HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-11; Planning Commission; ; CUP 194 - AQUACULTURE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONALl
r·
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 11, 1981
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: CUP-194 -AQUACULTURE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL -
Request for a conditional use permit to expand
aquaculture research labortory located o~ the
east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between the Encina
power plant and Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is the expansion of the existing agua-
culture facility to install 40 low profile, circular culture
tanks for breeding fish and shellfish for research purposes
and commercial distribution to local restaurants and markets.
The expansion would also be utilized for further research in
the use of thermal effluent in aquaculture.
As shown on Exhibit "A", the proposed project would extend
approximately 600 feet south along Carlsbad Boulevard from
the current labortory. A three year phased construction
plan is proposed by the applicant~ 8-10 tanks would be
installed the first year, 10 the second year, and 20 the
third year.
Four fish culture raceways, long rectangular tanks in which
fish are grown to maturity, are planned for the southern
portion of ·the project, adjacent to the existing labortory.
The raceways would be 46 feet by 8 feet by 5 feet high.
Surrounding property is zoned open space to the north and
public utilities on the other three sides.
II. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1) Will the project meet the required findings for a
conditional use permit?
III. DISCUSSION
As designed, the project is in harmony with the objectives
of the General Plan. Aquaculture has been designated as an
agriculture use by the California legislature. Agricultural
uses are allowed as permissable land uses in open space.
Additionally, the open space designation in the zoning
ordinance recognizes agriculture as a permitted use.
There is 1100 feet between the existing aquaculture labo-
ratory and the public fishing area on Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
The proposed project, upon completion, would extend for
approximately 600 feet of that distance and would be approxi-
mately 55 feet wide. Each of the 40 tanks to be installed
is 18 feet in diameter and 5 feet high. Staff believes the
site is adequate in size and shape to accomodate the pro-
posed use.
To preserve the scenic view along Carlsbad Boulevard and to
minimize the visual impacts of the proposed project, a
landscaping and irrigation plan will be required as a condi-
tion of approval.
Access for the proposed project would be from the public
fishing area to the north of the site. Staff expressed
concern regarding potential traffic impacts: therefore the
applicant hired a traffic engineer to review the proposed
plans. The engineer concluded that the project would have
no impact on traffic. The current aquaculture labortory
generates six trips per day and the proposed expansion is
not expected to increase that number. There is also suffi-
cient off-street parking to accomodate the staff which/will
be 2-4 employees.
Staff finds that the proposed expansion does meet the
required findings of a conditional use permit.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this project will
not have a significant impact on the environment and, therefore,
has issued a Negative Declaration dated February 2, 1981.
V. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the
Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and
adopt Resolution No. 1778, APPROVING CUP-194, based on the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
-2-
ATTACHMENTS
PC Resolution No. 1778
Background Data Sheet
Location Map
Reduced Site Plan
Disclosure Form
Environmental Documents
Exhibit "A", dated January 8, 1981
JC:jt
2/24/81
-3-
BACKGROUND DATA SHEE1'
CASE NO: QJP-194
.. APPLICANT: ACOAaJLTURE SYSTEMS INTERNATI°'1AL ·
REX:lUEST AND LCX:ATION: Expand aquaculture research· laboratory on the east side of·
carlsbad Boulevard between the Encina plant and the public fishing area.
Im DESCRIPI'ION:. All that portion of Map 823 filed November 16, 1896.
Assessors Parcel Number: 210 010 29
Acres .75 No. of IDts 1 ------------
GENERAL PIAN AND ZONING
General Plcui Land Use Designation --------u
Density Allowed ___ N_/_A ___ _ Density.Proposed --------N/A
Existing Zone ____ P_-U _______ _ Proposed Zone -----=N~/.;:.,A.._· ___ _
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
zoning
·North 0-P .._;_...=----
south P-u -----
Fast P-U -----
West P-U -----
· Land Use
Vacant & Agua Hedioma Iagoori
Encina ~ Plant
Aqua.Hedionda lagoon
Pacific Ocean
PUBLIC FACILITIF..s
School District
Water District
Sewer District
carJsb3a
carlsbad -EDU's NIA --=====-------------_ ___.....,_, ....._ ____ _
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated __ --l,Jt.1oani.uwu ... a;cy..._...1oB,._,,c....-l-'198.,..1.._ _______ _
(other: _______________________________ )
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENI'
--X--Negative Declaration, issued Febn1acy 2, 1981 Log No. rnP-194
NIA E.I.R. Certified, dated ' ----------
other,--------------------------------
• Cfer-k.
1200 ELM AVENUE
• CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008
.•· ...
.. . . ·" .•
·.• .·• .... • ..... . .. •. . ..
NEGATIVE DECLI\RATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATIOO__= _ Fast side._ of Carlsbad Boulevard I b:tween the
. . . . ~ . . . . ... .. . ... . . .
~ •. :.-, • -~ ·piego: Gas .and Electric· ~ plant arx1 1¥J:U:c! • lfediollda· La<p>n~:
-PROJECT DESCRIPJ:ICW: -Aguaculture facility for-research-and to raise·
• ocmnerciai fish for distribution to local restaurants _ani markets. •
. .. . .
TELEPHONE:
• (114) <t38-5&21
. ·•·
------------------------------------.. • ••
'• .. ',
• .
.. ...
. · ......
. •.-. '. -nie City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmenta~ rev;ew of the aboife de~cribed
-project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California . .
Environn!ental Quality Act and the -Environmental Protection Ordinance of the
.. • .•. City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration ~
_ . • t;hat the project will not have a signi.fic311.t impact on the enviroI1J11ent) is hereby
. issued for the subject project. Justificatio~ for this a~tion_ is on ~il_e in the
. , ---Planning Department. . . . . . _ •
_·,. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
·Planning Department, City Hall, 1200 Elm Awmuc, C'.arlsbad; CA-. -92008. -Comnents
• _: from the pub~ic. arc invited. Please submit com'!!Cnt~ in writing-to the P~a~ni~
_ . . . • . Department w1tl11n ten (10) days of ~~te of publl_c;~;z.:::1-;;;;:.;: • c· _ .. _ ·. 1/_7, _ -., : -
DAT~D: _ FebruaJ;r ~0,· 19~1 -SJ~D;·< / _ -~ ;~ _ .-----. ·:-·:· -~
CASH NO: _ 9Rf=144 /',, Director of Planning ,~ • -
/: • C~tr _or C~r~~bad_. Y. . ·_ ·.-•... · · .. • Al'PLIC.J\NT: ~ -J"' . .
-.::.-------------.•..• -.,..,-... _,, .. ;i,,...) :~_,.~:.,_ .... _~-....~"'·•"'..--~-~,;"~-...'( .... _~ .• -~\~,it!~ •• -........ •
l>uBI.l S1 f I T>ATE: February: 25,. 1981
. .
•
,; .....
.. -.. -.
Ml 4
LOCATION
CASE NO. cue 19.+
APPLICANT AQUbC.UktUP-6.
-,
.~AP
VlC,I bl lT :( t1bP
8
e
A .. • Hetll••tl• ,. .....
• ~· I _,,,, ,, .......... -...-__ ....... __ , ... _,_---..... ---
Scale, 1 inch• 30 feet
Clr••l•r Fl■II C•lt•re T••lt■
/f.'illl■■IHf ll •• ,_,
,r ,. •• I I I I i I I I I I I SITE PLAN
Hedionda Lag-
c..uq WMft I■-lula)
-· I -I
LOCATION MAP
.
-· I
? aotlaE r .. , •• , EIII••·' L•·-· .
{ .... -
L).
INftHDlD UH·
Marine
A uacultur• Research
If after the information ,.-_l have submitted has been revi..-'Xl, it is determined
that further information is required, you will be so advi~-d.
APPLICANT:
AGENT:
.MEMBERS:
AQUACULTURE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL
Name (individual, P<;lrtnership, joint venture, corporation, syndic~tion) •
11211 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite E, San lJiego, C-" 92121
Business Address
(714) 452-5765
Telephone Number
Name
Business.Address
Telephone Number
Jon c; ·van 01st
Name (individual, partner, joint
venture, corporation, syndication)
8167 La Jolia Shores Dr., la jolla~ CA
Home Addres& 92037
11211 Sorrento VaJley Road, Suite E, San Diego, CA 92121
Business Address
(714) 452-5765
Telephone Number
James M. Carlber.g
Name
(714) 459-4595
• Telephone Number
5721 Bellevue Ave., La Jolla, CA 92037
Home Address
11211 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite E, San Diego, CA 92121
Business Addr~ss
(714) 452-5765 (714) 454-6453 -----------------Telephone Number Telephone Number
Theodore H. Smyth
4234 Cresta Avenue
Santa Barbara, CA 93110
(805) 682-2981
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis-
closure is true and correct and that it wiil remain true and correct and may be
relied upon as being true and correct until amended.
,,-
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
-TELEPHONE:
~Wt.lJ\i~
438-5591
•
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
(:itp of <tarl~bab
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The Planning Department of the City of Carlsbad intends to prepare a
Negative Declaration, x Conditional Negative Declaration,
---E.i,vironmental Impact Report for the following project:
Project Description: Aquaculture facility for research and to raise
ccmrercial fish for distribution to local restaurants and markets .
Project address/Location: East side of·carlsba.d Blvd, between the ~
SDG&E power plant and Agua Hedionda lagoon.
Anticipated significant impacts·: As corrlitioned, no significant •impacts
are anticipated from this project.
We need to know your ideas about the effect this project might have on
the environment and your suggestions for ways the project could be re-
vised to reduce or avoid any significant environmental damage. Your
ideas will help us decide what issues to analyze in the environmental
review of this project.
Your comments on the environmental impact of the proposed project may
be submitted in writing to the Planning Dcpar t, 1200 Elm Avc.Dl~-
Carlshad, CA 92008, no later than Feb 28 19 1 _;....._..;....;..~"'Pl.~~~;-f-..___/
DATED: !§{.-.? tq8J
l
CASE NO: CUP-144
APPL I CJ\N'f: AQUACULTURE
PURLJSil'DATE: _February 7, 1981
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
ND 3
FEE $100.00
RECEIPT NO:
• ENVIRONMENTAL ll,fP;\CT ASSESSMENf FORM -Part I
(To be Completed by APP~ICANT)
• O\SE NO:.
. '
..
--------
DATE: • January 5, 1981
Applicant:· • Aquaculture S,v.~tems lnternati.onal
Address of Applicant: 11211 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite E
San· Diego, CA 92121 --~------------------------,-------------
Phone Number: ( 714) 452-5765
Name> address and phone number of person to be·contacted (if other than Applicant):
Jon C. Van 01st, Presi de.nt • (Address same as above)
.•
·GENER/\L INFORMATION:
Description of Project: Expansion of existing aquacultur:-e research laboratory
at the Encina Power Plant of the San Diego Gas & Electric Compan~.~~-----
.
Project Location/Address:· Encfo~ Power Plant ·of SDG&E, 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard,
Carlsbad, CA 92008.
Assessor Parcel Number: 210 .: • 010 · -• 29 ---
Zeme of Subject Property: _o_-_s ___ o_p_e_n_S,..;.p_a_ce _____________ _
Proposed Use of Site: To install additional culture tanks to allow further
research on the beneficial use of thermal effluent in aquaculture.
________ ...;_ ___________________________ ,,,_
. .
List all other applicable applications related to thi~ project: A Conditional'
Use Pennit App1ication·had been filed as specified in the General Plan. Upon
approval of this discretionary pennit by the Planning Commission a Coastal Pennit
will be obtained from the San Diego Coast Regional Co~ission. ·-------
.. .
. '.
. ' . ..
2. Des~ribc the activity area, including distiguishing
natural and manmade characteristics; also provide precise.
. .
slope analysis when npp:r.opriatc. The .s·ite is adjacent to Highway 101 and is
part of the be~ constructep for Carlsbad.Boulevard and for the retention of a'cooli
water .reservQi_l"-·fo.r ._the power ,plant. The par-eel is compes'ed .of sand from dredge
spoils and is pr.ote~,ted from .. erosion by rip-rap. _The proper.ty is flat and has no
natural vegeta1:fCln .and is cur.rently used by the l.(tility as a service corridor for
overhead uti1ity.Ji~es. •
. . p
' .•
3 •.
4 :
•
Describe en(;!rgy· cons·crvation measures incorporated into
the design and/or operation of the project. (For a more·
specific discussion of energy con~oerva b on requirements
see • . . of the City's EIR guidelines·) . Over 80% of the electri
• tal eQergy. produced in-the U.S._is ger:1erated l>y steam power pl&nts:. In this process
from 50.'-65~~ of the-fuel e.nergy input 1s lost to the condenser cooling water and .
discharged·foto tha·envirqnment.as waste ·heat. The amoui:it of waste heat reject~d
.(11 X 10 15 BTU annually) 1s equivalent to 15%-of the Nation's total energy .consump-
tj on. Aql;laC,!J1ture i 3 .one method of beneficially using p.ower pl ant thermal effluent
·.to increase the production of valuable fish and shellfish and redu~e our dependence
on a 1 ready' over.-exp loi ted fi.sheri.es. . •
If resi9ential, include the number of units, schedule of
unit sizes, range of sale prices.or rents, and type of
~household size expected. •
*(ITEMS 4-6 N/A A"quaculture is def{~ed ~s.Agriculture)
... ....... ~ .....
., : : •· .. -. .. -.
, -.: . .:
5. If commerci-ai,· indicate the type, whether neighbor~ood,
city or regionally oriented, square footage of sal0s area,
. and loading· fac.ilities .
. 6.
7.
i
• • l ~ • -
If industrial, indicate type, estimated employmGnt per shift,
and loading facilities.
• .. • • . •
. ..
If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated
employment.. per shift, estirn.J.ted occupcmcy, loc::i.ding fc:i.cilitics,
and commun~ty benefits to be dcrivc<l from the project.
The function of the laboratory will be to conduct research on the use of thermal
effluent in aquaculture .• We will liave. z;,.4 employees• Ol:l a standard 8 hour shift.
There will be no loading facilitie·s. _'The community benefits.will be: pub-lie
displays af\d an education center if desi.rable.
• •
..
...
1. ENVI RONM,!!NTA L "IMP 1\CT. l\Nl'·d• YS IS
1)
2)
Answer the follm·1ing questions by placing a check in the •·
appropriat:c space.· (Discuss all items checked yes. Attach
additional sheets as nece~sary) ... •
·-.
YES NO
. .
Could the project significantly change: presei1t
·1and_uses i~ the vicinity of t~e.activity? X
Could th~ activity affect the use of a rec-
reational area, or area of important
aesthetic value? X . ---
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
9)
Could the activity affect the functioning of
an established community or neigliborhood?· . .
Could the activity result in the displacement
of coI!UTiunity residents? ,.
Could the activity increase the number of low
•and mode~a~e cost housing units in the city?
Could the activity decrease the numb~r of low
and modest cost ho_using units in the city?
Are any of tne natural or man-made f.eatures
in the activity area uni.qu~, that ).s, not:
found in other .parts of the County, State,
or Nation? • •
Could the activity significantly affect a
historical or archaeological site or its
·settings?
Could the activity significantly affe·ct the
potential use, extraction~ or conservation
of a scarce natural resource?
• lO)· Does the activity area serve as a habitat,
food source nesting place, source·of water,
etc. for rare or endangered wildlife on fish
• species?
11) . Could the a·cti.v5.ty significantly affect fish,
wildlife or plant life?
·12)
.
~re there any rare or endangered plant
species in _the activity area?.
13) Could the activity ch;mgc existing features
of any of the city's lagoons, bays, or
tidclnnds?
X
X
X
X
X
X
; ... X ' -
X -··
X
x.
•
. . . , . . .. • . ,·
14) Could the activity change existJ.ng features of
.any of the city's beaches?
15) Could· the activity result in the erosion or
el3:mination of agricultural lands?
16)· Could the activity serve to encourage develop-
ment of presently undeveloped areas or intesify
development of already developed areas?
17). Will the activity require a ·variance from
established environmental standards (air, water,
noise, etc)?
18) Will the activity require certification,
authorization or issuance of a permit by any
.local, state or federal environmental control
agency? ... X
1~) Will the activity require issuance of a
variance or conditional use permit by the city? • • • X
...
20) Will the activity involve the application, use,
_or -dispo~al of potentially hazardous materials?
21) .W:i.11 the activity involve construction of
~acilities in a flood .plain? •
22)
23)
Will the activity invclve constructic,n of
facilities on a slope of 25 percent or·greater? . . '
Will the activity involve construction of
. facilities in the area of an active fault?
24)' . Could the activity result in the generation
, . of s~gnificant amounts of noise?.
25)
26)
Could the activity re·sult in the generation
of significant a·rnoun'ts of dust? •
Will the activity·involve the burning of brush,.
trees, or other materials?
27) Could the activity result in a significant
change in the quality of any portion of the
. region's air or water resources? (Should note,
surface, ground water, off-shore).
28) Will the project substantially increase fuel
consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas,
etc.)?
29) Wi.ll there be n. significant ch_angc to existing
lbncl form?
. ' • •
X
...
. X
·--
X
X
..
X
x·
X
X
. X
..• X
X
. . ·.x ' .
X
. X
.. .
(a) indicate ·,~stimated gradlng to be done in
• cubic yards None -------
(b) percentage of alteration to.the present
land form . None ------------. .
(c) maximum height of cut or fill.slopes
None
30) Will the activity result in substantial increases
in the use of utilities, sewers_, _drain·s, or
streets? . .
31) Is the activity carried out as part of a. J.:arger·
'project or series of projects?
..
. . . ..
·, .
-s-
' •
X
•
----...
. .
II. STATEMENT OP NON-SIGNIFICNIT • ENVIRONMENTAL EFFE'CUi
If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions
in Section I but you think the activity will have no
significant environmental effects, indicate your reasons
below:
Tw~ items· were answered in the affinnative: No. 18. The discharge of seawater
from the aquaculture facility will require a NPDES permit from the EPA and Regional
Water Quality Control Board. · This will be combined with the existing NPDES Permit ·
held by SDG&E. No. 19. The General Plan provides for aquaculture development in
any _zone,-however, a CUP is required.
. .
.III~ "COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS ·ro ANY ·op "TI-IE QUESTIONS IN "SECTION I
'(If additional space is needed for answering any questions_
attach additional sheets as may be needed)-. See Attachment.
Date Signed·_· ---~-4J.--~·L.:::·:::11· UII. ~l-=!,1-·-· _:s,_,,~/..;..~;;:;.;'r/~· • __ • ·_· _-·_· _· ·_· _· ·_· -
. .
.. .
'III. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN SECTION I
There are a few items that may require further clarification:
No. 2 Could the activity affect the use of a recreational area,
or area of important aesthetic value?
The space is currently surrounded by a barbed wire fence
to restrict trespasser:-s from approaching the heavy
equipment, floating dredge and oil storage tanks at the
north end of the power plant. We propose to upgrade the
barbed wire to a redwood chain link fence to match the
existing fence around the laboratory and effluent pond.
The area presently is used for storage of old timbers
from the floating log boom.
No. 7 Are any of the natural or man-made features in the activity
area,unique, that is, not found in other parts of the
-County, State, or nation?
The unique aspect of this site is that it is located
adjacent to a source of seawater at-elevated temperature
that is essential for the culture of warrrwater species.
Thennal effluent is presently considered a pollutant but
can be viewed as a resource if beneficially used in fish
culture.
No. 9 Could the activity significantly affect the potential use,
extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural resource?
The proposed aquaculture laboratory expansion will allow
further research to reclaim a waste heat resource, enhance
the production of fish and shellfish, and reduce our
dependence on already overexploited fisheries .
. No. 13 Could the activity change existing features of any of the
City's lagoons, bays, or tidelands?
The proposed aquaculture laboratory expansion would not
directly affect the adjacent lagoon but could lead to the
enhancement of its fish and shellfish productivity.
No. 27 Could the activity result in a significant change in the
quality of any portion of the region's air or water resources?
The use of thermal effluent in fish culture may reduce the
amount of heat dissipated to the environment or partially
compensate for any adverse effects caused by the discharge
9f thennal effluent from the power plant.
III. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN SECTION I CONT'D.
No. 30 Will the activity result in substantial increases in the
use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets? •
The aquaculture laboratory expansion will require no
increase in the number of personnel. Off-street parking
requirements will not be affected. Therefore, there will
be no increase in traffic on Carlsbad Boulevard and no
additional demands on the sewer capacity.
• 'ENVIRONMENTAL JMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM -Part II
{To 'Be Completed By The
PLA."'INING DEPAR'H1lENT)
C.ASE NO. CuP 19-4-
DATE: I -1-S--cof .·
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: AGu,CC,uLTut£ si .}fw.::y .•• :Lc1+£r::14c47Q\ds:Q
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: -------------
\l -i. t I So r[:eJ.\ t-o Va.l ley Ro o..ot I sit i ~ • E
·sa·tA • n,e~a • ,· c A: • • 91: 1 ~.-(; 14) • y ·s·-i.·~ :s-: 1 t5"'
3. DATE CHECKLIST SUBMITI'ED:___,;t...,.,.....,.v\......_·_:7_,· --t)"""'. 1,..,.9~· S..._j ___________ _
II .• 'ENVIRONMENTAL • IMPACTS
(EXPU~ATIONS OF ALL AFFIRMATIVE ANSl\7ERS ARE TO BE WRITIEN UNDER
Section III -DISCUSSION OF ENVIRON-IENTAL EVALUATION)
1. ·Earth Will the proposal have signi -
ficar.-.:. results in:
a. lhlstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, com-
paction or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or grotmd
surface relief features?
d. TI1e destruction, covering or
1nodification of any unique geologic
or physical features?
eA Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or off
the site?
f. Changes in deposition or ero-
sion of beach sands, or changes
in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stre:.tm or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Yes • ·Maybe
ND 2
• I r" -..
·11 ·Yes Ma~e No /·
2. Air: Will the proposal have signil\lc✓ ·
results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? 'I.
.b .. The creation of objectionable ..
• odors? 1'
c. Alteration of air movement,
niositure or temperature, or.any . change in climate, either locally
or regionally? y..__ .
3 ..• Water: . Will the proposal have s1gi-
ficant results in:
a. Changes in currents, or the
course or direction of l\13.ter move-
men ts, in either marine or fresh
•• ··( waters? .:
b·. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface water runoff? '/.._ •
c. Alterations to the course or
flow·of flood waters? .. 'I..
d. Change in the ammmt of sur.-' .
fa~e water in ~y water body? .. .x
·.,;.#',,,...
e. Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface
.water·quality, including but not
limited to temperature, dissolved ·X oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction .. ~ or rate of flow 0£ grolllld waters?
g. Change in the quantity of
gro1md waters, either through
• direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an -aquifer by cuts or excavations? . :-.. \ .... X.
h .. Reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for
public water supplies? .. "i,,
..
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal have signi-
ficant results in: •
a. Change in the diversity of
species, or numbers of any species
.of plants (including. trees, shrubs,.
. grass, crops, microflora and
aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction· of the rnmibers of
any unique, rare or endangered
species of plants?
. • c. Introduction of· new species
of plants into an area, or in a
barrier to the nonnal replenish-
ment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop?
5. • .Animal Life. Will • the proposal have s;i.gni-
ficant results in:
a. Changes in the diversity of
species, or numbers of any species
of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shell-
fish, benthic organisms, insects or
microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of·
any unique, rare or endangered
species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species
of animals into an area, or result
in a barrier to the migration.or
movement of animals? •
d. Deterioration to existing
fish or wildlife habitat?
6. • ·Noise. Will the proposal signi-
ficantly increase existing noise
levels?
7. • 'Light ancJ Glare. Will the pro--
posal significantly produce new
light or glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal have
significant results in the alteration
of the present or planned land use of
an area?
·yes Maybe No
,;
X
. \
,-.. ,.a --,,.-.. ' ,-..__,
'· .
Yes •• ·Maybe ·No -
9. Natural Resources .. • Will the pro-
posal have significant results in:
a. Increase in the rate of use
of any natural resources? )(.
• b. Depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource? 'I...
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal
involve a significant risk of an
explosion or the release of haz-
ardous substances (including, but
not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the
event of an accident or upset . -----x conditions?
11. • ·population. Will the proposal
significantly alter the location,
.distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of ... ·"(_ an area?
12. Housing. Wiil the proposal signi-
ficantly affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional .... i--_ housing? --··
13. • ·T:tarts:eortation/Circulation. Will
.... the proposal have significant re--· sults in: •
a. Generation of additional
.vehicular movement? ···x
b, Effects on existing park:ing
facilities, or demand for new
parking? :···x
c. Impact upon existing trans-
portation systems? .... ; """')(
d, -Alterations to pr~sent
patterns of circulation or move-
111ent of people and/or goods? ... 'X ••
. .
e, Alterations to waterborne,
rail or air traffic? ... X
f, Increase in traffic hazards
to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? ·.--"' ..
• ·-4-
14. Public Services. Will the pro-
posal have a significant effect
upon, or have significant results
in the need for new or altered
governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
.facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facili-
ties, including roads?
£.· Other governmental services?
15. Energy; Will the .:proposal have
signiiicant results in:
a, Use of substantial amounts of
fue1 or energy?
b, Demand upon existing sources
of energy, or require the develop-
ment of new sources of energy?
16. ·utilities. Will the proposal have·
s1gnificant results in the need for
new systems, or• alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b, Communications systems?
d. Sewer or septic tanks7
e., Stor.m wate_r drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal7
17, • Htnnan Hen lt h. Wil 1 the proposal
have signigTcant results in the
creation of any health hazard or
potential health h~:arcJ (~eluding
,ncntal health) 1
--s-•
Yes Maybe No
,; ·-x
~
.. ·X'.
-I
... ><
"'. "'/2,,
.... ~
... )(
• " y...__
"'Y-•
..
... .
Yes -Maybe Ne
18. · Aesthetics. Will the proposal have
significant results in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the pro-
posal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
19. Recreation. Will-the proposal have
significant results in the impact
upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational oppora.mi ties_?
20· .. Archeological/Historical. Will the
proposalhave significant results_
in the alteration of a significant
archeological or historical site,
• structure, object or building?
21. ANALYZF -VIABLE ALTERi\JATTI'ES TO 'THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
.-
a) PHASED DE'VELO~MENT OF TtlE PROJECT; b) AL1ERNATE SITE
DESIGNS; c) ALTEP,NATE SCALE OF DEVELOPMF.NT; d) ALTERNATE
·USES FOR IBE SITE; e) DEVELOPMENT AT-som FlTilJR'E TIME RA'Th'ER
WAN NOW; f) ALTERNATE SITES FOR Tiffi PROPOSED USE; g) NO
PROJECT ALTE.~ATIVE.
·6-
•
K
..
'L l •
-Yes Maybe No
22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICAi~CE.
a) DOES THE PROJECT HAVE Tiffi POTE'l-·
TIAL TO DEGRADE TI-IE QUALITY OF
_ 'IHE ENVIRONMENT, OR CTJRTAIL Tiffi
DIVERSITY IN TI-IE ENVIRONMENT? )(
b) OOES Tiffi -PROJECT HAVE 1HE POTEN-
TIAL TO AOIIEVE SHORT-TER.\1, 'IO
'IHE DISADVAiWAGE OF LONG-TERM,
ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS? (A SHORT-
TERM IMPACT ON TI-IE ENVIRONMENT
IS ONE \~HIOI OCCURS IN A RE-
LATIVELY BRIEF; DEFINITIVE
PERIOD OF TIME WHILE LONG-TERM
IMPAC"fS WILL ENDURE WELL INID
TI-IE FU1URE. )
c) OOES Tiffi PROJECT HAVE IMPACTS
MUOI ARE INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED,
BUI' CUMULAT~Y CONSIDERABLE?
(A "PROJECT MAY IMPACT ON 1WO
OR MORE SEPARATE RESOURCES
WHERE 1HE IMPACT ON EAOI RE-
SOURCE IS REI.ATIVELY SMALL,
Bur WHERE 1HE EFFECT OF lliE
. TOTAL OF TI-JOSE IMPACTS ON 1HE
ENVIRONMENT IS SIGNIFICANT.) •• '/....
d) OOES 1HE PROJECT HAVE ENVIRON-
MENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WILL
, .... f.AUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE
_EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINGS,
EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY?
III.· LISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUTION
--rkL ·'f4't11~ JlMl)tfd~~~ ~~ ~ -rt~/c. t'IM~cr I c,,..-i
~6e.J Ol"J. s~~in~ 1 rz,.tl. -t':'icf ao f'Ufc>Jec) oUJ-lo
ftM-d.J fP ~ ~£ fr-:
. --hi~~·~~~
k ~ aw,-~~
~ti,~ o/.JJ.uS/n... , •
•
f'cl--3/ ~J ~+t/6Jl;._. f _
~ t1Pfl /c ~ftk.cf .-Wl.LDU fa
10 ~,--~C{~ f~
-7-..
.• . •
. DISaJSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUA1l'Tn~T-·cc • . ' • • .!...1.),4.l, ontmued) .
C<J,.,, ·rr,.d(1.. i;;..,. ;~ ca--. 6r -1. r ~ • ,,,,;-nJ,,fol 6r
~ ~ · 1 HM~,, aw1 ~;µ~ ~l,,.
. :3-. j I Sj $ I . _· • .. • . • • . • ,
A -rt,1f/( ~~ • Je,,n 5 ~
. ~~cJ/~ ~-a~ ~i!-~45 -~·'7·
. ~ Hor; ('-i:,.r~ -z/v/a1)
.. .
•
.. -' '
..
... ,, .
IV. DE'IBP,MINATION. (TO BE COMPLETED BY IBE PLANNING DEPAR'IMENT)
• On the basis of this initial evaluation:
. ,,
I find 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 ori the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
111easures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A conditional negative declaration will
wi~l be prepared.
•• J find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL HvIPACT REPORT
is required.
Date:,, 2·11·e101· . -I
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) .
..
-9-•
. '
.,. r
•nTIGATING MEASURES (Continued)
.:
VI 'APPLICANT ·coNCURRENCE ·wITil MITIGATING MEASURES
nus IS TO CERTII:Y THAT I HAVE REVIEWED IBE ABOVE MITIGATIONG MEA-
SURES AND CONCUR w111I THE ADDITION OF 1HESE MEASURES TO TIIB PROJECT.
Date: • ------------Signature of Applicant
..
...
...
AGUA
~----• 0 ===-==================--!>
power pole •
HEDIONDA lAC0ON
PACIFIC OCEAN_
STIIPED IASS PROJECT
ENCINA POWER PLANT
•.
i L._ ·1
I
i
... a, z z • :z: 0
a, c:, a: • :c 0
IP) Q
.
I
,._.J
,
I
I
L---=====================;======~============-------. .......,,
..