designed and conditioned to filter pollutant discharges prior n) 0) No Impact. See response VI1I.i. No Impact. The downstream water body is not listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d). p) Less Than Significant Impact. The project runoff will not degrade beneficial uses downstream because the project design includes a basin filter system and erosion control measures which will reduce any potential impacts to less than significant. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 E. LAND USE AND PLANNING a-c) No Impact. The project site does not contain any established community. The site is a pre-graded lot which will be developed with a planned industrial use. The proposed project is consistent with all applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations over the project site, including those adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. The project site is a 0.27-acre easement in a pre-graded lot which will be developed with a planned industrial use. The site is within Planning Area 3 of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan designation of the site (PI - Planned Industrial) and the zoning of the site (P-C - Planned Community) and the regulations contained in the approved Master Plan for the site (MP 178). See also Response 1V.f. above. X. MINERAL RESOURCES a, b) No Impact. The site does not contain any known mineral resources. XI. NOISE A Noise Study for the proposed project was prepared by DHK Engineers, Inc. in May 2004.. That study concluded that, based upon the City's 60-dBA noise criteria, the proposed pump station facility would have no potentially significant noise impacts to adjacent receptors. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed pump station facility will be located within an industrial site of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. The City's General Plan Noise Element and Noise Guidelines establish that 60 &(A) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is the maximum exterior noise level to which residential units should be subjected (with exceptions up 65 dB(A)). There will be no residential units in the general area of the proposed project. Surrounding uses include a resodgolf practice facility and planned industrial buildings. The Noise Guidelines establish a maximum allowed exterior noise exposure level for office buildings (including planned industrial buildings) at a range from 60 dEi(A) CNEL (acceptable) through 80 &(A) CNEL (normally unacceptable). The proposed project would be constructed so that the sound level from the project at the anticipated locations of the industrial buildings will be less than 60 B(A) CNEL Typically, the features of a pump station that could produce potentially significant noise levels that would affect nearby receptors would be the operation of the pumps and the motors that drive them. This pump station facility is designed so that the pumps and motors will be contained in subterranean enclosures, thus drastically reducing the potential for noise from those sources. The only remaining potential source of noise would be the supply fans on the roof of each enclosure. The Noise Study concluded that the project's noise impacts to the future adjacent non- residential structures would be well within the City's allowed noise levels. The proposed project will result in some increased noise during construction. However, 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 pump stations will be limited to the hours allowed by the Municipal Code. b) boundaries. No Impact. The project will not produce groundbourne vibration or noise outside the project site c) Less Than Significant Impact. See also Response X1.a. The pump station projects 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) Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, a temporary increase in the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity is anticipated. Construction will be scheduled to conform to the limitations specified in the Municipal Code; thus, the increase is not considered substantial or significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the area of 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. Operations and maintenance personnel will be exposed to aircraft noise levels ranging from 60 dB(A) to 65 dB(A) CNEL as indicated by noise contours mapped in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. f) No Impact. The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. 21 Rev. 07/03/02 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a-c) No Impact. The proposed pump stations are needed to serve the existing and anticipated build-out population of the City. Therefore, it would not be growth inducing. The proposed project would not displace any housing or people since the site contains no housing and would not in the hture contain any housing. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES ai-av) No Impact. The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts associated with new or altered government facilities and would not result in the need for new or altered facilities to meet acceptable service standards. The proposed water pump stations are being constructed in order to meet current and anticipated future build-out requirements for potable and recycled water. The project would result in no measurable increased demand on fue and police services and no new demand on school, park, or other public facilities. XW. RECREATION a-b) opportunities and would not trigger the need for additional recreational opportunities. No Impact. The proposed water pump stations project would not affect the use of existing recreational XV. TRANSPORTATION/TWFIC a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 1 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 0 peak hour trips. Ths traffic will utilize the following roadways El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. Existing traffic on these arterials are 33,148 ADT (El Camino Real) and 53,603 ADT (Palomar Airport Road) (2003) and the 2003 peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection(s) impacted by the project are “A“ (both). The design capacities of the arterial roads affected by the proposed project are 40,000 or more vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent an immeasurably small (i.e., less than 1) % of 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) Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Ailport 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* - LOS Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-3 5 ‘‘A-D” 35-56 El Camino Real 27-49 “A-C” 33-62 Palomar Airport Road 10-57 “A-D” 30-73 SR 78 124-142 “F” 156-1 80 1-5 199-216 “D” 260-272 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS ‘‘Y’ 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 hghways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the fiill 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 build-out projections. Achevement 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. c) 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. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 d) 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. e) Police Departments. No impact assessed. No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and 0 no parking spaces. No impact assessed. No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parlung variance. Additionally, the project requires 9) No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The proposed pump station use will not generate any measurable traffic since it will only be accessed by CMWD staff for routine inspection purposes and occasional maintenance and repair activities. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS a) No Impact. The proposed water pump stations will not generate wastewater. b) which approval for the recycled water treatment plant was approved under separate action. No Impact. The proposed recycled water pump station is a component of a system-wide expansion of c) No Impact. No new storm dra&s or channels are required for the proposed project. d) No Impact. The project will not impact local or regional water supplies. However, additional treated potable water would be made available since the recycled water pump station project will produce recycled water for irrigation and industrial purposes. e) services. No Impact. The proposed projects and the existing site facilities will not require wastewater treatment f) No Impact. The projects 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 the site for appropriate disposal. g) disposed of in an appropriate facility in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. No Impact. Any solid waste generated on the site during construction or operation would be removed and XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE-Does the project: a-c) NO Impact. See previous responses. As explained in the responses to the above series of questions, the proposed project will not result in potentially significant impacts. The proposed project is a necessary part of the City’s potable and recycled water system and is necessary to serve already existing and anticipated development in the City. It will not have impacts that are cumulative in nature and will not result in environmental effects with adverse effects on human beings. 23 Rev. 07/03/02 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Preliminarv Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Recycled Water Pump Station Palomar Aimort Road and El Camino Real Citv of Carlsbad. Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. January 20, 2003. Citv of Carlsbad Bressi Potable and Recvcled Water Pump Station Noise Impact Report. DHK Engineers. January 5, 2004. Citv of Carlsbad Bressi Potable and Recycled Water Pump Preliminary SWPP. City of Carlsbad, Public Works. August 2004. EL4 99-09 for the Encina Basin Water Reclamation Program Phase 11. Department. December 1999. Carlsbad Municipal Water District Encina Basin Water Reclamation Program Phase 2 Proiect Biological Assessment. Merkel & Associates, Inc. July 11, 2001. Preliminary Design Report for the Encina Basin Water Reclamation Program. Phase I1 Recycled Water Pump Stations. Krieger & Stewart, Inc. 2002. Citv of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 1999. Final Promam Environmental Impact Report for the Bressi Ranch Master Plan (EIR 98-04). Cotton/Bridges/Associates (CBA, Inc.). April 2002. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. City of Carlsbad Planning 24 Rev. 07/03/02