Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 57921 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. 5792 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCINAS BETWEEN POINSETTIA LANE AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3. CASE NAME: BUILDING PROGRAM CASE NO.: PDP 1 (G)/CDP 04- 19 WHEREAS, Encina Wastewater Authority, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 214-010-95, 211-030-06, and 211- 030-08 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of November 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) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) 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 ‘“01’’ dated October 12, 2004, and “PII” dated September 28,2004, 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 Findings: 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 PDP l(G)/CDP 04-19 and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of 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 17th day of November 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Segall NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: YFRANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLEW Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5792 -2- FILE COPY NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: BUILDING PROGRAM PROJECT LOCATION: CASE NO: PDP 000 1 (G)/CDP 04- 19 EAST SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCINAS BETWEEN POINSETTIA LANE AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of two new operations and maintenance buildings totaling approximately 43,000 sf on a developed site containing the Encina Wastewater Treatment 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 (EM Part 2) did not identifjr 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 Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4621. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD October 12,2004 - November 1 1,2004 PUBLISH DATE October 12,2004 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003 - City of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: BUILDING PROGRAM PROJECT LOCATION: CASE NO: PDP 1 (G)/CDP 04-1 9 EAST SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCINAS BETWEEN POINSETTIA LANE AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of two new operations and maintenance buildings totaling approximately 43,000 sq. ft. on a developed site containing the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility, on the east side of Avenida Encinas between Poinsettia Lane and Palomar Airport Road. 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: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. 0 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: , Dursuant to ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 49 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: PDPOOO 1 (G)/CDP 04-1 9 DATE: September 28,2004 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Building Program (EWA) LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Elaine Blackburn PROJECT LOCATION: East side of Avenida Encinas. between Poinsettia Lane and Palomar Aimort Road PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Encina Wastewater Authority, 6200 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA 92009-1095 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Public Utilities (PU) ZONING: Public Utilities (P-U) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Project Description: The proposed project involves the construction of two new operations and maintenance buildinm on a developed site containing the Encina Wastewater Treatement facilities. The two new buildings will contain 30,460 sf (proposed operations building) and 12,506 sf (proposed maintenance building). The existing operations building will be demolished. Both proposed new buildings would be two (2’) stories in height, and were identified in the EWA Building Program Needs Assessment in November 2002 as necessary facilities to house existing EWA full-time staff including operations, maintenance, administration, and environmental compliance staff. currently totaling 52 emplovees. The proposed proiect would adequately meet existing and future staff needs. No new emplovees would be hired or relocated to the proposed facilities as a result of the proiect. Environmental Setting: The EWPCF is located approximately 0.5 mile from the Pacific Ocean in the City of Carlsbad. The facility is located immediately west of Interstate 5 (1-51, east of US 101. and south of Palomar Airport Road (Figure 2). The EWPCF plant site includes a total of approximatelv 25 acres whch have been previously filled and graded and developed with the existing water treatement facilitv campus. Nearby and adjacent land uses include residential development and open space to the south, 1-5 and residential development to the east. commercial/ industrial development to the north, and residential development. open space, and transportation corridors (State Highway 101 and railway lines) to the west. The operations and maintenance building sites are within the iurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad and have been designated for public utility use. 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. c] Aesthetics c] Geology/Soils Noise 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Hazardshlazardous Materials 0 Popu1ation and Housing 0 Air Quality 0 Bioloacal Resources 0 Hydrology/Water Quality Public Services 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 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(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, nothing further is required. /a /dD 4 Date Planning Director’ 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. Ths 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 llke 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 incoToration 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 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 ths 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. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 0 An EIR the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been hscussed 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. be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to 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). I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 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: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Less Than Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 ow 0 0 ow o 0 ow 0 0 wo 0 0 ow 0 0 ow 0 ow 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or US. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or US. 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 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 o Less Than Significant Impact [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact 0 [XI la [XI El Ixl Ixl [XI El [XI 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated No Impact IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI 0 0 IXI IXI Ix1 [xi Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 El El 0 0 0 0 Cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 5 15064.5? 0 0 Cause a Substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to $15064.5? 0 0 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential Substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 0 0 1. 11. ... 111. iv . 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 0 0 0 Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 Landslides? Result in Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? 0 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? 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 0 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: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 0 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 0 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ' an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 0 o f) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: 0 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact 0 0 0 IXI 0 IXI No Impact Ix1 0 0 [XI 0 Ix1 El El 0 9 Rev. 07lQ3102 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with .ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 0 c) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 0 IXI Ixl d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? 0 0 Ixl cl f) 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! 0 0 g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Ixl 171 0 IXI h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? 0 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 0 0 Ixl IXI 0 k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 0 0 [XI 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)? 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? 0 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? 0 OIXI om 0 o b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 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? 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: cl a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 o o 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? 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) For a project located wihn 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 workmg in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 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)? 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? 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 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? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact [XI El !XI IXI [XI [XI [XI IXI [XI IXI IXI 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Does the project include .rewire the construction or facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? recreational facilities or expansion of recreational XV. TRANSPORTATION/TIUFFIC - Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 El 0 cl 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation [ncorporated 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 cl 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 [XI [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El No Impact IXI 17 El IXI IXI IXI IXI 0 IXI IXI 0 13 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 IXIO e) Result in a determination by the wastewater .treatment provider, whch 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? cl 0 f) 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? XW. 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 prehstory? 0 b) 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 future projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 0 0 0 IXIO ow ow wo XWI. 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 ER or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) bj Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. 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. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. AESTHETICS a-c) No Impact. The proposed project involves construction of two new buildings as part of an on-going building program for the existing Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility. The existing facilities include a number of tall structures typically associated with this type of use. The proposed administrative/operation building would replace an existing structure at the EWPCF site in the same location. The proposed buildings would be two stories. The operations building is proposed to have a maximum height of 40 feet, and the maintenance building proposed at 30 feet, 8 inches. Existing buildings at the EWPCF include the dewatering building at 44 feet, the cogeneration facility at 38 !4 feet, and the screenings building at 27 !4 feet. The proposed height of each building would not exceed the highest buildings at the EWPCF. The P-U Zone does not provide a specific numerical height limit because it recognizes that public utility uses are unique in nature and require individual consideration. Therefore, the maximum allowed height is to be determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Height limitations on surrounding developments with office and industrial development zoning are approximately 3 5 feet. Even in those zones, additional height up to 45 feet is permitted conditionally. Therefore, staff believes the proposed heights are in keeping with the surrounding developments. There currently is no scenic vista either on the project site or through it. The proposed project site does not contain any scenic resources. The site is a developed site that contains part of a larger wastewater treatment facility campus. The site is also not located along a scenic highway. The proposed new buildings will be compatible in character with the surrounding uses and with the other uses on the project site. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed buildings would entail the use of the same type of building materials, lighting fixtures and visual treatment currently present at the EWPCF. The new facilities would not represent a new lighting source since the existing buildings currently employ night lighting. As such, substantial increases in light or glare sources would not occur. Existing lighting onsite utilizes non-glare sodium vapor lights. Additional lighting sources associated with the proposed project would appear as an extension of existing lighting facilities. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would affect day or nighttime views in the area 11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a - c) No Impact. The proposed project site is an area already developed with existing industrial and related structures as part of the Encina Wastewater Treatement Facility. The project does not occur on, or otherwise involve, any designated farmland, any land already used for agricultural purposes, or any land subject to 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 (PMlo). 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 (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 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. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 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 0 Is’a regional air quality plan beibg 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 Signiiicant 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 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. No Impact. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a, b) No Impact. The EWPCF is located on a flat mesa approximately 0.5 mile from the Pacific Ocean. The site is currently developed with wastewater treatment facilities and has been previously graded and cleared of all naturally occurring vegetation. The proposed facilities would be located within the existing EWPCF site. Due to the lack of habitat onsite, the project would not result in the impact to biological resources and would therefore not impact candidate, sensitive or special status species protected by local or regional plans, policies, or regulations. c) No Impact. See response (a) above. The project would be confined withn the EWCPF site. This site does not currently support wetlands. Therefore implementation of proposed facilities on the site would not disturb wetland resources. d) No Impact. See response (a) above. The project is confined withn the EWPCF site, whch is not located within and does not contain any wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, implementation of proposed project would not interfere with wildlife movement e, f) No Impact. The project is a developed site in an urbanized area and contains no biological resources (including trees). The porject site also does not contain any lands identified for preservation of open space. The 16 Rev. 07/03/02 City's Draft Habitat Management Plan identifies the site as a "developed area" which does not contain any lands to be preserved. Therefore, the project is not in conflict with any ordinance, policy, plan, or other provision for conservation of resources. g) No Impact. See responses (b) and (c) above CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d) No Impact. The project will not have any impact on cultural resources. The project site is located in a fully urbanized area and is developed with a wastewater treatment facility, including industrial uses and related office/administration and lab facilities. (An EIR was prepared for the EWPCF facility in August 1988.) The proposed new buildings are to be located wihn the boundaries of the existing facility in areas previously graded and developed. The site does not contain any designated archaeological or paleontological or other historical resources. The site also does not contain any unique geologic features, known burial grounds, etc. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ai) No Impact. The proposed project involves the replacement of an existing building. All proposed activities would be limited to the existing plant site. This area has been previously evaluated for soils, geology, and seismicity in three separate reports (Brown and Caldwell 1975, Fugro, Inc. 1979, and WESTEC 1982). No known faulting exists within or adjacent to the EWPCF site and the site is not located in a delineated earthquake zone on an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Map (State of California, 1997 with updates in 1999). ai) Less Than Significant Impact. Although no faults exist onsite, a number of active and potentially active regional fault zones could affect the EWPCF site. These include the Elsinore and Newport-Inglewood fault zones, as well as the San Andreas, San Jacinto, Rose Canyon, Coronado Banks, Palo Verdes, and San Clemente fault zones. A major earthquake on any of these could affect the EWPCF, depending on the nature, size, and location of a particular event. Based on their location, extent and seismic history, the Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas fault zones are considered the most likely to produce seismic events capable of affecting the EWPCF site. All proposed facilities will be designed and built in accordance with seismic design provision of the Uniform Building Code. Additionally, all facets of excavation, construction, and facility design will meet the standards established for previous development at the EWPCF site. Specifically, this will include measures such as the over-excavation of unsuitable base soils and geologic units, the proper composition, placement, and compaction of all construction fill, the use of additional foundation design techmques as necessary, and the utilization of appropriate construction materials and methods. Incorporation of these standard design and construction measures will ensure that impacts related to geologic hazards including seismic events would be less than significant. a.iii) Less Than Significant Impact. Soils in the project area are relatively high in silt and clay content and are therefore not highly susceptible to dynamic settlement or liquefaction during a seismic event. Further, the entire site is covered with construction fill of varying thickness, which was compacted before the site was developed in order to avoid these types of geologic risks (Encina Wastewater Authority, August 1988, 4-127). Therefore, impacts related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, are considered to be less than significant. a.iv.) No Impact. Landslides are associated with steep slopes or areas adjacent to variable topography. The project site is located on a level mesa and is not adjacent to any significant slopes. Therefore, no landslide hazards exist. b) No Impact. The entire EWPCF was previously graded and covered with construction fill of varying depths. Any grading that would occur as a result of the proposed project would involve removal of existing. pavement or buildings with limited soil disturbance. Grading of undeveloped land would not occur. Therefore, substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would not occur. c) construction fill to ensure that impacts related to an unstable geologic unit or soil would be fully mitigated. No Impact. See response (a) above. The entire EWPCF site was previously graded and covered with d) No Impact. See responses (a) through (i) above. The entire EWPCF site was previously graded and covered with construction fill to ensure that impacts related to an unstable geologic unit or soil would be fully mitigated. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 e) disposal systems. No Impact. The project does not require or propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a,b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves construction of two buildings. During construction, some hazardous substances and wastes would be stored, used, and generated in active construction zones on tlie EWPCF site. These would.include fuels for machinery and vehicles, new and used motor oils, cleaning solvents, paints, sealants, and storage containers and applicators containing such materials and would not involve routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Accidental spills, leaks, fires, explosions, or pressure releases involving hazardous materials represent a potential threat to human health and the environment if not appropriate addressed. Accident prevention and containment are the responsibility of the construction contractors, and provisions to properly manage hazardous substances and wastes are typically included in EWA’s construction specifications. EWA monitors all contractors for compliance with applicable regulations including regulations regarding hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Adherence to EWA’s construction specifications and applicable regulations regardmg hazardous materials and hazardous waste would ensure that construction of the proposed facilities involving hazardous materials would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The project would not involve use of hazardous materials once construction is completed. Impacts would be less than significant. c) No Impact. The project is not located with a quarter of a mile of an existing or proposed school. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located at the EWPCF, a facility which uses and stores hazardous materials and is therefore included on the County’s list of sites prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. However, because the site currently uses hazardous materials, and because the proposed operations and maintenance buildings would not involve use of hazardous materials, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. See response (a) above. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located approximately 2.25 miles west of McClellan- Palomar Airport. The proposed project is located within the Aqort Influence Area of the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and within the 60 &A CNEL noise contour. The project would not involve the introduction of facilities that are hgher than existing facilities. Therefore, obstruction impacts to aircraft flight patters would not occur as a result of the project. The CLUP also identifies compatible uses for each type of land use within each CNEL contour. In the context of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the project would fit into the “commercial- wholesale, industrial, manufacturing” land use category. Within the CNEL 60 contour, these types of land uses are “compatible.” The Comprehensive Land Use Plan defines “compatible” as the outdoor CNEL sufficiently attenuated by conventional construction that the indoor noise level is acceptable, and both indoor and outdoor activities associated with the land use may be carried out with essentially no interference from aircraft noise (SANDAG 1994). Site noise measurements contained in an Environmental Noise Assessment report (Dudek & Associates 2003) document the property line noise levels on the project site as between 49 and 67 &A CNEL. The noise associated with plant operations compounded by the adjacent freeway already provide an ambient noise environment typical of an industriallpublic works facility; given existing noise conditions expected on a daily basis at the plant, additional noise from aircraft would not preclude plant employees from successfilly carrying out operation activities. Therefore, construction of the project would not place employees in a hazardous setting as a result of the site’s proximity to McClellan-Palomar Airport. f) result in impacts to this type of facility or its associated employees. No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and would therefore not 8) No Impact. The City‘s Emergency Plan identifies primary roads that would be used for emergency evacuations, including El Camino Real, Carlsbad Boulevard, La Costa Avenue, Rancho Santa Fe Road and Carlsbad Village Drive. The proposed project would not involve expansion beyond the existing EWPCF boundaries, therefore conflicts with the City’s emergency evacuation plan would not occur. Further, the plant is not located along any of the major arterials that could serve as major evacuation routes. h) No Impact. The project is not located next to wildlands or undeveloped areas. VIII. HYDROLOGYsAND WATER QUALITY a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not be expected to produce any significant impacts to surface or groundwater hydrology because all proposed activities would be located wilhm the previously 18 Rev. 07/03/02 developed EWPCF site and no groundwater would be utilized for construction. All drainage within the plant site is currently directed into the central flood control channel. The flood control channel conveys flows underneath Avenida Encinas and then empties into Encinas Creek on the west side of Avenida Encinas. The creek eventually drains to the Pacific Ocean via a drainpipe. The proposed building design would not affect the onsite drainage patterns and would not subject the existing or proposed facilities to impacts related to surface flooding. Potential water quality impacts include the contamination of surface runoff into the flood control channel. The contamination of surface runoff could result from erosion associated with proposed construction activities. Standard construction measures to control erosion and discharge of pollutants, such as sandbagging or other means of stabilization or impoundment will be employed during construction in conformance with the NPDES permit standards. Implementation of these measures will reduce surface water quality impacts during project construction to less than significant. b) No Impact. The project would not involve groundwater pumping or dewatering. (See response (a) above). c,d) No Impact. See response (a) above. e-g) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above. h) No Impact. The proposed project would not include the introduction of any housing. 0 No Impact. All natural drainage on the EWPCF site was diverted into a central concrete flood control channel built as part of the original plant. The flood control channel is designed to handle the 100-year flood. The proposed operations and maintenance buildings would be located within the EWPCF site and therefore not placed within a 100-year flood hazard area (SanGIS accessed November 2003) and would not impede or redirect flows. j) flood zone or dam inundation zone, therefore no impact would occur (SanGIS, accessed November 3,2003). k) Less Than Significant Impact. The threat to the EWPCF due to seiche or tsunamis remains the same regardless whether the proposed project is implemented or not. The EWPCF is located less than a half of a mile from the Pacific Ocean. The presence of this large body of water coupled by Carlsbad's location within seismically active southern California exposes the existing EWPCF site to seiche and tsunami hazards. These conditions occur when seismic activity sets water (in the case of seiche or tsunami) in motion. While the EWPCF site is not located within an earthquake hazard zone as designated on Alquist-Priolio Maps, seismic activity can stiIl impact ths area of the Pacific Coast. That said, the frequency of such events occurring is very low, therefore impacts associated with potential project site inundation by seiche or tsunami is considered less than significant. No Impact. See response (a) above. The project would not involve the introduction of structures in a I-n) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above. 0) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above. No 303(d) water bodies would be affected by construction or operation of the proposed operations and maintenance buildings. P) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above. IX. , LAND USE AND PLANNING a-c) No Impact. The site of the proposed project does not contain any housing. It is in a fully urbanized area and is developed as a watewater treatement facility containing wastewater treatement facilities and related office uses. The proposed project is consistent with the City's Public Utilities General Plan designation, zoning, and Precise Development Plan regulations on the site. The project does not conflict with any conservation plans. or other land use plans. The City's Habitat Management Plan shows the site as a "developed area". X. MINERAL RESOURCES a, b) No Impact. The site does not contain any known mineral resources. XI. NOISE a) Less Than Significant Impact. Noise associated with the project would be temporary and would result from short-term construction activities. No long-term noise sources would result from implementation of the proposed operations and maintenance buildings. The noise levels created by construction equipment would vary 19 Rev. 07/03/02 greatly depending upon factors such as the type and specific model of the equipment, the operation being performed and the condition of the equipment. The average sound level of the construction activity also depends upon the amount of time that the equipment operates and the intensity of the construction during the time period. Noise generated by construction equipment will occur with varying intensities and durations during the various phases of construction. The one-hour average noise level during construction activities typically ranges up to approximately 75 dB to 80 dB at 50 feet from the closest construction work area. The closest residences are located approximately 500 feet or more from the closest onsite construction area. At ths distance the one-hour average noise level would be approxiinately 60 dB or less. The construction noise would comply with the City's construction noise criteria. All construction activity will be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. Therefore, onsite construction-related noise would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above. c) These types of uses would not be expected to result in any substantial increase in ambient noise levels. No Impact. The proposed project involves two proposed office administration and maintenance buildings. 4 Less Than Significant Impact. See response (a) above. e) No Impact. The project site is with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area and at approximately the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Because the project is within the Airport Influence Area, it must be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission for consistency with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan- Palomar Airport. An application will be prepared and sent for their review. City staff review of the CLUP indicates that the project is consistent with the CLUP, which allows office buildings, R&D offices, and laboratories in the 55- 65 dBA CNEL noise contours and conditionally in the 65-70 dba CNEL contour. Therefore, the project would not subject people to excessive noise. 0 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. a-c) No Impact. The proposed project will not induce growth. The proposed new officeladministration areas are being built to create sufficient workspace for existing employees who have been working in confined spaces. The project does not propose nor require any extension of roads or other infrastructure. The project will not displace any existing housing or people. It is developed as a watewater treatement facility containing wastewater treatement facilities and related office uses. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a-c) No Impact. The proposed project would not result in a need for new or altered fire, police, school, parks, or other public facilities. The existing wastewater treatement facility provides a public service. The site is in an urbanized area served adequately by existing fire, police, and other services. The proposed new structures are intended to provide adequate workspace for existing employees who have been working in small older quarters for some time. XIV. , RECREATION a, b) facilities, nor would it require or include the creation of any new recreational facilities. No Impact. The proposed project is non-residential and would not increase the use of existing recreational XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 218 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 22 peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways Avenida Encinas, a Secondary Arterial. Existing traffic on this arterial is 7,667 ADT (2003) and the 2003 peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection(s) impacted by the project are "A" (am) and "C" (pm). The design capacity of the arterial road affected by the proposed project is 10,000 to 20,000 vehcles per day. The project traffic would represent 3% 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. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 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 Airport Rd.) and two lughway 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 17-35 “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’ 156-180 “D” 260-272 1-5 199-216 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. 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. Acluevement 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. 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 fl 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. g) No Impact. The project is not served by public transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS-Would the project: a) . Less Than Significant Impact. The project has submitted a preliminary SWPP that addresses the current and proposed development of the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. The existing uses are covered in an approved SWPP dated June 19,2003. The proposed development has been identified in the preliminary SWPP and has been conditioned to address additional filters and BMP’s to ensure compliance with current Regional Water Quality Control Regulations. b) proposed project can be adequately served by the existing water and wastewater treatment facilities. No Impact. The developer of the proposed project is the wastewater treatment provider for the area. The c) No Impact. The project would involve replacement of two existing buildings which currently make up the plant’s impervious surfaces. Replacement of existing impervious surfaces with new impervious surfaces would not result in a net increase in stormwater runoff. All drainage within the EWPCF site is currently directed into the central flood control channel. The proposed project would not affect the onsite drainage patterns or central flood control channel. d) and would represent a less than significant incremental increase in use. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project can be adequately served by existing water supplies 21 Rev. 07103102 e) provider for the area. The proposed project can be adequately served by the existing wastewater treatment facility. Less Than Significant Impact. The developer of the proposed project is the wastewater treatment f) Less Than Significant Impact. The waste from the project would represent a less than significant incremental increase to the local landfill capacity. No expansion of existing landfill capacity would be necessitated by the proposed project. g) No Impact. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE-Does the project: a) No Impact. See responses IV a-g and V a-d. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in the previous responses, the proposed project wouId have no effect on aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, surface and groundwater hydrology, public services, and recreation. In the absence of project-related impacts, incremental accumulation of effects in conjunction with past, current, and probable future projects to these environmental resources would not occur. The proposed project would have a less than significant effect on air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, short-term construction related traffic, and utilities and service systems. The combined cumulative impact associated with the project’s incremental effect and past and surrounding current and future development on these environmental resources has been determined to be less than significant. c) that the project would not result in significant direct or indirect effects on human beings. Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the analysis of all the above questions, it has been determined 22 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. Final Master Environmental Impact Re~ort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. Encina Water Pollution Control Facility Exuansion Final Environmental Imuact Reuort. Westec Services. August 1988. Uudated Geotechnical Investigatin, Prouosed Encina Wastewater Authority Administrative Center and Maintenance Buildings. PlattIWhitelaw Architects, Inc. August 28, 2003. 2. 3. 4. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Encina Water Pollution Control Facility Buildings Promam SURVO~~. 5. Acoustical Analysis for the Encina Wastewater Authority Operations & Maintenance Facilities. Wieland Associates, Inc. April 27, 2004. 23 Rev. 07/03/02