Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-11; SDG&E Tower Access Road; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (14)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CDP 97-11 DATE: September 29. 1997 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CASE NAME: SDG&E Tower Access Road APPLICANT: San Diego Gas & Electric Co. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P.O. Box 183L San Diego. CA. 92112- 4150. (6191 696-2732 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 15. 1997 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Placement of approximately 500 yards of rock fill material to elevate and improve a 500-foot long 12-foot wide section of an existing dirt transmission line maintenance access road SUMMARY OF 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. Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation/Circulation | [ Public Services Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics Hazards M Cultural Resources | | Noise | | Recreation I I Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 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 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 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. An 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 Master Environmental Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. er Signature Date Tl Planning'Director'signature Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant 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 effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? () b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? () c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 0 d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? () e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? () Potentially Significant Impact n n Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than Significan t Impact D D No Impact II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? () b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? () c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? () n n n n III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result hi or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? () I I I I b) Seismic ground shaking? () I I I I c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? () I I I—I d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? () I I I I e) Landslides or mudflows? () I I I I f) Erosion, changes hi topography or unstable soil I I I I conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? () g) Subsidence of the land? () I I I I h) Expansive soils? () I I I—I i) Unique geologic or physical features? () I I I—I IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the | I | I rate and amount of surface runoff? () b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards I I I I such as flooding? () c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of I I I I surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? () d) Changes in the amount of surface water hi any water I I I I body? () n n nn nn n n n n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? () f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? () g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? () h) Impacts to groundwater quality? () i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? () Potentially Significant Impact D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact D D D V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? () b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 c) Alter ah- movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? () d) Create objectionable odors? ()D D D D D VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? () b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? () c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? 0 d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? () e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? () f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? () g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? () D D D D D D D D D VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats I I I I (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? () b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? () I I I I c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak i I I I forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? () d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? I I I I 0 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? () I I I I D IS D D VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? () b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? () c) 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? () Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated D D D D IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? () Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? () The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? () d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? () Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, b) c) e) grass, or trees? () X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? () b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Q XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? Q b) Police protection? () c) Schools? () d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? () e) Other governmental services? 0 XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 b) Communications systems? () c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? () d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 e) Storm water drainage? () f) Solid waste disposal? () g) Local or regional water supplies? 0 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? () b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? () c) Create light or glare? () XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? () b) Disturb archaeological resources? () c) Affect historical resources? () d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? () e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 0 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? () b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () D D D XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the |—I I—I quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually I I i I limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed hi 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 I I I I cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? n Rev. 03/28/96 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 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. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project includes the placement of approximately 500 yards of rock fill material to elevate and improve a 500-foot long 12-foot wide section of existing dirt maintenance access roadway for an existing transmission line tower. The project site is located within the Mello II segment of the City's Local Coastal Program. The applicant has consulted with and entered into an agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game for the proposed project construction. All conditions/terms of that agreement will be included as conditions of approval for the requested Coastal Development Permit. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1. Land Use and Planning The project involves the placement of rock fill on an existing transmission line access/maintenance roadway. The project is not in conflict with any general plan designation or zoning. The General Plan designation on the subject site is RLM (Low Density Residential) and the zoning is R-A-10,000 (residential agricultural). The maintenance roadway already exists and is not in conflict with the General Plan or zoning or with the surrounding residential development. The project also is does not conflict with any environmental plans or policies for the project site. The site contains no agricultural resources or operations. The project site, with the existing facilities, is at the edge of a residential area and does not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of any established community. 2. Population and Housing Improvement of the surface of the maintenance roadway will not have any effect on population, will not induce growth, and will not displace housing. The project site, with the existing facilities, is at the edge of a residential area. 3. Geologic Problems The project will not expose people to impacts from fault rupture, ground shaking/liquefaction, or other geologic problems. The project involves only the placement of rock fill over an existing private use dirt roadway section. No structures are proposed. The project site does not contain any unique geologic or physical features. 4. Water There will be no changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns or surface runoff as a result of the project. The project includes the placement of a pipe under the roadway to accommodate drainage flows from a small canyon on the east side of the roadway. The project will not result in exposure to people to flooding. The site is not within a 100-year flood plain. The quality and quantity of drainage water will not be affected by the 10 Rev. 03/28/96 project. Addition of the rock to the road surface may reduce the potential for turbidity in the flow. The project will not affect currents or the course or direction of water movements. It also will not result in impacts to groundwater. The project will not use any groundwater and will not affect groundwater quality. Any water on the roadway will still be able to percolate through to the soil below, as it currently does. 5. Air Quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. 6. Transportation/Circulation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. 7. Biological Resources A Biological Report was prepared for the project by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., in August, 1996, and included a biological survey and wetlands delineation. The report was prepared prior to the final design of the proposed project, and the discussions contained in the report were utilized in preparing the final project design. The final project design has been reviewed by the California Department of Fish and Game, which issued an Agreement for Streambed Alteration for the project. By complying with these conditions of approval, the project will not result in any significant negative impacts to biological resources. Additionally, the conditions of approval contained in the Streambed Alteration Agreement will also be included as conditions of approval of the requested Coastal Development Permit. Specifically, these conditions include the folio whig: a. No permanent impacts to southern willow scrub vegetation are allowed. Some minor trimming is allowed to allow equipment access. - The existing roadway is located near some southern willow scrub vegetation. However, the project is designed to avoid the vegetation with the exception of the minor trimming which has been approved. b. The Operator is prohibited from removing vegetation within the stream from March 15 to July 15 to avoid impacts to nesting birds. - The bio survey conducted indicated that no sensitive species were detected on the site, and concluded that the probability of the presence of southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell's vireo on the site was very low. However, the inclusion of this condition will ensure that there are no impacts to nesting birds. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 c. The Operator is required to landscape the slope (the north side of the roadway) with native species and to enhance a larger area by removing exotic plant species. Based upon the project design and compliance with these existing conditions, the project is not expected to have any significant impact on biological resources. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources The project does not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans and does not use non-renewable resources in a wasteful manner. The project also will not result in the loss of any known mineral resource. The project involves only placement of rock fill over an existing dirt roadway section. 9. Hazards The project is not expected to create any hazard of explosion or release of hazardous substances. It involves only the placement of rock fill over the existing roadway. The roadway improvements also would not be expected to result in exposure of people to potential health hazards or to result in increased fire hazards. The rock fill will be placed of existing weeds and grasses which have grown onto the road area. The existing roadway is private and, therefore, is not a part of any emergency response or evacuation plan. 10. Noise The project will not result in a long-term increase in existing noise levels and will not expose people to severe noise levels. During the time in which the rock fill is being placed noise levels will increase temporarily. However, this increase will be of short duration and will not result in exposure to severe noise levels. 11. Public Services The project will have no impact on public services. It does not generate requirements for fire, police, school, or other governmental services. It also does not generate requirements for road facilities or maintenance since the roadway is private and is maintained by SDG&E for its exclusive use. 12. Utilities and Services Systems The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to utilities. The project will also not impact existing communications systems, water treatment or distribution systems, sewer or septic systems, solid waste disposal, or water supplies. The project could enhance power system reliability by facilitating routine maintenance and emergency access to the existing electrical facilities. 13. Aesthetics The project will not result in negative aesthetic effects and will not negatively affect a scenic vista or highway. The nearby public road (El Camino Real) is a designated scenic 13 Rev. 03/28/96 corridor. However, the existing dirt access road is well below the surface elevation of El Camino Real and will remain below that elevation after the placement of the rock fill. No lighting exists on the private roadway currently and none is proposed for the project. Therefore, no light glare will result. 14. Cultural Resources An archaeological resources field survey and report were conducted and prepared by Affinis in September, 1996, for the project site. This survey found no cultural or historical materials in the immediate project area. Some artifact sites were noted outside the project area (within one mile of the project site). However, the closest site was at least one-quarter mile away, and the placement of the rock fill on the road surface would not affect artifacts/artifact sites at that distance. The project area, which is immediately adjacent to a wetlands, makes the presence of cultural resources extremely unlikely. Additionally, the project site area has been heavily disturbed previously by the creation of the original access road and tower pad. Therefore, the project will not result in impacts to cultural resources. The site also does not serve any known religious or sacred use. 15. Recreational The project does not increase the demand for recreational facilities and does not affect existing recreational opportunities. The site currently provides no recreational opportunities. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760) 43 8-1161, extension 4471. 15 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 16 Rev. 03/28/96 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 17 Rev. 03/28/96 SDG&E TOWER ACCESS ROAD CDP 97-11