HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 98-69; Saxony Pump Station Rehab; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (8)RESOLUTION NO. 2070
A RESOLUTION OF THE LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO
THE SAXONY PUMP STATION
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Leucadia County Water District has reviewed
and considered the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration dated March 1998 on the construction
of improvements to the Saxony Pump Station on La Costa Avenue in Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, the Board has also considered the written comments timely submitted by the
public and other public agencies regarding the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been circulated for public
review as required by law, including by mailing to public agencies who may have an interest in
this Project, and providing notices to contiguous property owners and others by mail and
publication;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Board finds that, based on findings and conclusions stated in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, and considering the public comments thereon, there is no substantial
evidence that the Project, as mitigated, will have any potential significant adverse effect on the
environment.
2. The Board hereby approves the Negative Declaration, as presented to it on July
15, 1998, including the mitigation measures contained therein, which shall be incorporated into
the Project.
3. The Project is hereby approved. Staff is directed to pursue the construction of the
pump station improvements in a manner consistent with the conditions of the Negative
Declaration.
4. Staff is hereby directed to immediately cause a Notice of Determination,
consistent with this resolution, to be posted by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the
County of San Diego, and to submit therewith any fee required by law to the Department of Fish
and Game.
-1-
Resolution No. 2070
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Leucadia County Water
District of San Diego County, this 15th day of July, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Directors Humphreys, Hanson, Juliussen, Sullivan
and Kulchin
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
is E. rtuhiphr^s, president
Timothy C. JochenyGe/ieral Manager
-2-
FINAL
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
** Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
SCH# 98041143
LeadAgency:
*- Leucadia County Water District
* I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study.
». II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: See attached Initial Study.
III. DETERMINATION:«•>
_ The Leucadia County Water District has conducted an Initial Study and determined 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 in the attached Initial Study
*" have been added to the project.
«M
IV. DOCUMENTATION:•»»
"" The attached Initial Study documents the reasons to support the above determination.
V. MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: See attached Initial
Study and Section 3.2 of Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration.
VI. PUBLIC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION:
Draft copies or notice of this Negative Declaration were distributed to:
*• • Air Pollution Control District
M • Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation
• California Coastal Commission
"™ • California Department of Fish and Game
«" • California State Clearinghouse
• California State Lands Commission
• Carlsbad Municipal Water District
• City of Carlsbad
•• • City of Encinitas
m
m.
• Department of Energy gi
Olivenhain MWD
• Regional Water Quality Control Board *
SANDAG *
• San Diego County Archaeological Society
• San Diego County DPLU
• San Diego Gas & Electric Company
• Sierra Club San Diego Chapter •
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers m
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
m
VII. RESULTS OF PUBLIC REVIEW: «
( ) No comments were received during public input period.
( ) Comments were received but did not address the Negative Declaration finding or the n
accuracy/completeness of the Initial Study. No response is necessary. The letters are ^
attached.m
(X ) Comments addressing the findings of the draft Negative Declaration and/or the accuracy or *
completeness of the Initial Study were received during the public input period. The letters
and responses follow. W
Copies of the draft Negative Declaration and any Initial Study material are available in the office of p
the Lecadia County Water District for review, or for purchase at the cost of reproduction. m
m
m
April 29. 1998
Mike Bardin, Assistant General Manager Date of Draft Report
Leucadia County Water District
Tune 30.1998
Date of Final Report
MfiY-28-1998 14:29 P. 02
UBTlihiodWfldUfrScniteo
Cariftad 7i*udWiUlifrOfle
drt*«d,CA9200*
(760)431-9*40
FAX (760) 431-5902 1-9618
CADepterndift Gam
1416 Ninth SUm
PO 80x944209
SecnmMto, CA 94344-2090
(?JQ 0994969
Michael Bardln, Assistant General Manager
Leucadla County Water District
1960 U Costa Avenue
Carfsbad. C A 92009
RECEIVED
MAY 28 1998
LEUCADJA COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT
Comments on tfce MitJg*ttd Negative Declaration (MND)
for the Saxony f wmp Stadoa froject
PetrMr.Bwdin:
The Depvtmem of Fish ind Gune (Department) and U.S. Fnh and WildJJfe Service
aidaa, have f^ev^ the rdk^
site Is on the aouth edge of Batiqwtoi Lagoon and enconpaaws about 0.45 acra of disturtwJ
habitat, coastal lage icmb and louthcm wiUow icrob. Tke project would impact 0.04 aow of
cowU}sagftKruband0.14acrMofmuIefktwnib/»otxtIun>wfllowaera These habhai
types support sensitive ipedes, but 4 bielofkal wrwy in Jamaiy 1998 reported aooe currently
occurs on the aite. A nutigadon plan propoaal to add^hnpactttPthMiwnBtlvehabitaui*
included in the MND. With Uw addition of 8|>ec^co»diriomtto ere identified below, the
wildlife tgwwiw would concur with die project mitigatiofl.
The wildlife agende* and local juriadfettonf in nonhera Sao Dicjo County are currently
participating in a regional omseratioflplaanjngeflbrt upariofthe State*! Natural Community
Conservation Progran7(NCCP), ThjjerTbrtijIcnovraM the Multiple Habitat CoruervaHon
Program (MHCP) and win provide for the conservation of many apedtt and habitau through the
creation and management of a regional prewrve ayttem. Batiqwtoi Lagoon ia a» important
w«t!and resource art* that k propowdibrindusionin the plan. Prioritx ccuwd«fadon should be
given for the wetland impact mitigation to occur within Bltiqultoa Lagoon. ImptcU to coavtal
aago scrub are consistent with thowaflowed under the NCCP guidelines and meet thefindinga
neoesur/ to qualify for a d* minima exemption to the 4(d) rule, provided that adequate
compensation '» induded.
The document adeo^utery identifiea the impact* to die two lenaitrve habitati and potential
impact* to Gnedipec^ that may utifize these hablttta. The wfldflftagendei concur with the
calculation and assessment of impact! to coastal aage aerub (0.04 acne) and Muthem willow
scrub (0. 14 acre* ) and the mitigation (acquisition of 0,08 cere end iwageteifon/reftoratkm of
MflY-28-1998 14:30 P. 03
Mr. Michael Bardin
May 28, 1998
Page 2
0.42 acre, respectively). To be judged complete by tha wildti& agencies, the rtvtgeution plan
aathvucce»v^
years during the performance period in addHieu to tfaa conditions contained hi the
proposal. The wfldfifc agcncto nqueit review of the proposed Joeatloiu of the revegetatfon site
and have concuirenca authority regarding the final iJTo tetotton.
from the Department. To obtam in application for an agreement, ptoie comwt the Depattment
of Fish w3dOam«,Envirctiment4lS«nioea, 330 OoJden Short, Suite $0, Long Beach, CA 90802.
If you have any ipedficquattiom regarding this raspome, please contact Ms. Tern
Stewart (Department) at (619) 467-4209 or ML Julie Vindecwier (Service) at (760) 431-9440.
Stocewfc
Wflliam E. TippcU .
KCCP KeW Sapetvisor Asslftaflt R^d Supervisor
Depirtment ofFlsh and Game U.S. fish and VPHdlifo Sarvioe
co: DepanmemofFitliandGaine
GtilPrealey
TeniSttwirt
US,F3shaadWlWllftServie«
Nancy Oilbcrt
JuGeVaaderwier
»axony.bt
•I
MPIY-29-199S 10:27 LCLJD 760 753 3094 P.02
To:
Subject
San Diego County Archaeological SocietyEnvironmental Review Committee '
28 May 1998
Mr. Mike Bardin, Assistant General Manager
Leucadia County Water District
1960 La Costa Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92009
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
MAY 28
LEUCAOWCOUNfT
Dear Mr. Bardin:
I have reviewed the subject Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration on behalf of this committee
of the San Diego County Archaeological Society.
Based on the information contained in the MND and its Attachment C, we concur in the
impact analysis and mitigation measures, including curstion of arty resulting cultural resources
collections, as stated in Section S.I 4 of the MND.
Thank you for including SDCAS in the Districts environmental review process for this
project.
Sincerely,
Environmental Review Committee
cc: ASM Affiliates
SDCAS President
file
P.O. Box «1 106 . Sen Oi*gw. CA 53«-<W36
JUN-0S-199S 09=45 LCUID 760 753 3094 P.02
>tate of California
PETE WILSON
GOVERNOR
PAULF MINER
DIRECTOR
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
May 29, 1998
RECEIVED
JUN -3 1998
LEUCAOIA COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT
JIM HARRY
LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
I960 LA COSTA AVENUE
CARLSBAD; CA 92009
Subject: SAXOKTY PUMP STATION REHABILITATION PROJECT SCH #:
98041143
Dear JIM HARRY:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental
document to selected state agencies for review. The review period
is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This
letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State
Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental
documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding
the environmental review process. When contacting the
Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State
Clearinghouse number so that We may respond promptly.
Sincerely,
m
m
ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA
Chief, State Clearinghouse
(JUN-08-1998 09:45 LCUJD
•>• Notice of Completion and Environmental
, Document Transmittal Form
Mail to: State Clearinghouse. 1400 Tenth Street. Sacramento. CA 9S814 - 916M4S.0613
760 753 3094 P.03
Sets NOTE betow
980411SCH#
Saxonv Puma Station Rehabilit:•1. Project TWe:
2. Lead Agency: l.aiuarii;i Comity Wilier District 3. Contact Person:..
' 3a. Street Address: IWiO Li Cicila Aviimm 3b. Cllv: Carlsbad "
3C. County; San Diceo Couiirv 3d. Zip;
Jim Harry
3e. PflOlie: (766} 942-5U7
of La Costa Avenue / Saxonv Road iniemealon
4a. City/Community:,
Projacl Location.N San Diegn County - 400 feq
' 4. Courny:_San Diego Camay
4b. Assessor's Parcel ff ___ 2lfi-l in-ou _ ________
i 4c. Section: N / A _ Twp. _ Range: _
Sa. Cross Streets: La Costa Avc.. PCH. Saxony Rd. 5b. For Rural, Nearest Community: Citv of Carlsbad
6. Within 2 Miles:
c, Railways: N«
a. State Hwyjfr PCH M-5 b. Airports: None
d, Waterways: Encinitas Creek. Batiouitos Lagoon
7. Document Type <;»' ^ t!.
CEQA: 01.QNOP 05. Q Supplemental/Subsequent ElriV'toEPA: 09. D NOIOTHER; 13. n Joint Document
02. LJ Early Cons (Prior SCH No.: .> ''\^\ 10.UFONSI 14.uFlnalDoeumem
03-BNcgDec Oe.GNOg .-.' H.-QOraRElS 15.DOtner
Qd. fi Draft E1R 07.nNOC OB.riNOD 1ZHEA
». Local Action Type
01. n Qsneral Plan update02.0 New Element
03.0 General Plan Amendment
04, U Master Plan
OS. GAnnexatlon 09. Q Vacation-open space easement 12. • Waste Mgmt Plan06.D Specific Plan 10.D Land Division (Subdivision, 13. a Ag Preserve Modlf.
07. D Community Plan Amend. Parcel Map, Tract Map. ate) 14. D Reclamation
Plan
OB. D Rezone 11. Q Use Permit Modification 1S. H Redevelopment
9. Development Type
01. n Residential: Units
02.0 Office; Sq.H.
03. G Shopping/Commercial:
oe. a Transportation:
Acres 07, CJ Mining: Mineral
Acres Employees 08. D Power
Sg.it Acres Employees.
Type
04. LJ Industrial:
05. n Water Facilities:
_
MCD
Acres
Type Watts
09. • Waste Treatment:
T/oe Scwace - modifications to pump sxatiQiBEmployees 10. n OCS Related
11. n Other: .
10. Total Acres 0.45 acfe 11. Total Jobs Created N/A
12. Project Issues Discussed in Document
Ol. • Aesthetic/Visual
Q2- • Agricultural Land
03. • Air Quality
04. • Archaeological/Historical
05. M Coastal Zone
06. U Economic
07. • Fire Hazard
08. • Flooding/Drainage
OS. • Geologic/Seismic
10, • Jobs/Housing Balance
11.1 Minerals12. • Noise
13. • Public Service*
14. • Schools
15. D Septic Systems
16. • Sewer Capacity
17. n Social
18. • Soil Erosion
19. Q Solid Waste
20. • Toxic/Hazardous
21. •Traffic/Circulation
22.1 Vegetation
23. • Water Quality
24. • Water Supply
25. • Wetland/Riparian
25, • Wildlife
27. • Growth Inducing
28. • incompatible Land Usa
29. • Cumulative Effects
30. Q Dark Skies
31. • Public Health and Safely
13. Funding (approx.) Federal SMone State t None Total SJjone
Slate Clearinghouse Ctmuci:Mr. Chris Balslcy
(9l6)445-0fi!3
Project Sent to the following Sme Agencies
Sow Review Began: 7 • 2 7 • 7 f*
DepL Review to Agency _.-$""- <^X.
Agency Rev to SCH
SCH COMPLIANCE .J~-
Please note SCII Number on ill Comments
98041143
Pleue forward late comments directly to tde
Lead Agency
X JteuJnreeJ
__ Boadng
X Coastal Comm
COASI&I Consv
~ " ' Colorado Hvf Bd
XT Coitftrvation
_X_Fish&G!mia *
___ D*lta Protection
_ Forestry
Slsle/Couumer $vei
General Seivkss
CaVEPA , .
Reclamnlion
BCDC
DWR
OSS
BnsTnoupHons
Aeronautics
CHP ,
_ '/
Trans Planning
Housing *0*vcl
Health & Welfare
, Drinking HZO
Modkal Waste
_
_- _ CA Wa»te Mgmt Bd
_ SWRCB: Grunts
__ SWRCB; Ctelti
__ SWRCB: Wtr Quality
_ SWRCB: WffRiuhu
X Reg.WQCa#_JL
"2 _ PTSC/CTC
YUVAdh Corrections
_ Corrections
Independent Comm
__ Energy Cumra
_>_NAMC
XT PUC
_ Sanm Mn Mma
X SB^* Lands Comm
_ TahoeRglt'lan
Other __
JUN-17-1998 19:54 LCWD 760 753 3094 P.02
REPLY TO
ATTENTnONOR
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OP ENGINEERS
SAN DIEGO RELD OFFICE
10645 RANCHO BERNARDO HD, SUITE 210
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92127
June 5,1998
RECEIVED
JUN' 17 1998
LEUCADIA COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
Leucadia County Water District
Attn: Mr. Mike Bardin
1960 La Costa Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92009
Dear Mr. Bardin:
We have received the "Notice of a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration: Saxony Pump
Station Rehabilitation Project," For the project, the applicant, Leucadia County Water District
plans to relocate an access road for the Saxony pump station as well as improvements to the
station facilities. The access road would extend from an area near the Saxony Road/La Costa
Avenue intersection approximately 400 feet west of the pump station. The project is located
in the Cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas, San Diego County, California. This activity may
require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit.
A Corps of Engineers permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into, including any redeposit of dredged material within, "waters of the United States" and
adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Examples include,
but are not limited to:
1. creating fills for residential or commercial development, placing bank protection,
temporary or permanent stockpiling of excavated material, building road crossings,
backfilling for utility line crossings and constructing outfall structures, dams, levees, groins,
weirs, or other structures;
2. mechanized Jandclearing, grading which involves filling low areas or land leveling,
ditching, channelizing and other excavation activities that would have the effect of destroying
or degrading waters of the United States;
3. allowing runoff or overflow from a contained land or water disposal area to re-enter
a water of the United States;
4. placing pilings when such placement has or would have the effect of a discharge of
fill material.
m
m
m
m
m
•P.JUN-17-1998 19:54 LCUID 760 753 3094 P.03
-2-
The Mitigated Negative Declaration should assess impacts to Corps jurisdiction, as well
as alternatives to avoid and /or minimize such impacts, and acknowledge the need for a
Corps permit if such impacts are planned. Enclosed you will find a permit application form
and a pamphlet that describes our regulatory program. Please include this letter in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration. If you have any questions, please contact me at
(619) 674r5384. Please refer to this letter and 98-20231-DZ in your reply.
Sincerely,
David A. Zoutendy
Project Manager
Regulatory Branch
Enclosures
Responses to Comments for Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project *
United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and *
Game **
1. The District intends to locate the wetland mitigation efforts, if feasible, within the Batiquitos
Lagoon area. The District is currently coordinating with the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation
to explore the possibility of implementing a joint wetland creation program within the jg
Lagoon area north of La Costa Avenue. —
As discussed in Section 3.2 of the draft mitigated negative declaration, mitigation for p
impacts to coastal sage scrub, would consist of acquiring 0.08 acres of property characterized *
by coastal sage scrub. If feasible, a conservation easement shall be placed on the property
to preserve it as permanent open space. It is anticipated that the acquisition area would be •
would be located within the City of Calsbad or Encinitas. •*
2. As discussed in Section 3.2 of the draft mitigated negative declaration, the District will '
obtain a streambed alteration agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game *"
for impacts to wetland habitat. In association with obtaining an alteration agreement the
District shall submit the proposed wetland mitigation plan to the CDFG for review and
approval.
m3. Please see response to comment #2. m
San Diego Archaeological Society m
m
4. Comment noted.
m
State Clearinghouse m
5. Comment noted. *
Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers
6. Comment noted. As discussed in Section 5.7 of the draft mitigated negative declaration, m
implementation of the project would result in impacts to 0.14 acres of wetland habitat. The
district intends to (see section 3.2 of draft mitigated negative declaration) mitigate the loss
of wetland habitat at a ratio of 3:1 through creation of 0.42 acres of wetland habitat.
Considering the minimal acreage of wetlands impacted and that mitigation would be m
provided at a ratio of 3:1 to ensure that "no-net loss" of wetlands occurs, the District intends m
to comply with the Nationwide Permit process pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. MI
DRAFT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SAXONY PUMP STATION REHABILITATION PROJECT
Lead Agency
LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
1960 La Costa Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92009
Tel: (760) 753-0155
Contact: Mike Ear din, Assistant General Manager
Environmental Consultant
&ASSOCIATES
A California Corporation
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Tel: (760) 942-5147
Contact: Jim Harry
April 199ft
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
TABLE Of CONTENTS
Page No.
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Need and Objectives 1
1.2 Summary of Project Description 1
1.3 Authority to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration 1
1.4 Other Agencies That May Use The Negative Declaration
and Initial Study/Environmental Evaluation 2
1.5 Public Review Process 2
SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4
2.1 Project Location 4
2.2 Project Characteristics 4
2.3 Project Schedule 9
SECTION 3 PROPOSED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT 10
3.1 No Significant Effect Finding 10
3.2 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program 12
SECTION 4 INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 17
SECTION 5 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 28
5.1 Land Use and Planning 28
5.2 Population and Housing 29
5.3 Geologic Problems 30
5.4 Water 33
5.5 Air Quality 35
5.6 Transportation/Circulation 37
5.7 Biological Resources 38
5.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 41
5.9 Hazards 42
A C<hf*r»ii C.rp.i
1545-60
April 24,1998
m
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
TABLE Or CONTENTS "m
Page No. H
m
5.10 Noise 43
5.11 Public Services 44 „
5.12 Utilities and Service Systems 45
5.13 Aesthetics 47 H
5.14 Cultural Resources 48 *
5.15 Recreation 50
5.16 Mandatory Findings of Significance 50
m
m
LIST Or flGLRES
IPS
m
Figure 1 Regional Map 5
Figure 2 Vicinity Map 6 HI
Figure 3 Site Plan 7 m
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Geotechnical Investigation (AGRA Earth & Environmental)
Attachment B Biological Resources Determination (Dudek & Associates, Inc.)
Attachment C Cultural Resources Survey (ASM Affiliates)
I&ASSOCIATES '
April 24,1998 ii it
m
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES
The Leucadia County Water District (LCWD) provides wastewater collection, treatment, and
disposal services for an approximately 9,100-acre area within the City of Carlsbad planning
community of La Costa and the City of Encinitas planning communities of Leucadia and Olivenhain.
The objective of the proposed project is to construct improvements to the existing Saxony pump
station and to provide the district with access to the station. The access is required because the
existing access to the District's pump station will be eliminated by the City of Carlsbad's La Costa
Avenue Widening project which is scheduled to be complete in 1998. No expansion of the existing
pump station capacities is proposed as a part of the project.
1.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of relocating an access road for the Saxony Road pump station as well as
improvements to the station facilities. The access road would extend from an area near the Saxony
Road/La Costa Avenue intersection approximately 400 feet west to the pump station. The relocated
access road would be constructed adjacent to the edge of the La Costa Avenue right-of-way.
Improvements to the pump station would include undergrounding the pump station facilities,
undergrounding existing SDG&E utilities, the addition of a standby generator, and expansion of the
area for a truck turnaround. The proposed project encompasses approximately 0.45 acre
(approximately 0.16 acre for the pump station, generator enclosure and truck turnaround area,
approximately 0.13 acre for the access road, and approximately 0.16 acre for the undergrounding of
utilities).
t .3 AUTHORITY TO PREPARE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
LCWD is the lead CEQA agency responsible for implementing the pump station improvements as
well as construction of the access road. Based on the findings of the Initial Study/Environmental
Evaluation (Sections 4 and 5) prepared for this project, LCWD has made the determination that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental document to be prepared
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As provided for by CEQA
1545-60
April 24, 1998
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
§21064.5, an MND may be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when an Initial Study has
identified potentially significant effects on the environment but revisions in the project have been
made where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur.
This draft MND has been prepared by LCWD as the lead agency and in conformance with §15070,
subsection (a), of the State CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of the MND and the Initial
Study/Environmental Evaluation is to determine the potential significant impacts associated with
the proposed Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Proj ect and incorporate mitigation measures into
the project design as necessary to reduce or eliminate the significant or potentially significant effects
of the project (see Section 3, Proposed Finding of No Significant Effect}.
1.4 OTHER AGENCIES THAT MAY USE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This MND is intended to be used by responsible and trustee agencies that may have review authority
over the project. LCWD will obtain all permits as required by law. Based on the analysis in Section
4 (Initial Study/Environmental Checklist) and Section 5 (Discussion of Environmental Impacts) of
this document, other permits by responsible agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed project
include the following:
• Easement quitclaim - San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E);
• Surface Lease of State Lands Permit - California State Lands Commission;
• Coastal Development Permit, City of Carlsbad;
• Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement - California Department of Fish and
Game.
• Certificate of Registration - San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Order No. 96-41-NPDES Permit #919002 - Regional Water Quality Control Board
1.5 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
In accordance with CEQA, a good faith effort has been made during the preparation of this MND
to contact affected agencies, organizations and persons who may have an interest in this project.
This MND has been distributed to the following individuals and organizations:
1545-60
April 24,1998
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
San Diego Air Pollution Control District;
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board;
California Coastal Commission;
California State Lands Commission;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
City of Carlsbad;
City of Encinitas;
Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation;
United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
California Department of Fish and Game; and
San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
In reviewing the MND and Initial Study/Environmental Evaluation, affected public agencies and the
interested public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the
possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project are
proposed to be avoided or mitigated.
Comments may be made on the MND in writing before the end of the comment period. A 30-day
review and comment period from April 29,1998 to May 28,1998 has been established, in accordance
with §15072(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Following the close of the public comment period, LCWD
will consider this MND and comments thereto in determining whether to approve the proposed
project.
Written comments on the MND should be sent to the following address by 5:00 PM, May 28,1998.
Leucadia County Water District
1960 La Costa Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Attention: Mike Bardin, Assistant General Manager
April 24,1998
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
SECTION 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project is located in the County of San Diego within the City of Carlsbad (see Figures -/ and 2).
The existing pump station is located approximately 400 feet to the west of the La Costa
Avenue/Saxony Road intersection and immediately adjacent to the north of La Costa Avenue. The
relocated access road would extend from the La Costa Avenue/Saxony Road intersection west to the
pump station (see Figure 3).
2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The project consists of relocating the existing access road for the Saxony Road pump station as well
as improvements to the station as shown in Figure 3, Site Plan. The relocated access road would
replace the existing dirt access road which will be eliminated by the La Costa Avenue widening
project, and would extend from an area near the Saxony Road/La Costa Avenue intersection
approximately 400 feet west to the pump station. The access road will include site security gating
and would be relocated adjacent to the edge of the La Costa Avenue right-of-way. Improvements to
the pump station would include undergrounding the pump station facilities, undergrounding existing
SDG&E utilities, clearing and paving of an area for service vehicle access, and the addition of standby
generator facilities.
Access Road and Associated Improvements
As a part of the proposed project, the relocated access road would be extended from the La Costa
Avenue/Saxony Road intersection approximately 400 feet west to the pump station. As shown in
Figure 3, the twelve-foot wide access road would be paved and would extend from the edge of the
proposed right-of way for the widened La Costa Avenue. The following improvements would be
associated with construction of the access road:
An existing SDG&E easement would be quitclaimed to accommodate the relocated access
road. As a part of the quitclaim, existing overhead electrical power poles would be
undergrounded. As shown in Figure 3, underground electric and telephone facilities would
I&ASSOCIATBSI
April 24,1998
Orange
County
Riverside County
Fallbrook
Camp
Pendleton
Oceanside\Vista
San
Marcos
Carlsbad Project Site
Valley
Center
Escondido
Encinitas
Del Mar \
Rancho
Santa Fe
Mira Mesa
Rancho
Bernardo /
Poway
Santee
La Jolla
San Diego
Coronado
. National
City
I La Mesa
-^ .
Lemon
Grove
f" >V
1" = 8 Miles
Source: San Diego Association of Governments
Imperial
Beach
Chula
Vista
Otay Mesa
.r>-
Alpine
Tijuana Mexteo
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project - Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regional Map
1" = 2,000 Feet
Source: U.S.G.S 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Series
Encinitas Quadrangle
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project - Mitigated Negative Declaration
Vicinity Map
ROS 10774
LOt -14
2" IP (LS4300) PER
ROS 10774
SE COR LOT 14
EXIST MITIGATION AREA
(CITY OF CARLSBAD)
LA COSTA 8
ynuTf i rr
EXIST SMH
(FL=1.36)ROS 10452
LOt 8
LEGEND
NEW PROPERTY LINE FOR EXISTING PUMP STATION
EXIST WET WELL
NEW 6' HIGH GREEN PVC COATED CHAINUNK FENCE W/
3 ROWS OF BARBED WIRE
NEW 3" AC OVER 6" AGGREGATE BASE
NEW MOTOR CONTROL CENTER
NEW VALVE VAULT
NEW LOCATION FOR EXISTING BIOXIDE TANK
NEW 100 KV DIESEL STAND-BY GENERATOR
NEW ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER
NEW LOCATION OF 12' WIDE ACCESS ROAD
EXISTING 4' HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE TO REMAIN
CAUr-ON, '"^^IffiS&ffiS* OUT
TO BE CLEARED
EXIST 12" SEWER FORCE MAIN (ABANDONED)
EXIST SEWER CATHODIC TEST STATION TO REMAIN
EXIST 15" INFLUENT SEWER LINE
EXIST 6" DUCTILE IRON FORCE MAIN
BENCHMARK AND WESTERLY POINT OF BASIS OF BEARING
NEW CONCRETE CURB
NEW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL
NEW 12' WIDE x 6' HIGH GREEN PVC COATED SWiNG
CHAINLINK REMOTE CONTROL GATE
NEW TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
NEW PULL BOX
NEW TELEPHONE CONDUIT
NEW ELECTRICAL CONDUIT
I BENCHMARK
OF BEARINGOIw vr •-••-•-«•••--•—
BASIS OF BEARING IS THE BEARING BETWEEN SAN DIEGO
RUISPOINTS "R1796 70+50POT" AND
BC" BONG NORTH 88'49'06" WEST
AX's >
oX
CO
No Scale
J SOURCE: Dudek & Associates, inc.Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project - Mitigated Negative Declaration
Site Plan
FIGURE
3
0
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
be extended under La Costa Avenue to connect with an existing power pole located at the
southwest corner of the La Costa Avenue/Saxony Road intersection. As a part of this
undergrounding, telephone and electrical facilities, an electrical transformer and a telephone
pedestal will be constructed within a retaining wall enclosure. All excavation for
underground utilities would take place within the planned right-of-way for La Costa Avenue.
Facilities to be constructed at the access point from La Costa Avenue would include a
concrete driveway and curb, and a 3-foot high retaining wall. These facilities are necessary
to provide safe ingress and egress from the widened La Costa Avenue roadway.
Improvements to Existing Pump Station
Existing 0.02 acre LCWD property would be expanded to approximately 0.18 acre to allow
for maintenance vehicle access and turnaround. The expanded area (shown in Figure 3)
would be graded to create a level area, paved and surrounded by chain link fencing.
Existing station facilities would be placed approximately five feet underground in concrete
enclosures.
Enclosure would be constructed along the southern border of the expanded LCWD property
that would house a 100 KV Diesel standby generator, electric transformer, and bioxide tank.
The enclosure would consist of a concrete pad and six-foot retaining wall, located within the
slope area of the widened La Costa Avenue roadway.
As a part of undergrounding existing facilities, an enclosure housing a standby power transfer
switch and motor control center will be placed at the northeast corner of the existing pump
station property.
Operations
The operational characteristics of the proposed project will consist of running the standby diesel
generator for a maximum of 15 minutes each week (up to a maximum of 50 hours per year) for
maintenance to ensure that the generator is operational, as well as for emergency situations when
electrical power failures occur.
April 24,1998
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
Operation of the existing pump station will not change. Existing District staff currently assigned
to the station are adequate for continued operations following implementation of the proposed site H
improvements. •
2.3 PROJECT SCHEDULE m
m
Construction of the proposed project will take approximately four months. It is anticipated that the p
project would be constructed immediately following completion of the widening of La Costa Avenue Hi
by the City of Carlsbad. There will be approximately 6 workers on the project.
m
m
&ASSOCUTES .
April 24,1998
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
SECTION 3
PROPOSED EINDINQ OE NO SIGNIFICANT EEEECT
LCWD finds that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment based on
the results of the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist (see Section 4) and the Environmental
Evaluation Discussion (see Section 5, Discussion of Environmental Impacts). Measures have been
incorporated into the project to ensure that any impacts will be less than significant. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration is therefore proposed to satisfy the requirements of CEQA (PRC 21000 et. seq.
14 Cal Code Regs 15000 et. seq.). This conclusion is supported by the following:
3.1 NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT FINDING
1. Land Use: The proposed project would be compatible with the existing and surrounding
land uses adjacent to the project site. Measures have been incorporated into the project
design to reduce potential impacts associated withnoise from the proposed standby generator
and wetland disturbance (see Section 3.2, Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program, and
Section 5-1, Land Use and Planning}.
2. Population and Housing: The capacity of the existing station is not being increased,
therefore the proposed project would not generate additional population, and the approval
of the project would have a less than significant effect on human population and housing (see
discussion under Section $.2, Population and Housing).
3. Geologic Problems: No long-term geologic problems would occur with implementation of
measures recommended as a part of the geotechnical investigation conducted for the project
(see discussion under Section 3.2, Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program, and Section $.3,
Geologic Problems).
4. Water: No long-term adverse impact to local waters is anticipated as a result of this project.
Measures are incorporated into the project which reduce project effects associated with
potential discharge of sediments and dewatering activities into the Batiquitos Lagoon to less
than significant (see Section 3.2, Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program, as well as the
discussion under Section 5-4, Water).
1545-60
April 24,1998 10
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
5. Air Quality: Measures are incorporated into the project which reduce effects associated
with generation of particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) and emissions from the *
standby generator to less than significant (see Section 3.2, Mitigation Measures and Monitoring **
Program as well as the discussion under Section f>.5, Air Quality).
Mi
m
6. Transportation and Circulation: It is not anticipated that construction of the project
would affect vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian traffic on La Costa Avenue. The first phase of H
construction would involve the clearing of the vehicle turnout area. Following completion •*
of the turnout, construction equipment for the access road and miscellaneous equipment
placement will be stored within the turnout area. No construction equipment would operate
or be stored within the La Costa Avenue right-of-way.
P
7. Biological Resources: Measures are incorporated into the project to mitigate direct impacts m
to biological resources associated with grading for the maintenance access road and
turnaround area. Measures are also incorporated into the project which reduce indirect •^n
biological resource impacts associated with construction adjacent to the Batiquitos Lagoon
and potential noise impacts associated with the standby generator (see Section 3.2, Mitigation M
Measures and Monitoring Program, as well as the discussion under Section 5-7, Biological m
Resources).
m
8. Energy and Mineral Resources: The proposed project's long-term usage of diesel fuel in "*
association with the standby generator is not anticipated to exceed the use and demand _
anticipated by SDG&E (see discussion under Section 5.8, Energy and Mineral Resources).
9. Hazards: Observance of standard safety measures during construction and operation/ "
maintenance will reduce the risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances to a less than w*
significant level. Traffic control measures incorporated into the project construction process
reduce potential hazards to pedestrian and bicyclists (see discussion under Sections 3.2,
HiMitigation Measures and Monitoring Program, and 5-9, Hazards).
m
10. Noise: Measures are incorporated into the project which reduce noise impacts associated m
with construction activities to less than significant. Measures have been incorporated into
the design of the proposed standby generator to avoid potential noise impacts to surrounding
residences and sensitive wildlife species (see Section 3.2, Mitigation Measures and Monitoring
Program, as well as the discussion under Section 5-10, Noise). m
April 24,1998 11
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
11. Public Services: The proposed project does not involve any new residents, and would not
generate a demand for public services; therefore, no impact to public services would occur (see
discussion under Section 5.14, Public Services).
12. Utilities and Service Systems: Existing capacity of the station will not be increased,
therefore implementation of the project would not involve a demand for new services and
utilities other than those constructed. The project design proposes undergrounding of
existing telephone and electrical utilities located within the area proposed for the access road
and SDG&E's quitclaim of their easement (see discussion under Section 5- 1Z, Utilities and
Service Systems).
13. Aesthetics: Existing pump station facilities would be placed underground as a part of the
project with the exception of two enclosures. Considering the proximity to the roadway, the
enclosures and access road are considered to be a visual extension of La Costa Avenue.
Therefore, no impacts to aesthetics would result from the proposed project (see discussion
under Section $.13, Aesthetics).
14. Cultural Resources: There is a potential for cultural resources to be located in the area to
be disturbed in association with project implementation. Based on a paleontological analysis
completed for the La Costa Road Widening project, geological formations underlying the
project vicinity include the Santiago Formation, Del Mar Formation, and Pleistocene marine
terrace deposits. Paleontological resource potential within these formations is considered to
be high. Measures have been incorporated into the proposed project to reduce potential
impacts to cultural and paleontological resources to less than significant (see Section 3.2,
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program, and discussion under Section 5- 14, Cultural
Resources),
15. Recreation: Implementation of the project would not affect existing or planned recreational
facilities (see Section 3.2 and discussion under Section 5.15, Recreation).
3.2 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM
LCWD has summarized here the various requirements imposed on the project to reduce impacts to
less than significant:
[.ASSOCIATES!
April 24,1998 12
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
Land Use and Planning: To comply with the City of Carlsbad's LCP, the following measures will
be incorporated into the project:
• Prior to construction, LCWD shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the City of
Carlsbad.
• Wetlands impact mitigation shall be a condition of the permit. As discussed in Section 5-7,
Biological Resources, LCWD will mitigate for impacts to wetlands.
• An established mitigation area adjoins the project site to the north. The construction plans
shall state that the Contractor for the proposed project will not disturb any areas outside of
the work area. Therefore, there will be no grading, landscaping or other disturbance within
the mitigation area.
In addition, measures required to reduce potential impacts from standby generator noise (See Noise,
below) and direct impacts to wetlands (see Biological Resources, below) will reduce identified
inconsistencies with the environmental goals of the relevant land use plans to below a level of
significance.
Geologic Problems:
• Plans and specifications for the proposed project shall incorporate standard geotechnical
recommendations as presented in the AGRA Geotechnical Report. Measures are
recommended in the areas of site preparation and grading, slabs on grade, retaining walls,
flexible pavement structural section, corrosion and geotechnical and construction review.
The complete AGRA investigation including the recommendations, is included as
Attachment A to this report.
• Erosion control measures, such as the use of sandbags, will be implemented to reduce
potential soil erosion during construction.
Water :
Prior to construction, the Contractor shall obtain Order No. 96-41-NPDES Permit #919002
from the RWQCB for dewatering activities. (The official title of the permit to be obtained
is: General Waste Discharge Requirements for Groundwater and Similar Waste Discharges for Some
|&ASSOClATIS| 4 ' °
April 24,1998 13
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
Construction and Remediation Projects to Surface Waters Within San Diego Region Except San Diego
Bay.} The permit may be conditioned to protect the water quality in the project vicinity.
These conditions may include treatment, discharge sampling, monitoring and reporting.
Air Quality:
• LCWD will require, as part of the construction documents, measures to reduce PM10 dust
emissions including the use of watering and other dust control measures during project
construction.
• The Contractor shall obtain a Certificate of Registration from the SDAPCD for operation of
the standby generator to ensure that emissions do not result in adverse impacts to ambient
air quality.
Biological Resources:
• Prior to construction, impacts to 0.04 acre of coastal sage scrub will be mitigated by the
acquisition (by LCWD) of 0.08 acre of coastal sage scrub within an approved mitigation bank
or planned open space (preserve) area. If not previously encumbered, appropriate easements
guaranteeing permanent preservation will be obtained.
• Prior to construction, LCWD will devise a revegetation plan and revegetate 0.42 acre of
southern willow scrub/mule fat scrub located offsite which is similar in species richness and
structure to that removed. LCWD will devise a Concept Plan which will include: 1) the
location of the project, 2) applicant responsibilities, 3) revegetation contractor responsibilities,
4) ownership status and, 5) present and proposed uses of the mitigation area. LCWD will
also devise an Implementation Plan which will include: 1) timing of construction activities,
2} timing of revegetation effort, 3) revegetation materials, 4) site preparation, 5) planting plan
and, 6) irrigation plan. A Maintenance Plan will also be devised by LCWD. Prior to
construction these plans will be reviewed and approved by local resource agencies including
the California Department of Fish and Game. This revegetation effort will be subject to a 5-
year monitoring period and performance criteria as dictated in the revegetation plan.
• To reduce the generator noise to a one-our average noise level of 60 dB or less at the adjacent
biological habitat area, a minimum six-foot high noise barrier will be designed by a qualified
acoustician and constructed along the north side of the generator. The barrier should be
iASSOCUTIS '
April 24,1998 14
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
aligned so as to connect to the east and west side retaining walls. Due to access
requirements, the barrier cannot be constructed of masonry material, therefore, it is *
recommended that tongue and groove boards with a minimum thickness of 3/4-inch be used •*
as a barrier material. Also, a sound absorbing material such as Pyrock Acoustement 40 (with
pPp
a minimum thickness of 1-5/8 inches) or equivalent, should be applied to the interior surfaces
of the retaining wall.
m
• Construction will not occur during the breeding seasons of three bird species (California «•>
gnatcatcher February 15 through August 15; least Bell's Vireo April 1 through July 31; and
southwestern willow flycatcher May 22 through July 31). If construction must occur during
the breeding season, weekly surveys must be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine
the presence/absence of the potentially affected species. If one or more of the species is •»
detected, construction must stop until noise levels can be demonstrably reduced to a level Ǥ
below 60 dB.m
Hazards: *-l
IV
• MeasuresincorporatedforTransportationabove(see5.6-athrough5.6-e)reduceconstruction ^
impacts to emergency routes to a level below significance.m
Noise: —l
m
• The hours of construction shall be restricted to 7AM to sunset Monday through Friday, and
SAM to sunset on Saturdays. An exemption to construction outside these times shall be
required for activities which extend beyond these times. ••
^
Cultural/Paleontological Resources:
• A qualified paleontological monitor (certified by the County of San Diego) will be present
during open excavation activities. LCWD will also contract with a qualified archaeologist m
(certified by the County of San Diego) to conduct monitoring during construction activities. ««
• If any paleontological or cultural resources are discovered during construction, grading would
be temporarily delayed to allow for recovery of these resources. **
1545-60
April 24,1998 15
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
Recovered resources would be cataloged and stored in a museum, following construction,
a report will be submitted to the District by the archaeologist and paleontologist that
documents the results of the monitoring.
I&ASSOCIATISI
April 24,1998 16
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
SECTION 4
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title: Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Leucadia CountY Water District
1960 La Costa Avenue
_ Carlsba^California 9200_9___
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mike Bardin' Assistant General Manager
(760)753-0155
4. Project Location: Northwest of the intersection of Saxony Road and La Costa
Avenue, Carlsbad, California
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Leucadia County Water District
Address: 196° La Costa Avenue
Carlsba^California 92009_
6. General Plan Designation: °Pen sPace and Community Park (OS)
7. Zoning: Planned Community (PC)
8. Description of Project: (Describe the entire action involved, including but not limited to later phases
of the project, and any secondary, support, or offsite features necessary for its implementation.
Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Access road for the Saxony Road pump station:
* To be constructed on an existing SD6&E easement; existing overhead electrical power poles will be undergrounded,
underground electric and telephone facilities would be extended under La Costa Avenue to connect with an existing power
pole at southwest corner of La Costa Avenue & Saxony Road;
* Improvements include a paved driveway and curb, as well as a retaining wall.
Improvements to the pump station:
* Expand existing property to allow for maintenance vehicle access and turn around, area to be graded to create a level area
and surrounded by chain link fencing;
* Place existing station facilities underground;
* Construct retaining wall along expanded southern border of property to house a 100 KV diesel standby generator, electric
transformer, and bioxide tank;
* As part of undergrounding facilities, construct enclosure housing a standby power switch and motor control center.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings)
The existing Saxony pump station is situated on the southern edge of Batiquitos Lagoon and is bordered on the north, east and
west by open space associated with the Batiquitos Lagoon, and on the south by La Costa Avenue. Residential development
is located on a hill to the south of La Costa Avenue.
April 24,1998 17
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
PROJECT INFORMATION
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement)
• Easement quitclaim - San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E)
• Surface Lease of State Lands Permit - California State Lands Commission
• Coastal Development Permit - City of Carlsbad
• Certificate of Registration - SDAPCD
• Order No. 96-41-NPDES Permit #919002 - RWQCB
• Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement - California Department of Fish and Game
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
D
D
D
D
D
D
Land Use and Planning D
Population and Housing D
Geological Problems D
Water D
Air Quality D
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
D Public Services
D Utilities and Service Systems
D Aesthetics
D Cultural Resources
D Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
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 a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one 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, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or is "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
1545-60
V C«Hf«r"i' CarptralUi April 24,1998 18
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
PROJECT INFORMATION
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
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:
1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and 2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to an earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project. The earlier EIR adequately analyzes the proposed project, so NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
'/i.Signature / Date
Mike Bardin Assistant General Manager Leucadia County Water District
Print Name Title
&ASS6CUTIS| 1 4 '
April 24,1998 19
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
EXPLANATION EOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information
sources a lead agency cites 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 (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors
as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the entire action involved including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-
level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. IF there are one
or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "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 lead agency must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from
Section 4.17, EARLIER ANALYSES, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. Earlier analyses are discussed in
Section 4.17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g.,
general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include
a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources
used, or individuals contacted, should be cited in the discussion.
7. This checklist has been adapted from the form in Appendix I of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended effective January 1,
1997.
8. Information sources cited in the checklist and the references used in support of this evaluation are listed in Section 7 of this
document.
(ASSOCIATES 1545-60
April 24,1998 20
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Refer to Section 5 for a detailed discussion of
environmental impacts
Discussion of Environmental Impacts
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No
impact
4.1. 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?
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)?
D
D
D
D
D
D El
D El
D El
D D
D D
D
D
D
EJ
El
4.2 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?
4.3 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Would the proposal result in, or expose people to
potential impacts involving landslides or
mudflows?
D
D
D
or expose people to
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D D
D D
potential impacts involving:
D El
D EJ
D D
D D
D D
El
El
El
D
D
El
El
El
1545-60
April 24,1998 21
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Refer to Section S for a detailed discussion of
environmental impacts
Discussion of Environmental impacts
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
tncotporated
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant No
impact Impact
El D
D H
n m
n H
4.4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alterations
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature.
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?
f) Change in the quantity of groundwater, 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?
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
D
D
n
D
n
n
B n
B n
B n
B n
n H
EI n
m n
m n
n B
1545-60
A C«K;«ra(a Co r jura If.*April 24,1998 22
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Refer to Section 5 for a detailed discussion of
environmental impacts
Discussion of Environmental Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
4.5 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?
c) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or
cause any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
4.6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
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?
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?
4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to, plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)?
D
D
n
n
proposal result in:
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
result in impacts to
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
n
:
D
• D
H D
n is
n B
B D
n B
n H
n H
H D
D H
D H
B D
&ASSOCIATES 1545-60
April 24,1998 23
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Refer to Section 5 for a detailed discussion of
environmental impacts
Potentially
Significant
Discussion of Environmental Impacts impact
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? „
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
n
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D El
El D
El D
D El
4.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
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 rj
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and state residents?
D
D
D
El D
D El
D El
4.9 HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of rj
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response D
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential rj
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable Q
brush, grass, or trees?
D
D
D
D
D
El D
D El
El D
El D
D El
1545.60&ASSOCIATES|
April 24, 1998 24
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Refer to Section 5 for a detailed discussion of
environ/nonfat impacts
Discussion of Environmental Impacts
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
impact Incorporated Impact Impact
4.10 NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
4.1 1 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
services, in any of the following areas:
a) Fire Protection?
b) Police Protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
D
D
effect upon, or result in a
D
D
D
D
D
4.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer, septic systems, or wastewater treatment
and disposal facilities?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste materials recovery or disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
H
H
n
n
need for new or altered governmen
D
n
n
n
n
for
D
D
D
n
n
n
n
n
D
D
n
n
new systems or supplies.
H
m
n
n
n
n
n
B
H
m
H
m
or
D
n
m
H
is
m
B
|&ASSOCIATES|1545-60
April 24,1998 25
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Refer to Section 5 for a detailed discussion of
environmental impacts
Discussion of Environmental Impacts
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Mo
Impact Impact
4.13 AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create adverse light or glare effects?
D D
n n
D n
B D
G3 D
H D
4.14 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?
n n
n n
n n
n n
n D
Kl D
E3 D
S D
H D
n E9
4.15 RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
n n
n n
n H
H n
4.16 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 rare or endangered plants or animals,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
n n El D
1545-60
April 24,1998 26
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Refer to Section 5 for a detailed discussion of
Discussion of Environmental impacts
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve rj
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts that are individually rj
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects rj
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
n
n
D
n
n n
4.17 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 [State CEQA Guidelines 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. Also, state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are checked as "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address project-specific conditions.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c), 21080.1,21080.3,21082.1,21083,31083.3,21093,21094,21151;
Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonoffv. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d
1337(1990).
1545-60
April 24,1998 27
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
SECTION 5
DISCUSSION Or ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
5.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. Would the proposal conflict with general plan designation or zoning^
Less than significant impact. While the project site's General Plan land use
designation is Open Space and Community Park (OS), and its zoning is Planned
Community (PC), a portion of the site is occupied and used by the existing Saxony
pump station. The proposed project would simply improve features at the existing
station; however, the project also proposes to expand the turnaround areas for the
pump station facilities from 0.02 acre to 0.31 acre. This expansion would minimally
encroach into land designated as Open Space and Planned Community. However,
because the encroachment would be minimal (approximately 0.29 acre), and
development of the access road and turnaround area is necessary for continued
operation of the existing Saxony Pump Station, the proposed project would not result
in significant conflicts with the designations and zoning for the site.
b. Would the proposal conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project^
Less than significant impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in
a conflict with adopted environmental policies of agencies with jurisdiction over the
project. See response to comment #5.1-a. Since the project is within the Coastal
Zone, it is subject to the City of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program (LCP). The project
has incorporated the following measures which would comply with the City of
Carlsbad's LCP:
• Prior to construction, LCWD shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from
the City of Carlsbad.
• Wetlands impact mitigation shall be a condition of the permit. As discussed
in Section 5J, Biological Resources, LCWD will mitigate for impacts to
wetlands.
1545-60
April 24,1998 28
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
• An established mitigation area adjoins the project site to the north. The
construction plans shall state that the Contractor for the proposed project
will not disturb any areas outside of the work area, therefore, there will be no
grading, landscaping or other disturbance within the mitigation area.
c. Would the proposal be compatible with existing land use in the vicinity^
Less than significant impact. The surrounding land is primarily vacant and
undeveloped, and the project will not add major structures in addition to those
akeady at the existing pump station and La Costa Avenue. The paved road and truck
turnaround area will be a continuation of the paved land use of La Costa Avenue.
Noise from the standby generator would not exceed 50 dB at the adjacent southern
property line in the City of Encinitas, and would not affect surrounding residential
uses. See response to comment #5.1-a.
d. Would the proposal affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)£
No impact. There are no agricultural resources or operations at the project site or in
the immediate project vicinity.
e. Would the proposal disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or minority community) £
No impact. The project will be located on existing LCWD property and adjacent
land currently used as an SDG&E utility easement. The project will not disrupt or
divide the physical arrangement of any established communities in the project
vicinity.
5.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. Would the proposal cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections^
No impact. No portion of the project construction or operation would result in the
generation of additional population. The existing and proposed Saxony Road Pump
|& ASSOCIATES 1545-60
April 24, 1998 29
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
Station Rehabilitation would serve the same existing service area of LCWD. No
additional capacity to the existing pump station is proposed as part of the project.
No extension of services and no residences are associated with the proposed project.
Therefore, the proposed project would not generate additional population or
cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections.
b. Would the proposal induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or
major infrastructure •r)
No impact. See response to comment #5.2-a.
c. Would the proposal displace existing housing, especially affordable housing^
No impact. See response to comment #5.1-e.
5.3 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
a. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
fault rupture^
Less than significant impact. An investigation of the geotechnical issues associated
with implementation of the proposed project was conducted by AGRA Earth and
Environmental in 1997 (see Attachment A). The project site is within the regional
influence of a number of active fault zones. While several faults have been mapped
in the project vicinity, none are considered to be active. Although these faults are not
considered to be independent, seismogenic sources, they reflect a small risk of surface
rupture in the case of a large magnitude event on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone,
which lies approximately 20 miles northwest of the project site, or on the Rose
Canyon Fault Zone, which is located approximately 4 miles to the southwest of the
project site.
Implementation of the following measure will reduce exposure of people to impacts
involving fault rupture to below a. level of significance.
^ASSOCIATES 1545'6°
April 24,1998 30
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
• Plans and specifications for the proposed project shall incorporate standard
geotechnical recommendations as presented in the AGRA report (see
Attachment A).
Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
seismic ground shaking^
Less than significant impact. See response to comment #5.3-a.
Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
seismic ground failure, including liquefaction^
No impact. While the soils encountered in test borings conducted as a part of the
1997 AGRA investigation at the site appear susceptible to liquefaction in the event
of a maj or earthquake, structures and excavation procedures will be designed to avoid
impacts from liquefaction.
Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard £
No impact. No exposure of people to tsunamis or seiche are anticipated to occur. No
volcanoes are located in the project vicinity.
Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
landslides or mudflows?
No impact. The topography of the project site is relatively flat, which is not
conducive to landslides. The project will develop a small amount of land (0.29 acre)
involving limited grading. As a result, implementation of the proposed project is not
anticipated to result in exposure of people to impacts associated with landslides or
mudflows.
1545-60
April 24,1998 31
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
f. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or filK
Less than significant impact. No major changes in topography and subsequently
the use of manufactured slopes will result from implementation of the proposed
project. Construction of the project could result in some erosion due to soil
disturbance during grading. However, the following will be incorporated into the
project to reduce potential erosion to a less than significant level.
• Erosion control measures, such as the use of sandbags, will be implemented
to reduce potential soil erosion during construction.
g. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
subsidence of the land£
No impact. Subsidence is not anticipated to occur due to the limited extent of
grading required for project construction. Therefore, exposure of people to potential
impacts associated with land subsidence is not anticipated.
h. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
expansive soils'r
No impact. According to the AGRA study, the near-surface soils are not expansive
and no structures are associated with the proposed project, therefore, no exposure of
people to potential impacts from expansive soils would occur.
i. Would the proposal result in or expose people to unique geologic or physical
features^
No impact. No unique geological or physical features are located at the proposed
project site. Therefore, no exposure of people to unique geologic features would
occur.
^ASSOCIATES! I
<C""""" April 24,1998 32
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
5.4 WATER
a. Would the proposal result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff £
Less than significant impact. Implementation of the project would not
substantially alter existing drainage patterns. While construction of the access road
and vehicle turnaround would increase the extent of impervious surfaces in the
pro] ect vicinity, these impervious surfaces would only cover an area of approximately
0.29 acre. It is not anticipated that the minor increase in impervious surfaces would
significantly alter drainage patterns associated with the Lagoon or La Costa Avenue.
b. Would the proposal result in exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding^
Less than significant impact. Although a portion of the proposed access road
crosses an area designated as being within 100-year floodplain levels of the Batiquitos
Lagoon, the La Costa Avenue widening project will include the construction of a
drainage culvert which will capture storm waters and divert them into Batiquitos
Lagoon to the west of the project site. Therefore, impacts associated with exposure
of people or property to flooding would be less than significant.
c. Would the proposal result in discharge into surface waters or other
alterations of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or
turbidity*)
Less than significant impact. No change to the location or amount of effluent
associated with the existing pump station operation would be associated with the
proposed improvements. Surface water could be affected in association with
proposed dewatering efforts necessary to underground the pump station facilities.
Dewatering will be required to prevent groundwater from flowing into the work area.
Water from this activity will be discharged into the nearest storm drain structure
associated with the widened La Costa Avenue. Dewatering is anticipated to be done
for approximately three weeks to one month. Changes in existing groundwater
conditions would be anticipated to be less than significant since the length of time
that dewatering will occur will be approximately three weeks to one month, and the
area of excavation will be small (approximately 0.004 acre).
I&ASSOCIATBSI 1545'6°
d C«rp*raif»n
April 24,1998 33
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
In addition, the District intends to implement the following measure:
• Prior to construction, the Contractor shall obtain Order No. 96-41-NPDES
Permit #919002 from the RWQCB for dewatering activities. (The official
title of the permit to be obtained is: General Waste Discharge Requirements for
Groundwater and Similar Waste Discharges for Some Construction and Remediation
Projects to Surface Waters Within San Diego Region Except San Diego Bay.) The
permit may be conditioned to protect the water quality in the proj ect vicinity.
These conditions may include treatment, discharge sampling, monitoring and
reporting.
d. Would the proposal result in changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body£
Less than significant impact See response to comment #5.4-c.
e. Would the proposal result in changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements^
No impact. No crossing of bodies of water is required to construct or operate the
project. Therefore, no changes in the currents or course of direction of the Batiquitos
Lagoon will occur as a result of the project.
f. Would the proposal result in changes in the quality of groundwater, either
through direct additions or 'withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability^
Less than significant impact. According to the AGRA study, groundwater is
located approximately 8-1/2 feet beneath the surface in the project vicinity. The
maximum depth the pump station, telephone and electrical facilities are proposed to
be placed underground is 5 feet. No other undergrounding of facilities is proposed.
As a result, it is not anticipated that implementation of the project would result in
permanent impacts to groundwater. However, the excavation depth necessary to
implement the undergrounding may exceed 5 feet. As a result, dewatering will be
required. Changes in existing groundwater conditions would be anticipated to be less
, 1545-60^ASSOCIATES
April 24,1998 34
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
than significant since the length of time that dewatering will occur will be
approximately three weeks to one month, and the area of excavation will be small
(approximately 0.004 acre). See response to comment #5.4-c.
g. Would the proposal result in altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater?-
Less than significant impact. See response to comment #5.4-f.
h. Would the proposal result in impacts to groundwater quality £
Less than significant impact. There will be no discharge into groundwater,
therefore, groundwater quality will not be impacted by the proposed project. Also see
response to comment #5.4-f.
i. Would the proposal result in substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies^
No impact. The groundwater in the project area is not used as a public water source.
Also see response to comment #5.4-f.
5.5 AIR QUALITY
a. Would the proposal violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
Less than significant impact. Construction activities would result in emissions of
carbon monoxide, reactive organic hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and
particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10). Project emissions are not anticipated
to exceed the significance thresholds for these pollutants established by the SDAPCD
for major sources due to the short-term nature of construction (approximately four
months).
Operation activities would not generate emissions with the exception of the diesel
standby generator. The generator would be run weekly for 15 minutes (up to a
ASSOC1ATIS 1545-60
A C«hf.rst« C»rp»r«tl»i
April 24,1998 35
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
maximum of 50 hours per year for maintenance) to ensure that the generator is
operational, as well as for emergency situations when electrical power is unavailable.
Considering the temporary nature of the generator operations, significant adverse
impacts to ambient air quality are not anticipated.
The following measures will be implemented to reduce impacts to air quality to a less
than significant level.
• LCWD will require, as part of the construction documents, measures to
reduce PM10 dust emissions including the use of watering and other dust
control measures during project construction.
• The Contractor will obtain a Certificate of Registration from the SDAPCD for
operation of the standby generator to ensure that emissions do not result in
adverse impacts to ambient air quality.
b. Would the proposal expose sensitive receptors to pollutants^
Less than significant impact. See response to comment #5.5-a. It is anticipated
that measures incorporated in the proposed project will reduce air quality impacts to
a less than significant level.
c. Would the proposal alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climated
No impact. The proposed project consists of improvements to an existing use at the
site which will require approximately four months to construct. Due to the minor
nature of the improvements and the short duration of construction, it is not
anticipated that the project will alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or
cause any change in climate.
d. Would the proposal create objectionable odors£
No impact. There will be no change in the current operations of the pump station.
Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in the creation of
objectionable odors. The proposed improvements may reduce the potential for
&ASSOCUTES "
April 24,1998 36
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
objectionable odors by improving the operation of the station and reducing the risk
of damage to, or malfunction of, the pump station.
5.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUIATION
a. Would the proposal result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion^
Less than significant impact. The proposed access road will replace an existing
access road which will be eliminated by the City of Carlsbad's La Costa Avenue
widening project. Implementation of the proposed project (including the truck
turnaround and pump station improvements) are intended to accommodate an
existing need for service vehicle access and will not result in increased vehicle trips or
traffic congestion.
A temporary increase in vehicular traffic in the vicinity of the project during
construction is anticipated, but is not considered to be significant due to its
temporary nature. It is not anticipated that construction of the project would affect
vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian traffic on La Costa Avenue. The first phase of
construction would involve the clearing of the vehicle turnout area. Following
completion of the turnout, construction equipment for the access road and
miscellaneous equipment placement will be stored within the turnout area. No
construction equipment would operate or be stored within the La Costa Avenue
right-of-way.
b. Would the proposal result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment^)
No impact. No hazardous transportation features are proposed as a part of the
project design. The site would be used exclusively by LCWD. As a part of the La
Costa Avenue widening project signals will be placed at the Saxony Road/ La Costa
Avenue intersection that will ensure safe entrance and exit of service vehicles from
La Costa Avenue.
1545-60
April 24,1998 37
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
c. Would the proposal result in inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses£
No impact. See response to comment #5.6-b.
d. Would the proposal result in insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite£
No impact. During the construction period, temporary worker parking and material
storage areas will be required and will be available onsite (see response to comment
#5.6-a). Implementation of the proposed project would provide adequate onsite
parking for service vehicles.
e. Would the proposal result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists^
Less than significant impact. See response to comment #5.6-a.
f. Would the proposal result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks'?)
No impact. No aspect of the construction or operation of the project would conflict
with either the City of Encinitas or City of Carlsbad adopted transportation policies
supporting alternative transportation.
g. Would the proposal result in rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts^
No impact. The proposed project does not involve any aspect of rail, waterborne, or
air traffic transportation and, therefore, would have no impacts in these areas.
5.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. Would the proposal result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare
species or their habitats (including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds£)
Less than significant impact. A biological survey of the project site was conducted
by Dudek &: Associates, Inc. biologists in January, 1998 (see Attachment B). Within
|&Ais"6'clAT3E'sl
A C.hf«r»t April 24,1998 38
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
the project area are three habitats which would be directly impacted by the proposed
project and are considered sensitive. Habitats directly impacted by the project include
0.04 acre of coastal sage scrub, and 0.14 acre of mule fat scrub/southern willow scrub.
Plant and animal species would also be affected with implementation of the proposed
project. Due to the minor number and isolated nature of the individuals affected, the
potential loss of three individuals of spiny rush (Juncus acutus) (a sensitive plant
species), which may occur with project implementation, is considered less than
significant. Impacts to sensitive animals would include the loss of suitable habitat
for the least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher and indirect impacts
from construction to the breeding success of any sensitive bird species onsite or in the
adjacent habitat which has been determined to be suitable for sensitive riparian
species including the least Bell's vireo.
Noise associated with the standby generator could impact the breeding success of any
sensitive bird species located in adjacent biological habitat area. The closest biological
habitat area is located approximately 20 to 25 feet from the proposed generator site.
The one-hour average noise level associated with the generator at the biological
habitat area would be approximately 67 dB without implementation of measures
described below.
The following measures will be incorporated into the- project to reduce impacts to
biological resources to a less than significant level:
• Prior to construction, impacts to 0.04 acre of coastal sage scrub will be
mitigated by the acquisition (by LCWD) of 0.08 acre of coastal sage scrub
within an approved mitigation bank or planned open space (preserve) area.
If not previously encumbered, appropriate easements guaranteeing permanent
preservation will be obtained.
• Prior to construction, LCWD will devise a revegetation plan and revegetate
0.42 acre of southern willow scrub/mule fat scrub located off site which is
similar in species richness and structure to that removed. LCWD will devise
a Concept Plan which will include: 1) the location of the project, 2) applicant
responsibilities, 3) revegetation contractor responsibilities, 4) ownership
status and, 5) present and proposed uses of the mitigation area. LCWD will
also devise an Implementation Plan which will include: 1) timing of
construction activities, 2) timing of revegetation effort, 3) revegetation
I&ASSOCIATESI
A CalifiTiiia C«rj>«r»H»*April 24,1998 39
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
materials, 4) site preparation, 5) planting plan and, 6) irrigation plan. A
Maintenance Plan will also be devised by LCWD. Prior to construction these
plans will be reviewed and approved by local resource agencies including the
California Department of Fish and Game. This revegetation effort will be
subject to a 5-year monitoring period and performance criteria as dictated in
the revegetation plan.
• To reduce the generator noise to a one-our average noise level of 60 dB or less
at the adjacent biological habitat area, a minimum six-foot high noise barrier
will be designed by a qualified acoustician and constructed along the north
side of the generator. The barrier should be aligned so as to connect to the
east and west side retaining walls. Due to access requirements, the barrier
cannot be constructed of masonry material, therefore, it is recommended that
tongue and groove boards with a minimum thickness of 3/4-inch be used as
a barrier material. Also, a sound absorbing material such as Pyrock
Acoustement 40 (with a minimum thickness of 1-5/8 inches) or equivalent,
should be applied to the interior surfaces of the retaining wall.
• Construction will not occur during the breeding seasons of three bird species
(California gnatcatcher February 15 throughAugust 15; least Bell's Vireo April
1 through July 31; and southwestern willow flycatcher May 22 through July
31). If construction must occur during the breeding season, weekly surveys
must be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine the presence/absence
of the potentially affected species. If one or more of the species is detected,
construction must stop until noise levels can be demonstrably reduced to a
level below 60 dB.
b. Would the proposal result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g.,
heritage trees£)
No impact. No locally designated species are located on the project site.
c. Would the proposal result in impacts to locally designated natural
communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.£)
Less than significant impact. See response to comment #5.7-a.
1545-60J1ATESI
A C«h!*r»ii April 24,1998 40
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
d. Would the proposal result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian
and vernal pool£)
Less than significant impact. See response to comment #5.7-a.
e. Would the proposal result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors4
No impact. Due to the similar design and function of the proposed project to the
current usage, the project would present little change in the effectiveness of this area
as a movement corridor or habitat linkage.
5.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
a. Would the proposal conflict with adopted energy conservation plans<r
Less than significant impact. There will be no change in the current operations of
the pump station. The standby generator will operate weekly for 15 minutes (up to
a maximum of 50 hours per year for maintenance) to ensure that it is operational as
well as for emergency situations when electrical power is unavailable. The minimal
amount of additional energy usage associated with the standby generator, as well as
the energy required for construction equipment, is not anticipated to exceed the use
and demand anticipated by SDG&E.
b. Would the proposal use non-renewable re source s in a wasteful and inefficient
manner^
No impact. Implementation of the proposed project would require the short-term
consumption of fossil fuels during the construction period to fuel construction
equipment. Usage of diesel fuel in the long-term would be limited to standby
generator use as described above (see response to comment #5.8-a). As a result, it is
not anticipated that the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient
manner would occur in either the short-term or long-term.
I&ASSOCIATISI '
April 24,1998 41 '
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
c. Would the proposal result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and state residents^
No impact. The area to be developed under the proposed project is minimal (0.29
acre). Additionally, no mineral resources which would be of future value to the region
or state have been identified within the project site by the 1996 Update of Mineral
Land Classification completed by the Department of Conservation.
5.9 HAZARDS
a. Would the proposal involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals
or radiation^)
Less than significant impact. The construction of the proposed project, along with
the operation and maintenance of the proposed standby generator, would involve the
use of diesel fuel, oil and associated substances. However, observance of standard
construction safety measures (as outlined in "Standard Specifications for Public
Works Construction" by BNI Building News), and installation and operation of the
standby generator in conformance with manufacturer's requirements would reduce
the risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances to a level below significant.
b. Would the proposal involve possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan£
No impact. Refer to response to comment #5.6-b.
c. Would the proposal involve the creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard^
Less than significant impact. The construction of the proposed proj ect, along with
the operation and maintenance of the proposed standby generator, would involve the
use of diesel fuel, oil and associated substances. However, as noted in Item 4.5-b
(Water) and Item 5.5-b (Air Quality), measures have been incorporated in the project
design to avoid potential impacts to groundwater from the undergrounding of pump
, 1545-60JASSOClATIS
April 24,1998 42
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
station facilities and to avoid the release of hazardous emissions from the standby
generator as well as from construction activities. Also see response to comment #5.9-
a.
Would the proposal involve exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards^
Less than significant impact. See response to comment #5.9-c.
Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass or trees<r
No impact. Construction of the standby generator is not anticipated to increase fire
hazards since the generator will be located on a concrete pad and shielded by a six-
foot retaining wall. The access road and truck turnaround will be paved, and are not
anticipated to increase fire hazard in the area.
P
to
™
5.10 NOISE
a. Would the proposal result in increases in existing noise levels^
Less than significant impact. With the exception of the standby generator, none
of the proposed facilities would generate noise.
A 100-kW generator would be installed at the southern portion of the project site.
The generator would be enclosed on three sides by an eight- to ten-foot high retaining
wall. The fourth side, the northern side, would consist of a chain-link fence with
gates. The generator would most likely be a Kohler Model 100 ROZJ generator. The
generator would be enclosed within a manufacturer's sound enclosure. With the
enclosure, the sound level associated with the generator would range from 64 to 57
dB at 23 feet from the enclosure according to the manufacturer's sound level
measurement data.
The closest existing residential area is located approximately 500 to 600 feet
southwest of the site. Assuming the generator operates for one-hour, the generator
iASSOClATBS
April 24,1998 43
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
would produce a one-hour average noise level of 40 dB or less at the closest residences.
This noise level would comply with the City of Encinitas' Noise Ordinance criteria
and is therefore considered to be less than significant. Residences are located within
the City of Encinitas.
Construction of the proposed project would result in an increase in existing noise
levels due to the construction equipment used. The following measure will be
incorporated into the project to reduce temporary noise impacts to a less than
significant level.
• The hours of construction shall be restricted to 7AM to sunset Monday
through Friday, and SAM to sunset on Saturdays. An exemption to
construction outside these times shall be required for activities which extend
beyond these times.
b. Would the proposal result in exposure of people to severe noise levels^
Less than significant impact. See response to comment #5.10-a.
5.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in the area of fire protection £
No impact. The proposed project would upgrade an existing use of the site
(wastewater collection and pump station) and, therefore, no new demand would be
placed on fire protection.
b. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in the area of police protection^
No impact. The proposed project would upgrade an existing use of the site
(wastewater collection and pump station) and, no new demand would be placed on
police protection.
&ASSOCIATBS 1545-60
April 24,1998 44
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
c. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in the area of schools?-
No impact. The proposed project would not generate new residents; therefore, new
demand would not be placed on schools.
d. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in the area of maintenance of public facilities, including
roads£
No impact. The project involves improvements to an existing public facility,
therefore, no new demand for maintenance would be placed on public facilities.
e. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result hi a need for new or altered
government services in the area of other governmental services^
No impact. The proposed project does not involve the generation of new residents;
therefore, new demand would not be placed on other government services.
5.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to power or natural gas'r
Less than significant impact. There will be no change in the current operations of
the pump station, therefore, the proposed improvements would not result in an
increase in the amount of electrical power from that required for the existing pump
station. While the standby diesel generator will operate weekly for 15 minutes (up
to a maximum of 50 hours per year for maintenance) as well as in emergency
situations, the diesel fuel used for these operations would not require new systems
or supplies.
Implementation of the project would involve SDG&E quitclaiming their existing
easement. As a part of the project, LCWD will obtain the easement from SDG&E to
construct the access road. To accommodate the roadway, and in response to
April 24,1998 45
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
direction from SDG&E, LCWD will remove existing power poles and underground the
electrical utilities as shown in Figure 3. Undergrounding the utilities would not result
in any alteration to levels of electrical service.
b. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to communications systems^
Less than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not
result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alteration to existing
communication systems. Telephone utilities will be undergrounded along with
electrical utilities (see response to comment #5.12-a and Figure 3). Undergrounding
utilities will not result in any alteration to levels of telephone service.
c. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities^
No impact. No population would be generated by the project; therefore, no new
water treatment or distribution facilities would be required.
d. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to sewer, septic systems, or wastewater treatment and
disposal facilities^
No impact. The proposed project involves the rehabilitation of an existing
wastewater pump station and, as such, would not generate additional population;
therefore, no need for new systems, supplies, or substantial alterations to sewer,
septic, or wastewater treatment or disposal systems will occur.
e. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to storm water drainage £
No impact. Refer to Section 5-4, Water. Only minor alteration of existing drainage
patterns is required to implement the project, therefore the need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage would not occur.
^ASSOCIATES) 1545-60
A C«K)«r»i« C.rft.rtiU*April 24,1998 46
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
f. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to solid waste materials recovery or disposal^
No impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to generate demand for new
systems or supplies, or generate substantial amounts of solid waste.
g. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies^
No impact. See response to comment #5.12-c.
m
m
5.13 AESTHETICS
a. Would the proposal affect a scenic vista or scenic highway^
Less than significant impact. La Costa Avenue is a designated scenic corridor.
Implementation of the proposed access road and vehicle turnaround would require
disturbance of vegetation associated with Batiquitos Lagoon. However,
implementation of the project would not have an adverse impact to views of
motorists from La Costa Avenue. Disturbance of vegetation associated with the
access road and turnaround area would constitute approximately 0.29 acre
(approximately 0.16 acre for the pump station and truck turnaround area and
approximately 0.13 acre for the access road). In addition, structures proposed as a
part of the project would not exceed ten feet in height and would not obscure any
views from La Costa Avenue.
m
m
a
m
Implementation of the project would have beneficial effects on views from La Costa.
As a part of the project, the existing pump station facilities would be placed
underground. Existing electrical and telephone poles located adjacent to the roadway
would also be placed underground to accommodate the access road.
Would the proposal have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect^
Less than significant impact. See response to comment #5.13-a.
1545-60
April 24,1998 47
•m
m
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
c. Would the proposal create adverse light and glare effects1?
Less than significant impact. The project improvements would not involve an
adverse increase to existing light and glare levels. The existing pump station facilities
require one light standard. As a part of the proposed project, one additional light
standard of a similar intensity and height to the existing facility would be
constructed.
5.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Would the proposal disturb paleontological resources'?
Less than significant impact. Based on a paleontological analysis completed for the
La Costa Avenue widening project, geological formations underlying the project
vicinity include the Santiago Formation, Del Mar Formation, and Pleistocene marine
terrace deposits. Paleontological resource potential within these formations is
considered to be high.
The following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project and are
anticipated to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less than
significant level:
• A qualified paleontological monitor (certified by the County of San Diego)
will be present during open excavation activities.
• If any paleontological resources are discovered during construction, grading
would be temporarily delayed to allow for recovery of these resources.
• Recovered resources would be catalogued and stored in a museum. Following
construction, a report will be submitted to the District by the paleontologist
that documents the results of the monitoring.
b. Would the proposal disturb archaeological resources?
Less than significant impact. A cultural resources investigation was prepared by
ASM Affiliates for the proposed project in December 1997 (see Attachment C). No
significant cultural, historical, or religious resources were identified within the proj ect
^ASSOCIATES 1545-6°
April 24,1998 48
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
site; however, a number of sites have been encountered in the project vicinity. In
addition, given the proximity of the site to Batiquitos Lagoon and the coast, and that
numerous sites have been encountered in the project vicinity as a part of the
assessment completed for the La Costa Avenue widening, cultural resources could be
encountered in association with project grading.
The following mitigation measure will be incorporated into the project and is
expected to reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to a less than
significant level:
• LCWD will contract with a qualified archaeologist (certified by the County
of San Diego) to conduct monitoring during construction activities.
• If any cultural resources are discovered during construction, grading would be
temporarily delayed to allow for recovery of these resources.
• Recovered resources would be catalogued and stored in a museum. Following
construction, a report will be submitted to the District by the archaeologist
that documents the results of the monitoring.
c. Would the proposal affect historical resources^
Less than significant impact. See response to comment #5.14-b.
d. Would the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values^
Less than significant impact. See response to comment #5.14-b.
e. Would the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area<r
No impact. No existing religious or sacred uses have been identified on the project
site.
^ASSOCIATES
« C*rp*raHti April 24, 1998 49
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
5.15 RECREATION
a. Would the proposal increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities^
No impact. No population would be generated by the proposed project; therefore,
no demand for recreational facilities would occur.
b. Would the proposal affect existing recreational opportunities^
Less than significant impact. Existing recreational opportunities would not be
affected in the long-term by the project as the proposed construction would be
located on existing LCWD property, existing easements and vacant land to be
acquired by LCWD. Impacts to lagoon access with respect to obstructed views of the
lagoon from La Costa Avenue and bicycle lanes along La Costa Avenue may be
associated with construction activities, but would not be expected to be significant
due to the short-term nature of the construction period. See responses to comment
#s5.6-a (Transportation/Circulation) and5.13-a (Aesthetics).
5.16 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 rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods California history or prehistory^
Less than significant impact. See responses to comment #s5.7-a through 5.7-e and
5.14-a through 5.14-e. Measures have been incorporated into the project that reduce
potential effects to biological and cultural resources to a less than significant level.
&ASSOCUTES
April 24,1998 50
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals4
Less than significant impact. Construction of the project on existing LCWD
property is not anticipated to impact long-term environmental goals. As discussed
in Section 5- -// a-b, given the proximity of the project site to Batiquitos Lagoon, long-
term environmental goals of relevant land use plans including the City of Carlsbad's
LCP relate to preservation of natural resources and hydrology associated with
Batiquitos Lagoon. As discussed in Sections 5-5, 5-7/ and 5.14, measures have been
incorporated into the project to reduce impacts to biological resources, air quality, as
well as cultural and paleontological resources within the project site and lagoon
vicinity. As discussed in Section 5-4, measures have also been incorporated into the
project to avoid impacts to both surface and groundwater hydrology and quality
within the project vicinity.
c. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable4 ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection •with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the efforts
of probable future projects.)
Less than significant impact. As revealed by the previous discussions for each
environmental category, impacts from the proposed project are considered to be less
than significant or no impact. Measures are incorporated into the project which
reduce potentially significant impacts associated with short-term construction
impacts to less than significant (see Section 3, Proposed Finding of No Significant Effect).
No long-term significant impacts are associated with the project. In the absence of
significant impacts, incremental accumulation of effects would not occur. Therefore,
the proposed project does not incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts.
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly^
No impact. Based on the analysis of all the above questions, it has been determined
that there would be no significant adverse direct or indirect effect on human beings.
As discussed in Section 54, measures have been incorporated into the proposed project
II
1545-60
April 24,1998 51
Screencheck Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project
to avoid potential geologic hazards that could disrupt the ability of the District to
provide current levels of service. In addition, it is not anticipated that construction
of the type of facilities proposed, including the access road, truck turnaround, pump
station improvements, and undergrounding of utilities, would create health hazards
(see Sect ion 5-9).
1545-60
April 24,1998 52
ATTACHMENT A
Geotechnical Investigation
by
Agra Earth 6C Environmental
(November 19, 1997]
DUDEK
&ASSOCIATES
A California Corporation
AGRA Earth & Environmental
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
AGRA Earth &
Environmental, Inc.
16760 West Bernardo Drive
San Diego, CA 92127
Tel (619)487-2113
Fax (619) 487-2357
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
SAXONY PUMP STATION
REHABILITATION PROJECT
LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Submitted To:
DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
605 THIRD STREET
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024
Submitted By:
AGRA EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL
16760 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92127-1904
November 19,1997
Job No. 7252104800
| Recycled Paper
AGRA Earth & Environmental
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
November 19, 1997
Job No. 7252104800
AGRA Earth &
Environmental, Inc.
16760 West Bernardo Drive
San Diego, CA 92127
Tel (619)487-2113
Fax (619) 487-2357
E
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Dudek & Associates, Inc.
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Attention: Mr. Mike Metts
RE: SAXONY PUMP STATION REHABILITATION PROJECT
LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
This letter transmits AGRA Earth & EnvironmentaFs (AEE) geotechnical investigation report for the
planned rehabilitation of the Saxony Pump Station in Carlsbad, California for the Leucadia County
Water District. The investigation was conducted in general conformance with the scope of work
presented in AEE's proposal dated July 3,1997.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Should you have question concerning this report,
please feel free to contact us.
Yours truly,
AGRA Earth & Environmental
L.
C
James J.Stone, RGE 808
Supervising Engineer
f"L I Recycled Paper
Rehabilitation of Saxony Pump Station Job No. 7252104800
Leucadia County Water District November 19,1997
Carlsbad, California Page (ii)
LIST OF FIGURES Page
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map 2
Figure 2 - Fault Map 4
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Test Boring Log A-1 and A-2
Appendix B - Laboratory Testing B-1 and B-2
PLATE
Site Plan Plate 1
I
I
I
1
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
| Recycled Paper
I
AGRA Earth & Environmental
Rehabilitation of Saxony Pump Station Job No. 7252104800
Leucadia County Water District November 19.1997
Carlsbad, California Page (iii)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This executive summary presents a brief description of the prominent ground conditions,
conclusions and recommendations from the geotechnical investigation performed by AGRA Earth
& Environmental (AEE) for the rehabilitation of the Saxony Pump Station in Carlsbad, California
for the Leucadia County Water District. The rehabilitation project will require the construction of a
concrete slab-on-grade and possibly a retaining wall for the realignment of the access road due
to the widening of La Costa Avenue.
The rehabilitation project area is underlain by fill over sandy lagoon deposits. The site is near the
southern limits of Batiquitos Lagoon and the groundwater level approximates sea level.
The regional seismicity is not unique compared to the rest of southern California. The most severe
ground motions estimated to affect the site would result from a maximum credible earthquake
event on the Newport-lnglewood/Rose Canyon Fault Zone which lies approximately four miles to
the southwest. The site is not located within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Study
Zone. However, a number of northeast trending faults are located in the vicinity. Thus, there is a
small risk of surface rupture in the event of a large-magnitude earthquake on the Newport-
lnglewood/Rose Canyon Fault Zone. In addition, there is a potential for liquefaction in the soils
underlying the site. Planning for repairs to the pump station and adjacent facilities following an
earthquake may be a more economical alternative than remedial construction to minimize the
potential for liquefaction.
The near-surface soils are not expansive and typical slab-on-grade construction is feasible. The
retaining wall can be supported on shallow spread footings. Existing soils have relatively good
pavement support characteristics and a minimum flexible pavement structural section is
recommended.
Type II Portland cement is recommended for use in concrete. Site soils are considered corrosive
with respect to steel and metallic conduits in contact with the ground and this conditions should be
avoided, or the conduits should be provided with corrosion-resistant coating.
AGRA Earth & Environmental
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
\ Recycled Paper
Rehabilitation of Saxony Pump Station Job No. 7252104800
Leucadia County Water District November 19,1997
Carlsbad, California Page (1)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation AGRA Earth & Environmental
(AEE) performed for the rehabilitation of the Saxony Pump Station in Carlsbad, California for the
Leucadia County Water District. The purpose of this study was to investigate subsurface conditions
and develop geotechnical recommendations for design of a new slab-on-grade and possible
retaining wall for the realignment of the access road required by the widening of La Costa Avenue. m
In addition, flexible pavement structural sections were developed for the access road. Jg
The site is located just northwest of the intersection of Saxony Road and La Costa Avenue. The n
relationship to the site with respect to original topographic features is shown on Figure 1. M
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK II
KM
This investigation consisted of a review of available geologic data, a site reconnaissance, a field
exploration program, laboratory testing, engineering analyses and development of conclusions and jj
recommendations regarding: *
1. Regional geology and engineering seismology. W
m
2. Geologic hazards, including ground shaking, surface rupture, liquefaction and expansive
soils. Wit
3. Geotechnical criteria for design of the new slab-on-grade and retaining wall.
In
4. Flexible pavement structural sections for the access road.
5. Corrosivity of on-site soils with respect to steel and concrete.
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING „
3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION *
m
One test boring was drilled to a depth of "i\-7z feet with 8-inch diameter hollow stem auger —
equipment. The test boring location is shown on Plate 1. Drilling was performed under the
supervision of an AEE geologist who also logged the boring and obtained samples for examination m
and laboratory testing. Disturbed samples were obtained from auger cuttings. Relatively M
undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a 2.5-inch diameter sampler with a 140-pound
hammer falling 30 inches. The log of the test boring is contained in Appendix A. Soils are classified *
in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described in Appendix A. •>
AGRA Earth & Environmental
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
\ Recycled Paper
2000 4000
Approximate Graphic Scale
1:24000
6000 feet
Approx. North
Reference:
U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Series
Encinitas Quadrangle
SAXONY PUMP STATION
REHABILITATION PROJECT
FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP
AGRA
Earth & Environmental
Draft
JJS
Approved
JJS
Date I Job No.
11/172/9^7252104800
-2-
Rehabilitation of Saxony Pump Station Job No. 7252104800
Leucadia County Water District November 19,1997
Carlsbad, California Page (3)
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING P
Selected samples were tested to evaluate pertinent classification and engineering properties. The
program included dry density and moisture content determinations, a sieve analysis, an R-value P
test and the measurement of soil pH, resistivity and chloride and sulfate contents. Dry density and *
moisture content test results are shown on the test boring log in Appendix A. Descriptions of test
procedures and the results of the remaining tests are contained in Appendix B. I
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS
4.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS *l
The area where the pump station is located is relatively flat, and forms part of the southern limits E
of Batiquitos Lagoon. La Costa Avenue, just to the south, is about four feet above the level of the
ground surface at the pump station. A relatively steep slope, on the order of 1:1 (horizontalrvertical) M
separates La Costa Avenue from the pump station access road. Outside of the immediate pump ||
station and access road area, the ground surface is covered with heavy vegetation.
P4.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS §
About 3 feet of fill over lagoon deposits were encountered in the test boring. The fill consists of p
loose, fine to medium clayey sand. The upper portion of the lagoon deposits, to a depth of about 'm
12-Vifeet, is comprised of loose silty sand. Below this depth, loose, fine, relatively clean sand was
encountered to the depth explored in the boring, 21-!4 feet. f|i
Groundwater was measured at a depth of Q-Yz feet 15 minutes after the auger was withdrawn from
the test boring. The groundwater level corresponds approximately to sea level, and likely varies H
with the tide and local rainfall runoff. <*
4.3 SEISMIC EXPOSURE i
Ml
The site is within the regional influence of a number of active fault zones, as indicated on Figure
2. The most severe ground motions estimated to affect the site result from a maximum credible
earthquake event on the Newport-lnglewood/Rose Canyon Fault Zone which lies approximately 4 iii
miles to the southwest. The maximum horizontal ground acceleration on rock due to the maximum m
credible earthquake (magnitude 7.0) is estimated to be 0.45g, with a repeatable acceleration of _
0.29g. A maximum probable event on the same fault (magnitude 6.5) is estimated to yield an
acceleration of 0.38g and repeatable acceleration of 0.25g. The pump station is not within a m
currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Special Studies Zone. J
AGRA Earth & Environmental
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Recycled Paper §|
SAXONY PUMP STATION
REHABILITATION PROJECT
FIGURE 2 - FAULT MAP
AGRA
Earth & Environmental
Job No. 7252104800 -4-
Rehabilitation of Saxony Pump Station Job No. 7252104800
Leucadia County Water District November 19,1997
Carlsbad, California Page (5)
Several northeast trending faults have been mapped in the project vicinity by Kern (1987) as
Quaternary faults, indicating offset across the faults during the last 2 million years (±). None of
these faults are recognized as active, Holocene-aged features. The faults are short and likely
represent local accommodation of strain accumulated during movements on the Newport-
Inglewood/Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Thus, although these faults are not considered to be
independent, seismogenic sources, they reflect a small risk of surface rupture in the case of a
large-magnitude event on the Newport-lnglewood/Rose Canyon Fault Zone.
4.4 LIQUEFACTION
Liquefaction can occur in loose, saturated fine sands below the groundwater level when they are
subjected to vibrations such as those induced by earthquakes. The increase in pore water pressure
induced by vibration causes the sand to loose strength and behave as a fluid, resulting in significant
surface settlements and occasional sand boils. The sands encountered in the test boring in the
lower portion of the lagoon deposits appear susceptible to liquefaction in the event of a major
earthquake. Remedial work to minimize the potential for liquefaction does not seem warranted for
the new slab and roadway. It should be anticipated that repairs to the new slab as well as the
existing pump station will be required as a results of liquefaction in the event of a major
earthquake.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING
Areas where new fill will be placed should be stripped to remove existing grass, weeds and the
upper 2 to 3 inches of topsoil containing roots and organic debris. Any existing irrigation lines
should be excavated and removed. The surface exposed by stripping should be scarified to a depth
of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to 2 to 3 percentage points above optimum moisture content and
compacted to at least 90% relative compaction based on the ASTM D1557 laboratory test method.
All subsequent references to optimum moisture content and relative compaction in this report also
refer to this test method.
Fill materials placed beneath new slab and access road areas should consist of non-expansive,
predominately granular soil which does not contain rocks greater than 4 inches in maximum
dimension or organic material. On-site soils free of vegetation and organic debris will generally be
suitable for use as fill. Proposed imported materials to be placed as fill should be checked and, if
appropriate, tested by the geotechnical engineer before they are imported to the site. Fill should
be placed in lifts 8 inches or less in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to approximately
optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. The top 12 inches
of fill under new slabs should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction as discussed in
Section 5.2.
4^ AGRA Earth & Environmental
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
I Recycled Paper
Rehabilitation of Saxony Pump Station Job No. 7252104800
Leucadia County Water District November 19,1997
Carlsbad, California Page (6)
5.2 SLABS-ON-GRADE
The planned slab-on-grade should be designed by a structural engineer. Slabs-on-grade should
have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced with 6x6 #10/#10 welded wire fabric as
a minimum. The mesh should be supported on chairs or blocks when concrete is poured to
maintain its position in the center of the concrete section. Positive drainage control which captures
and directs surface water away from the slab is important. No water should be allowed to pond at
any location.
The subgrade surface beneath new slabs-on-grade should be compacted to at least 95% relative
compaction to a depth of at least 12 inches. For new slabs located at existing grades, the existing
soils should be excavated to a depth of 6 inches and the exposed surface scarified to a depth of
at least 6 inches. The surface should be moisture conditioned to approximately optimum moisture
content and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. The excavated soil should be replaced
in one lift and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction at approximately optimum moisture
content.
5.3 RETAINING WALLS
Walls extending below grade capable of rotating at least 0.001 radian and which support level
backfill can be designed for an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).
Walls supporting backfill sloping up away from the wall at 2:1 can be designed for an equivalent
fluid pressure of 52 pcf. Equivalent fluid pressures on walls supporting intermediate slopes can be
interpolated between these values. Slopes steeper than 2:1 should not be used behind retaining
walls. Traffic loads on the wall can be modeled by assuming a uniform surcharge of 2 feet of fill
behind the wall. Research has indicated that retaining walls designed with at least a factor of safety
of 2 for static loads will have an adequate factor of safety to resist earthquake forces and special
analysis for dynamic loads is not required.
Existing fill and lagoon deposits should be excavated to a depth sufficient to provide at least 3 feet
of compacted fill beneath new retaining wall footings. Excavation should extend at least one foot
beyond perimeter footing lines. If the bottom of the excavation is in existing fill, the surface exposed
by excavation should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum
moisture content and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. If the bottom of the
excavation exposes lagoon deposits, the lower 12 inches of the excavation should be backfilled
with free-draining gravel or crushed rock corresponding to the gradation in "Greenbook" Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction Table 200-1.2(A) for %-inch rock, Fill above the
bottom of the excavation or the gravel/crushed rock layer should be placed in the excavation in lifts
8 inches or less in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and
compacted to at least 90% relative compaction.
AGRA Earth & Environmental
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
I Recycled Paper
Rehabilitation of Saxony Pump Station Job No. 7252104800
Leucadia County Water District November 19,1997 **
Carlsbad, California Page (7)
Bff
m
Walls extending below grade can be supported on spread footings designed to impose a maximum ||
toe pressure of 3500 pounds per square foot (psf). This value is for dead plus long-term live loads at
and can be increased by one-third when considering the total of all loads, including seismic forces.
Total and differential settlements of retaining walls are estimated to be less than Y* inch. 9|
Retaining walls should be provided with adequate drainage systems. Either backdrains or >*
weepholes could be used. Backdrains should consist of a layer of free draining gravel or crushed
rock at least 12 inches wide extending nearly the full height of the wall. A perforated pipe P
connected to an appropriate outlet should be placed at the bottom of the gravel or crushed rock. m
If weepholes are used, at least 1 cubic foot of gravel should be placed at the intake end of each
weephole to reduce the potential for migration of soil from the backfill. ™
Backfill behind retaining walls should consist of on-site materials or imported fill conforming to the _
recommendations in Section 5.1, Site Preparation and Grading. Backfill should be placed in lifts 3
6 to 8 inches in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and
compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. The upper 12 inches of backfill immediately behind .p
the wall should consist of predominately clayey topsoil to reduce the rate of surface water infiltration 3
into the backdrain or weepholes. Where moisture vapor penetration or efflorescence may be a
problem, commercial waterproofing or a waterproofing membrane should be placed against the p
back of the wall. m
Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by friction between supporting soils and the bottoms m
of footings and by passive earth pressures acting on the sides of footings and other structural m
elements below grade. The ultimate static horizontal frictional resistance can be taken as 0.4 times
the applied vertical load. The ultimate horizontal passive earth pressure against properly d
compacted fill is 350 psf per foot of depth of embedment below the lowest adjacent surface. If the «
ground adjacent to the footing is not covered with asphalt or concrete, the top 12 inches of soil
should not be relied upon for passive support. The listed values for friction and passive resistance •!
are ultimates and an appropriate factor of safety should be applied for design. «n
5.4 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION m
One sample of near-surface soil was tested to determine its R-value. Results indicate an R-value
of 69 for the predominately granular soil tested. Assuming relatively light traffic consisting mainly **
of maintenance vehicles, a flexible pavement structural section consisting of 3 inches of asphalt "*
concrete over 6 inches of aggregate base course (Caltrans Class 2 or equivalent) is considered
appropriate. The upper 12 inches of subgrade soil beneath the flexible pavement structural section
should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. **
AGRA Earth & Environmental m
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
I Recycled Paper HI
Rehabilitation of Saxony Pump Station
Leucadia County Water District
Carlsbad, California
Job No. 7252104800
November 19,1997
Page (8)
5.5 CORROSION
Laboratory tests indicate that potential corrosion due to the soil's soluble sulfate content is
moderate. Type II cement is recommended for use in concrete in direct contact with on-site
materials.
Tests performed on samples of the on-site soils indicated low resistivities, representing a corrosive
environment with respect to iron and steel. Therefore, bun'ed, unprotected iron and steel conduits
should be avoided, if possible. If preservation of underground metal conduits is considered critical,
it is recommended that an engineer specializing in corrosion be consulted regarding suitable
materials and protective measures. Reinforcing steel should be provided with adequate concrete
cover to minimize the potential that it could come in contact with the ground.
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION REVIEW
AEE should review the project plans and specifications prior to foundation construction to evaluate
whether the intent of the geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated. It should be
anticipated that the materials exposed during construction will differ from those encountered in the
borings. AEE's presence on-site during construction will enable modification of the geotechnical
recommendations in this report or development of additional recommendations on a timely basis.
7.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices in
Carlsbad, California and makes no other warranties, either express or implied, as to the
professional advice or data included in it. AEE should be notified of any changes in the plans or of
any site conditions that differ from those described in this report, since these conditions may
necessitate a reevaluation of the recommendations. This report has not been prepared for use by
parties or projects other than those named or described above, and may not contain sufficient
information for other parties or other purposes.
AGRA Earth & Environmental
JamesO. Stone, GE 808
Supervising Engineer
JJS/js
Distribution:(6) Client
Brian H. Reck, CEG 1792
Project Geologist
AGRAE
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOI
Recycled Paper
APPENDIX A
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION
R OH CH MH OL CL ML SC SM SP SW GC GM GP GW
m Highly
Organic
soils
Silts and days
Uquid Limit >50%
Silts and days
Liquid Limit <50%
•SftflftSfines sands fines Clean gravels
Sands - more than 50% of coarse
fraction is smaller than No. 4 sieve
Gravels - more than 50% of coarse
fraction Is larger than No. 4 sieve
Rne grained soils
(More than 50% is smaller than No. 200 sieve)
Coarse grained soils
(More than 50% Is larger than No. 200 sieve)
60
rt
' 20
'4M
CL
7
/
\>/
n
,*y
CL
(
y
H
/
ot
//
&l
/
IH
LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
GW and SW - Cu - D./Dio greater than 4 for GW and 6 for SW
Co - Dj/(D«, xDw) between 1 and 3
GP and SP - Clean Gravel or sand not meeting requirements for GW and SW
GM and SM - Atterberg Limit below "A-LJNE" or P.I. less than 4
GC AND SC - Atterberg Limit above "A-UNE" or P.I, greater than 4
SILT OR CLAY RNESAND MEDIUM
SAND COARSE
SAND
FINE
GRAVEL
COARSE
GRAVEL COBBLESBOULDERS
SIEVE SCE 200 40 10 4 V.' T 10*
0 20 40 60 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT
Classification of earth materials is based on field inspection and should not be
construed to Imply laboratory analysis unless so stated.
MATERIAL SYMBOLS
Extrusive IgneousRock
Asphalt
Claystone
Clayey Sandstone
Clayey Siltstone
Metamorphic Rock
Concrete
Conglomerate
Intrusive IgneousRock
Interbedded
Limestone and
Shale
Limestone
Sandy Claystone
Sandstone
Sandy Siltstone
Siltstone
Silty Claystone
Silty Sandstone
. LEGEND OF PENETRATION TEST
l£a.
5
15
30
10
20
55
15
h
h
r~
7Graohi: represerrtat
driving rate
1
on of
Blows per foot-25 50 75
Blows per foot
(using 140 Ib. hammer with 30* drop - 350 ft-lb blow)
Consistency Classification
for Soils
According to the Standard Penetration Test
Blows/Ft.*
0-5
6-10
11-30
31-50
>50
Granular
Very loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very dense
Blows/Ft.*
0-5
6-10
11-20
21-35
36-70
>70
Cohesive
Very soft
Soft
Medium Stiff
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
LEGEND OF BORING
v.s. ^
_
~~
—^
A
Conformable material change
Approximate material change
Unconformable material chang
Bottom of boring
"NSR" indicates "no sample recovery"
3bb No. 7252103800 A-1
AGRA EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
TEST BORING LOG
TYPE 8" Hollou Stem Auger
STRIKE/DIPand otherDEPTH-SPECIFICNOTES87
DRY DENSITY(pcf)32.9
MOISTURE(X)6
1
16
6
BLOWS/FOOT-
2.5
bag
1.4
1.4
1.4
SAMPLE SIZE( i nches)1
2
3
4
5
d
111
1=<c(0
1
2
4
5-
-
_
~l
6 fr-
7 j[-
* 8 r
= 9
10-
11
12
13
14
15-
16
17
18
19
20-
21
1
ftiifLrh
tr-
\-
\-
ih
l\-
l
ELEVATION "8.5 feet BORING B- 1 T
/ty
%
*s
\
.':.
•*"."
•**.*
* ' .
•;>/
•**.' •
•*V
•**.'
•**."
4:-
^riH 1 tKlHL1 SYMBOL 1SC
SM
SP
QCO
IriO
FILL: Mottled brown fine to medium CLAYEY SAND, loose, L_
moist, with fragments of asphalt concrete M
PLLAGOON DEPOSITS: Dark gray to black SILTY SAND, loose, •
wet, with some CLAY P
L...occasional thin lenses of CLAYEY SAND 1
fbfL
Gray fine SAND, loose, saturated, with traces of •
CLAY and thin interbeds of CLAYEY SILT P
L
1f
1
f
i
1T
NOTES: •
1. Total depth of boring = 21.5 feet. I
2. Groundwater measured at a depth of 8.5 feet 15 ^
minutes after the auger was removed from the boring.1
3. Caving below 18 feet. V
4. Elevation based on mean sea level.
THIS BORING LOG SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT •
TIME AND LOCATION INDICATED. SUBSURFACE
CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS J
AND TIMES. •
LOGGED BY BHR DATE 10-29-97 1
Job No. 7252104800 - November 14, 1997 A-2
APPENDIX Br •• .•• •
.1-
Oceanside Unified School District
Relocatable Classrooms
Ivey Ranch Elementary School
Job No. 7252104800
November 19,1997
Page (B-1)
LABORATORY TESTING
The laboratory test program was designed to fit the specific needs of this project and was limited
to testing on-site materials. A brief description of each type of test is presented below. Test results
are included in Appendix A and in this appendix.
The in-situ dry density and moisture content were determined for one relatively undisturbed sample.
Results are listed in the boring log in Appendix A adjacent to the sample tested.
The pavement support characteristics of a sample of soil at the surface of the existing roadway
were evaluated by performing an R-value test in accordance with California Test 301. Results are
contained in Table B-1
Potential corrosivity was evaluated by determining the pH and electrical resistivity of one sample
in accordance with California Test 643. In addition, the sample's sulfate content was determined
in accordance with California Test 417 and the chloride content was determined in accordance with
California Test 422. Results of these determinations are listed in Table B-2.
The grain size distribution was determined for one sample of lagoon deposits in accordance with
ASTM D 422 procedures. Results are plotted on Page B-2.
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
(CALIFORNIA TEST 301)
I Sample No.
Bulk - Surface at Boring 1
R-yalue
69
•I
m
TABLE B-2
SUMMARY OF
CORROSIVITY, CHLORIDE AND SULFATE TEST RESULTS
(CALIFORNIA TESTS 643, 422 & 417)
Boring No./
Sample No.
1/2
Ed
8.5
Electrical Resistivity
Q-cm
540
Chloride Content
ppm
192
Sulfate Content
pprn
976
Recycled Paper
AGRA Earth & Environmental
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
I
3" 2" 11/»" 1" '/." %'%"
00
BOUttK
U.S STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No.
T •••^ii ^-.
'X \
1
\
\
\
\
\
100 No. 200
V
\V
\s^
100 50 10 5 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
Sample No.
or Location
1/2
•• •
til
!• • '""•
GRAVEL
Coarse Fine
SAND
Coarse Medium
Date USCS
11/3/97 SM
•*ummm*m3m
[Nature
Description h/Vater
Silty Sand
JLL PL
Fine
PI __ Max DOSE Density
' Optkruvn
Water
Fines (Silt and Clay)
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
£&> AGRA Earth & Environmental
Project: Saxony Pump Station
By: WC Date: 11/3/97
ocr
ro01to
o>oo
mm mm w m
ATTACHMENT B
Biological Resources Determination
by
Dudek & Associates, Inc.
{January 19, 199$
D U D E Ki
&ASSOCIATES
A California Corporation
DUDEK
&ASSOCIATES
Engineering, Planning,
Environmental Sciences and
Management Services
Corporate Office:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
A California Corporation
19 January 1998
760.942.5147
Fax 760.632.0164
1545-60
Mr. Jim Harry
Dudek and Associates, Inc.
605 Third Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject:
Dear Mr. Harry:
Results of a Biological Resources Determination for the Leucadia County
Water District Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project - San Diego
County, California.
This letter pertains to the existing biological conditions on the 00.45-acre Saxony Pump Station
Rehabilitation Project site located in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Dudek
& Associates, Inc. (DUDEK) was requested to inspect the site for existing biological conditions
on the site, map vegetation communities, identify any biological constraints, and propose
mitigation opportunities.
The proposed project is located adjacent to La Costa Avenue and north of Saxony Road; Interstate
5 is located approximately 3,000 feet to the west and Batiquitos lagoon is located less than 300 feet
to the north (Figures 1 and 2). The proposed project includes realignment of an access road, new
fencing, new truck parking/turn around area, new motor control area, new generator, new
electrical and telephone service, and new concrete cut-off and gravity retaining wall.
METHODS
Data regarding biological resources present on the project site were obtained through a review of
pertinent literature and through field reconnaissance.
Sensitive biological resources present or potentially present onsite were identified through a
literature search using the following sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1989, 1990, 1991,
1993), California Department of Fish and Game (1980, 1986, 1987), California Native Plant
Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants (Skinner and Pavlik 1994), and
Murphy (1990). General information regarding wildlife species present in the region was obtained
from Unitt (1984) for birds, Bond (1977) for mammals, and Stebbins (1985) for reptiles and
amphibians.
A biological survey of the property was conducted by DUDEK wildlife biologist Brock A. Ortega
on 8 January 1998 between 0700 and 1000 hours, and DUDEK biologist Philip R. Behrends,
Ph.D. on 16 January 1998. The surveys were conducted by foot under favorable weather
conditions: partly cloudy skies, air temperature 61° Fahrenheit, and light breezes. The site was
mapped and surveyed from the dirt access road.
1
m
m.
Plant communities were mapped in the field onto a 1" =250' color aerial photograph of the site m
(flown on 18 January 1997) and a 1"=20' topographic map of the project area provided by the
Leucadia Water District. Plant community boundaries and locations of sensitive species were ;
digitized by DUDEK GIS technician Martie demons using the ArcCAD system at DUDEK. m
m
Plant community classifications used in this report follow Holland (1986), with modifications to ^
accommodate the lack of conformity of the observed communities to those of Holland. Locations
of rare or sensitive plant and wildlife species also were mapped, and the numbers present were m
estimated. H
Wildlife species detected during the field survey by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were •
recorded. Binoculars (8 x 32 power) were used to identify observed wildlife. In addition to *
species actually observed, expected wildlife use of the site was determined by known habitat
preferences of local species and knowledge of their relative distributions in the area. Dr. Behrends W
conducted a habitat assessment for Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus) **
(Attachment A).
RESULTS OF SURVEY **
Based on species composition and general plant physiognomy, five habitat types were identified m
within the project vicinity: revegetated coastal sage scrub, mulefat scrub, southern riparian scrub, m
disturbed habitat, and developed.
HI
Coastal sage scrub within the vicinity of the project area occurs in two areas; in an area west of m
the existing structures and adjacent to La Costa Avenue, and an area east of the structures. The
eastern location was created as part of a City of Carlsbad Native Habitat Restoration Project. Both *
revegetated patches were created after 1985 (based on vegetation data from WESTEC 1986). The m
scrub includes native species such as coyotebrush (Baccharis pilularis var. consanguinea),
California sagebrush (Artemisia californicd), coast goldenbush (Isocoma menziesif), black sage P
(Salvia mellifera), quail bush (Atriplex lentiformis), giant wild rye (Leymus condensatus), broom ai
baccharis (Baccharis sarathroides), toy on (Heteromoles arbutifolia), bush mallow
(Malacothamnus densiflorus), California encelia (Encelia californicd), 15 planted western
sycamore (Platanus racemosa); and non-native species such as pampas grass (Cortaderia dioicd),
black mustard (Brassica nigrd), sea fig (Carpobrotus edulis), American agave (Agave americana), ,_
fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), salt-grass (Distichlis spicata) and castor bean (Ricinus ^
communis). This habitat is considered sensitive and typically requires mitigation at a 2:1 ratio.
m
Mule fat scrub consists mostly of mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) with an understory of sea fig. M
This habitat surrounds the existing pump station to the north and west and extends to the west
between the southern willow scrub and revegetated coastal sage scrub. This habitat is considered *!
sensitive and is regulated by the California Department of Fish and Game. A "no net loss" policy m
applies to this habitat and typically requires a 3:1 mitigation ratio.
Southern willow scrub consists of southwestern willow (Salix gooddingii), mule fat, giant wild **
2 m
rye, salt-grass, and a few spiny rush (Juncus acutus) plants. This habitat runs in an east-west
direction and primarily occurs north of the existing pump station. This habitat is considered
sensitive and is regulated by the California Department of Fish and Game. A "no net loss" policy
applies to this habitat and typically requires a 3:1 mitigation ratio.
Disturbed habitat refers to areas that support weedy vegetation or lack vegetation altogether.
These areas are the result of human use or severe or repeated mechanical perturbation. Onsite,
disturbed habitat is represented by areas adjacent to La Costa Avenue, and the margins of the
current access road. Plant species encountered most frequently in this habitat include slender wild
oat (Avena barbatd), salt-grass, red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), fescue (Festuca
var.), and Russian-thistle (Salsola tragus). Disturbed habitat is of limited value to native species,
and is not considered sensitive. Developed areas consist of the existing pump station, access road,
and facilities.
A total of 17 species of birds were observed onsite during the survey, including California quail
(Callipepla californica), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), scrub jay (Aphelocoma
coerulescens), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), common
raven (Corvus corax), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), red-tailed hawk (Buteojamaicensis),
and northern mockingbird (Mimus potyglottos). Other migratory birds can be expected to use the
site during the fall and winter.
No reptiles were observed onsite during the survey. Species which may occur include southern
alligator lizard (Gerrhonotus multicarinatus webbii), Great Basin fence lizard (Sceloporus
occidentalis), side-blotched lizard (Ufa stansburiana), coastal western whiptail (Cnemidophorus
tigris), orange-throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperthrus beldingii), and southern Pacific
rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis). No amphibians were detected on site but Pacific treefrog (Hyla
regilld) can be expected.
Five species of mammals were detected onsite: woodrat (Neotoma sp.), California ground squirrel
(Spermophilus beecheyi), brush rabbit (Sylvilagus fozc/zmanzi), Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginianus), and raccoon (Procyon lotof).
Potential Sensitive Biological Resources
Three habitats, which are considered sensitive, occur within the project area. These include
coastal sage scrub, mule fat scrub, and southern willow scrub. Mule fat scrub and southern
willow scrub are considered wetlands. A "no net loss" policy exists for wetlands; typically a 3:1
mitigation ratio applies to wetland habitats. Impacts to coastal sage scrub are generally mitigated
at a 2:1 ratio.
No species of plants listed as threatened, or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) were observed onsite.
However, one species recognized as regionally sensitive by the California Native Plant Society
(Skinner and Pavlik 1994) is present: southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus). This species is
m
m
discussed below and locations onsite are illustrated in Figure 3. m
•Juncus acutus var. leopoldii - southwestern spiny rush m
USFWS: None
CDFG: None m
CNPS: List 4, 1-1-3 m
This large (0.5-1.5 m), tufted, perennial rush, with stout, rigid stems, is encountered frequently II
in alkaline seeps and marshes or in areas adjacent to these. Spiny rush has a wide distribution ••
from San Luis Obispo County south to Baja California and east to Imperial County and Arizona.
Although urbanization represents a serious threat to spiny rush (Smith and Berg 1988), the W
abundance of this plant in many widely separated wetlands, together with the current application m
of protection for these habitats, indicates a rather low threat to this species.
No animal species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered by the USFWS or CDFG were *"
observed onsite. Four wildlife species designated as threatened or endangered have the potential -.
to occur on or near the site based on habitat alone: California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica ^
californicd), least Bell's vireo (Vireo belliipussillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax
traillii extimus), and Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus). These species n
and their probability of occurrence are discussed below. ^
Polioptila californica - California gnatcatcher •
USFWS: Threatened m
CDFG: Species of Special Concern
The California gnatcatcher is a small gray non-migratory bird with black tail markings. During •"»
the breeding season the male has a distinct black cap. Gnatcatchers eat insects and build a small,
cup-shaped nest of plant material, animal hair, and spider webs. A pair of gnatcatchers may
forage over 5 to 20 acres during the breeding season and more widely at the end of spring. The <"1
present known range of the California gnatcatcher extends from the Ventura County south through m
Orange, western Riverside, and San Diego counties, into northern Baja California, Mexico. It is
a near obligate resident of coastal sage scrub and inland sage scrub communities. Individuals of
this species are generally found at elevations below 900 feet hi San Diego, Orange, and Los m
Angeles County, and below 1600 feet in Riverside County (Atwood 1990). Estimates of m
population sizes within California range from 1,200-2,000 (Atwood 1990) to 1,645-1,800 pairs
(MBA 1991). m
Ml
The patches of created coastal sage scrub occurring onsite, and in the vicinity, are unlikely to
support California gnatcatcher due to small patch size and proximity to road noise (estimated *
average above 70 dB). «•
Vireo belliipusillus - least Bell's vireo
USFWS: Endangered
CDFG: Endangered
Least Bell's vireo is a small, gray and white, migratory songbird that inhabits willow-dominated
riparian areas of southern California and adjacent northern Baja California, Mexico (San Diego
Association of Governments 1988). It is one of four North American subspecies of Bell's vireo.
Historically, this subspecies was abundant in riverine habitats from Baja California to Tehama
County in central California (Grinnell and Miller 1944, Willett 1933), with the center of its
breeding range in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. Widespread destruction of its obligate
riparian habitat for agricultural use, livestock grazing, flood control, urban development, and
various commercial uses in combination with increased brood parasitism by the exotic brown-
headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) decimated vireo numbers, extirpating it from the central valleys,
and restricting the species to small, fragmented populations in a fraction of its former range
(United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). By 1985, only 285 pairs were known from 45
locations in 9 counties (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). In response to the
unparalleled decline of this passerine, the least Bell's vireo was listed as endangered by the
California Department of Fish and Game in June, 1980, and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
hi May, 1986.
It is unlikely that the least Bell's vireo breeds onsite due to small patch size and adjacent road
noise. The closest known nesting attempt was made along Encinitas Creek which is approximately
7,000 feet to the east.
Empidonax trailii extimus - southwestern willow flycatcher
USFWS: Endangered
CDFG: Endangered
The southwestern willow flycatcher has been nearly extirpated as a breeding resident in southern
California - approximately 40-80 breeding pairs remain. In San Diego County, only 4 to 5
breeding localities are known for this formerly common and widespread species. During
migration this species may be found in a variety of habitats. However, it is restricted to willow
thickets along water courses for nesting. Loss of riparian habitat and brown-headed cowbird
parasitism are considered the primary causes of its decline.
The habitat present is likely to be unsuitable due to poor structure, small patch size, and proximity
to road noise.
Perognathus longimembris pacificus - Pacific pocket mouse
USFWS: Endangered
CDFG: Endangered
The Pacific pocket mouse, at 7-9 g, is one of the smallest members of the genus Perognathus.
5
The species P. longimembris, as a whole, occupies a variety of habitats throughout the southwest, m
including desert, shrub-steppe, arid woodland, sage scrub, grassland, and ruderal habitats. The —
Pacific pocket mouse, which is one of 19 subspecies of P. longimembris (Hall 1981), is restricted ^
to the coastal plain and historically was found between El Segundo in Los Angeles County and the
Tijuana River Valley in the U.S., and northern Baja California, Mexico. It typically occurs within H
two miles of the coast and below 600 feet. The Pacific pocket mouse is thought to occupy loose m
sandy soils supporting sparse coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland, and ruderal habitats (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). m
m
Dr. Behrends concluded that the project area does not support the relatively sparse vegetation
typically occupied by the Pacific pocket mouse. It was Dr. Behrends opinion that the Pacific "
pocket mouse does not occupy the Saxony Pump Station project area and a live trapping program **
to confirm its presence or absence is not required.
Wff
Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages "*
Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open space and provide m
avenues for the immigration and emigration of animals. Wildlife corridors contribute to ^
population viability hi several ways: (1) they assure the continual exchange of genes between
populations which helps maintain genetic diversity; (2) they provide access to adjacent habitat m
areas representing additional territory for foraging and mating; (3) they allow for a greater M
carrying capacity; and (4) they provide routes for colonization of habitat lands following local
population extinctions or habitat recovery from ecological catastrophes (e.g., fires). «*
•*
Habitat linkages are patches of native habitat that function to join two larger patches of habitat.
They serve as connections between habitat patches and help reduce the adverse affects of habitat W
fragmentation. Although individual animals may not move through a habitat linkage, the linkage **
does represent a potential route for gene flow and long-term dispersal. Habitat linkages may serve
as both habitat and avenues of gene flow for small animals such as reptiles and amphibians.
Habitat linkages may be represented by continuous patches of habitat or by nearby habitat **
"islands" that function as "stepping stones" for dispersal. ^
Owing to the similar design and function of the project to the current usage, the project would
present little change in the effectiveness of this area as a movement corridor or habitat linkage. «
ANTICIPATED PROJECT IMPACTS
This section addresses potential impacts to biological resources that would result from n
implementation of the proposed project, and provides analyses of significance for each potential m
impact.
•
Impacts to biological resources can be direct - resulting from the permanent removal of habitat, m
or indirect - resulting from changes hi land use adjacent to natural habitat (e.g., increased light,
noise, and urban runoff, interruption of wildlife movement, etc.). Both of these types of impacts
and then* levels of significance are discussed in this section. **
Impacts to Plant Communities
Direct Impacts
Table 1 identifies the amount of each habitat type impacted within the limits of grading.
Significant impacts to habitat onsite include the loss of 0.04 acre of coastal sage scrub, 0.06 acre
of mule fat scrub, and 0.08 acre of southern willow scrub habitats due to grading.
TABLE 1
IMPACTS BY HABITAT TYPE
Habitat type Impacted Habitat
Coastal Sage Scrub 0.04 acre
Mule Fat Scrub 0.06 acre
Southern Willow Scrub 0.08 acre
Disturbed Habitat 0.05 acre
Developed 0.22 acre
TOTAL 0.45 acre
Indirect Impacts
Because the project maintains similar usage and function, adjacent habitats are unlikely to endure
additional indirect impacts. Indirect impacts of project implementation are considered less than
significant.
Impacts to Sensitive Plants
Direct Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the potential loss of the following sensitive
plants:
Approximately three individuals of spiny rush (Juncus acutus), - less than
significant.
Indirect Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would result hi no indirect impacts to sensitive plants
occurring outside of the impacted area because the function and usage of the site will remain the
same.
Impacts to Sensitive Animals «*
Direct Impacts
^flf
Implementation of the proposed project would result in no direct impacts to sensitive wildlife m
species.
Indirect Impacts
mThe loss of 0.14 acre of mule fat scrub and southern willow scrub will further dimmish the ^
suitability of the habitat for least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher to breed. In
addition, if any of the sensitive bird species occur onsite, construction activities will affect their p
breeding success. Therefore, indirect impacts are anticipated to be significant if left unmitigated. m
Potential noise levels above 60 dB may result from occasional use of the new generator. The U.S. 9
Fish and Wildlife Service has taken the position that noise levels above this are deleterious to «*
breeding birds (including California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow
flycatcher). As shown in Figure 3, suitable habitat for these species is present within 20 feet of B
the new generator and its associated 60+dB noise emissions. This is expected to be a significant **
indirect impact if left unmitigated.
Summary of Significant Impacts "*
m
1) Direct impacts to 0.04 acre of coastal sage scrub. —
2) Direct impacts to 0.06 acre of mule fat scrub. •»
3) Direct impacts to 0.08 acre of southern willow scrub.
4) Indirect impacts to breeding birds resulting from the new generator. «•
5) Indirect impacts to California gnatcatcher. **
6) Indirect impacts to least Bell's vireo.
7) Indirect impacts to southwestern willow flycatcher. **
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
1) Coastal sage scrub is a.habitat which the threatened California gnatcatcher may use to nest
and forage in. In order to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, impacts n
should be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio or 0.08 acre. M
The applicant will obtain 0.08 acre of coastal sage scrub within an approved mitigation •!
bank or planned openspace (preserve) area. If not previously encumbered, appropriate an
8 m
easements guaranteeing permanent preservation will be obtained.
2,3) Mule fat scrub and southern willow scrub are wetland habitats. The State of California and
the United States of America have "no net loss" policies regarding wetland habitats. In
order to reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level, impacts will be mitigated at a
3:1 ratio or 0.42 acres.
The project proponent will devise a revegetation plan and revegetate 0.42 acre of southern
willow scrub/mule fat scrub which is similar in species richness and structure to that
removed. This revegetation effort will be subject to a 5-year monitoring period and
performance criteria as dictated hi the revegetation plan.
4) A noise barrier or enclosure will be designed by a qualified acoustician to reduce the noise
produced by the new generator to a level not exceeding 60 dB at the adjacent habitat.
5,6,7) The California gnatcatcher is a resident species which lives hi the same area for its entire
life. The southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell's vireo are migrant species which
breed in southern California and migrate elsewhere during the non-breeding season. In
order to reduce the impacts to a level which is less-then-significant, construction will not
occur during the breeding seasons of the three bird species (California gnatcatcher
February 15 through August 15; least Bell's vireo April 1 through July 31; southwestern
willow flycatcher May 22 through July 31). If construction must occur during the
breeding season, then weekly surveys must be conducted by a qualified biologist to
determine presence/absence of the potentially affected species. If one or more of the
species is detected, then construction must stop until noise levels can be demonstratably
reduced to a level below 60 dB.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me at (760) 942-5147.
Very truly yours,
Dudek & Associates, Inc.
Brock A. Ortega
Wildlife Biologist
Im
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project - Biological Resources Determination
Regional Map
y^y. T-^T*-KrA r
.-.»: iTIf-dS:!- f :• .:!!!f :!i|Mlvt«ttlNiiijbE
BASE MAP SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series, Encinitas Quadrangle ib-.\i • -lUiirl 1 1" = 2000'
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project - Biological Resources Determination
Vicinity Map
SEE DWG M-2 FOR ENLARGED
SITE PLAN AND DWG M-3 FOR
INTERIOR PLAN
EXIST MITIGATION AREA
(CITY OF CARLSBAD)
2" IP (LS4300) PER
ROS 10774
SE COR LOT 14
Vegetation Types:' IP (LS 5134DHO Data StationCoastal Sage Scrub
Mule Fat Scrub*
Proposed Limits of Grading
Southern Willow Scrub
Disturbed Habitat
DEV Developed Land
* Jurisdictional WetlandsGRADING SOURCE: Dudek & Associates. January 1998
L
I
Saxony Pump Station Rehabilitation Project - Biological Resources Determination
Vegetation Map and Wetland Delineation on Site Plan With Proposed Grading
FIGURE
3
ATTACHMENT C
Cultural Resources Survey
by
ASM Affiliates
[January26, 199$
DUDEK,
&ASSOCIATES
A California Corporation
affiliates
January 26, 1998
Mr. James Harry
Dudek & Associates, Inc.
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Re: Saxony Pump Station survey and report of negative results.
Dear Mr. Harry,
This letter report details the results of a cultural resources records search and field survey
for the City of Leucadia Municipal Water District's proposed Saxony Pump Station improvement
and access road development. The results of the survey are negative. No cultural resources were
identified in the proposed project area. Monitoring is recommended during construction,
however, because many sites have been previously recorded around Batiquitos Lagoon. The
proposed project is also an area of alluvial deposition where there is a potential for buried sites.
The following report includes a description of the proposed project, field and record search
methods, brief culture history, records search and field survey results, and recommendations.
Project Description
The project is located in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. The existing
pumpstation is located approximately 400 feet west of the La Costa Avenue-Saxony Road
intersection and immediately adjacent to the north side of La Costa Avenue (Figure 1). The
existing 900-ft2 property would be expanded to 7,200 ft2 to allow for maintenance vehicle access
and turn around. This area would be graded flat, paved, and surrounded with chain link fencing.
Existing station facilities would be placed underground, requiring substantial ground disturbance.
An enclosure with concrete pad and retaining wall would be constructed along the southern
border of the expanded pump station property to house a 100-kV diesel generator, electric
transformer, and bioxide tank. Another enclosure to house the standby power switch and motor
control center for underground facilities will be constructed at the northeast comer of the
expanded facilities.
An access road will be extended from the La Costa Avenue-Saxony Road intersection to
the pump station as part of the proposed project. The 12-foot wide access road will be paved and
extend from the edge of the proposed right-of-way for the widened La Costa Avenue.
Improvements associated with the new access road include placing existing power lines
underground within the planned right-of-way for La Costa Avenue and construction of a concrete
driveway, curb, and retaining wall.
543 Encinitas Blvd., Ste. 114, Encinitas, CA 92024
Voice: [619] 632-1094 •:• FAX: [619] 632-0913
—
Ml
Mr. James Harry
January 26, 1998
Page 2
Methods
An updated records search was undertaken at the San Diego Museum of Man and also at
the South Coast Information Center, San Diego State University. Site locations were then plotted
on a USGS 7.5' quadrangle showing the project boundaries. A field survey was undertaken by
Mr. John R. Cook, ASM Affiliates Principal, and one assistant archaeologist. The project area
was examined with field personnel walking parallel transects spaced at 10 meters. Visibility was
very poor around the existing pump stations and many other areas. The area was also extremely
disturbed from road construction, drainage improvements and the existing pump station.
Culture Background
Archaeological and ethnographic information indicate that this area of San Diego County
has been occupied by Native Americans for nearly 10,000 years. Malcolm Rogers was one of
the first local archaeologists to synthesize his data into a general culture history and chronological
framework (Rogers 1945). Unfortunately, Rogers revised his ideas several times, creating much
confusion, and he died before presenting a clear and substantive chronology for the region.
Numerous regional chronologies and some larger syntheses have been formulated since; these will
not be reviewed here (see Moratto 1984).
Batiquitos Lagoon, at the base of San Marcos Creek in the central portion of the county
has essentially served as the type locality for the littoral prehistory of San Diego County (Gallegos
1985, 1987; Warren and Pavesic 1963). Although refinements have been made by Warren and
other scholars based primarily on new excavations (Gallegos 1987, 1992; Warren et al. 1993),
the broad perception of coastal adaptations for the last 7,000 years is largely unchanged.
The prehistory of San Diego County is often divided into three general temporal periods:
Paleoindian, Archaic, and Late Prehistoric. The Paleoindian period, dating from 12,000 years
to 8,000 years before the present (B.P.), is typified by artifact assemblages of the San Dieguito
complex. This Complex is represented almost entirely by flaked stone tools, including scrapers,
choppers, and large projectile points. The absence of a milling technology was, until recently,
seen as the major difference between the San Dieguito period and the later Archaic period. The
Archaic period existed at least 7,000 years ago, and probably as early as 9,000 years B.P. There
appears to be a continuity of occupation in the San Dieguito and early Archaic periods with
milling technology around Batiquitos Lagoon. Archaic period sites are dominated by shell middens
of open-water species that thrived in Batiquitos Lagoon. Increased amounts of milling equipment
indicate reliance on seeds and nuts from the surrounding terrestrial environment. Increased
population density and sedentism is suggested by the increasing number and size of these sites.
Around 3,500 years ago the lagoon began to rapidly fill with sediment, eliminating the mollusc-
rich habitat that had contributed so much to the Archaic period diet. Absence of radiocarbon
dates from 3,500 to 1,500 years B.P. indicate the lagoon area was virtually abandoned or could
Mr. James Harry
January 26, 1998
Page3
no longer support residential occupation. Radiocarbon dates resume after 1,500 B.P. along with
diagnostic artifacts of the Late Prehistoric people and ethnohistoric Kumeyaay. The reoccurrence
of mollusc species native to mud flats and shallow waters indicate that the lagoon periodically
opened again, possibly as a result of el Nino floods and other environmental factors. Adaptive
patterns similar to the Archaic were resumed at this time, with seasonal movements between
coastal and inland habitats.
Coastal Archaic period sites have been characterized by the presence of dart points and
abundant milling equipment, and an associated lack of ceramics. They range from large
residential bases to small temporary camps and resource exploitation loci. Burials dating to this
period tend to be flexed inhumations that may be grouped in cemeteries at the larger occupation
sites (Cheever 1992). Mortuary remains include shell beads and ornaments, projectile points, and
milling equipment.
New research at nearby Camp Pendleton has revealed continuity in the Archaic occupation
of the coastal area from the 7000 years B.P. into the Late Prehistoric period. These results
conflict with previous reconstructions for the San Diego county area or at least reveal that coastal
adaptations continued in areas away from the silted lagoons (Byrd 1997; Byrd et al.1995; Reddy
et al. 1996). In this area north of Batiquitos Lagoon, the post-4,000 B.P. time period is well-
represented by coastal sites. Many of these settlements are large, with moderate to thick middens
that were occupied for multiple seasons, and shellfish persisted as a viable economic strategy.
These results reveal that a varied and complex set of factors were in play, and that Archaic
adaptations were both flexible and dynamic.
Wallace (1955:226) suggested a date of about A.D. 1000 for the late prehistoric
Shoshonean and Yuman cultures; this date is still accepted for the inception of ceramic technology
and small arrow points in the area. Rogers (1945) suggested a tripartite division of the Late
Prehistoric period: Yuman I (A.D. 900-1050), Yuman II (A.D. 1050-1500), and Yuman III (post
A.D. 1500). Cottonwood Triangular and Desert Side-notched arrow points, and ceramics are
diagnostic of the Late Prehistoric period in southern California. Bone tools and various ornaments
are also typical (Wallace 1955:215).
Mortuary customs became more elaborate during the Late Prehistoric period, including
more abundant grave goods, and cremations. Mortuary goods often included metates, pipes,
arrow shaft straighteners, shell beads, and arrow points (Treganza 1942:160).
Major ethnographies for this area were researched and written in the 1920s and 1930s
(Spier 1923; Gifford 1931), about 150 years after the establishment of the mission system. These
include both the Kumeyaay, the Kamia, and groups living in Baja California (Meigs 1939, Shipek
1991). In general, the Kumeyaay ranged from the coast through the Peninsular Ranges and the
Kamia resided in Imperial Valley in historic times.
Mr. James Harry
January 26, 1998
Page 4
The Kumeyaay are depicted primarily as hunters and gatherers in ethnographic and
ethnohistoric documents, but some groups practiced agriculture in areas of the Imperial Valley
and, near Jacumba, others irrigated fields from springs (Gifford 1931:21-22). Shipek (1989) has
hypothesized that horticultural practices among the Kumeyaay were widespread and intensive,
involving transplantation and cultivation of several native plant species. There is still some
controversy regarding the degree of dependence these groups placed on "cultivated" crops versus
"natural" crops. Review of the ethnographic and ethnohistoric record indicates that most groups
moved to different areas on a seasonal basis to capitalize on particular crops such as acorns or
agave, and were not wholly dependent on any one resource. Burning was used by some
California Indian groups as a method of environmental manipulation to promote the growth of
grasses and flowering annuals, which in turn promoted increases in game populations (Lewis
1973:29; Bean and Lawton 1973:xxi).
Animal resources for the Kumeyaay consisted mostly of small game such as rabbits
(Sylvilagus spp.), hares (Lepus califomicus), woodrats (Neotoma spp.), lizards, some snakes, and
grasshoppers (Spier 1923:335-336; Gifford 1931:14; Shipek 1991:32). Many birds probably
were not eaten by the Kumeyaay (Drucker 1937:8), although this restriction seems to apply
mostly to shorebirds. Eagles and buzzards were avoided by the Kumeyaay; hawks, owls, doves,
crows, road runners, and mockingbirds weje sometimes avoided and sometimes not (Drucker
1937:8, 1941:100). Larger game, mostly mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and possibly
pronghorn (Antilocapra americana, now locally extinct) were also hunted. Boats or rafts were
used by coastal groups to fish and molluscs were heavily exploited in Mission and San Diego
bays, as well as the Donax spp. from open sandy shoreline habitats. The Torrey Pine was also
a source of seasonal nuts.
Results
The records search indicate no previously recorded sites in or adjacent to the project area.
The closest sites are located 200 meters west (CA-SDI-612) and 400 meters east (CA-SDI-212)
on the south side of La Costa Avenue. Both sites are reported to be heavily disturbed by road
construction and other modern activities (Cheever and Gallegos 1986). The field survey results
were also negative. No cultural resources were observed in the project area.
Mr. James Harry
January 26, 1998
PageS
Recommendations
Monitoring during construction is recommended. The project site is located at the mouth
of a large unnamed seasonal drainage that empties into Batiquitos Lagoon. This is an area that
has likely received millennia of accumulated alluvial deposits that can easily have buried seasonal
prehistoric occupations under many meters of silt and sand. Flooding of the lagoon can also have
contributed to the alluvial deposition. There is some potential for cultural resources to be
preserved at various depths below the surface. No evidence of prehistoric sites are visible on the
surface, but this is also an area of extensive disturbance from previous construction activities.
It is therefore recommended that a qualified archaeological monitor be present during any ground
disturbance, trenching, or grading.
REFERENCES
Bean, Lowell John, and Harry W. Lawton
1973 Some Explanations for the Rise of Cultural Complexity in Native California with
Comments on Proto-Agriculture and Agriculture. In Patterns of Indian Burning in
California: Ecology and Ethnohistory, by Henry T. Lewis, pp. v-xlvii. Ballena Press
Anthropological Papers No. 1.
Bean, Lowell John, and Katharine Siva Saubel
1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press,
Banning, California.
Byrd, Brian F.
1997 Coastal Archaeology of SDI-10,728, Las Flores Creek, Camp Pendleton,
California. Prepared by ASM Affiliates for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los
Angees District.
Byrd, Brian F., Drew Pallette, and Carol Serr
1995 Archaeological Testing Along San Mateo and San Onofre Creeks, Northwestern
Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California. Prepared by Brian F. Mooney
Associates for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angees District.
Cheever, Dayle and Dennis Gallegos
1986 Cultural Resource Survey, La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California. Prepared by
WESTEC Services for the City of Carlsbad.
Drucker, Philip
1937 Culture Element Distributions: V., Southern California. University of California
Anthropological Records 1(1).
Mr. James Harry m
January 26, 1998
Page 6 m
m
Gallegos, Dennis R.
1985 Batiquitos, Lagoon Revisited. Coastal Papers, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. Cultural
Resource Management Center, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State '*
University, San Diego. m
1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos .
Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited
by Dennis Gallegos, pp. 23-34. San Diego County Archaeological Society m
Research Paper No. 1. —
1992 Patterns and Implications of Coastal Settlement in San Diego County: 9000 to 1300
Years Ago. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by T. m
Jones, pp. 205-216. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publications No. m
10.
m
Gifford, E. W. m
1918 Clans and Moieties in Southern California. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 14:155-219. *
1931 The Kamia of Imperial Valley. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 97. «
Lewis, Henry T. m
1973 Patterns of Indian Burning in California: Ecology and Ethnohistory. Ballena Press ^
Anthropological Papers No. 1.
MM
Luomala, Katharine - rt
1963 Flexibility in Sib Affiliation among the Diegueno. Ethnology 2(3):282-301.
1978 Tipai and Ipai. ]n Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, edited by m
R. F. Heizer, pp. 592-609. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. —
Meigs, Peveril, III •»
1939 The Kiliwa Indians of Lower California. Ibero-Americana 15. —
Moratto, Michael J. m
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.
Reddy, Seetha, N., Barbara J. Giacomini, and Carol Serr m
1996 Archaeological Testing in Between and Adjacent to CA-SDI-13,325, and CA-SDI- —
13,324 Along San Mateo Creek, Northwestern Camp Pendleton, San Diego County,
California, ASM Affiliates, Inc. Encinitas, California. m
MRogers, Malcolm J.
1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1:167-198. m
Mr. James Harry
January 26, 1998
Page 7
Shipek, Florence
1981 A Native American Adaptation to Drought: The Kumeyaay as Seen in the San Diego
Mission Records. Ethnohistory 28:295-312.
1989 An Example of Intensive Plant Husbandry: The Kumeyaay of Southern California.
In Foraging and Farming: the Evolution of Plant Exploitation, edited by D. R. Harris
and G. C. Hillman, pp. 159-170. Onwin Hyman, London.
Spier, Leslie
1923 Southern Diegueno Customs. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology 20:292-358.
Treganza, Adan E.
1942 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Northeastern Baja California and Southeastern
California. American Antiquity 2:152-163.
Wade, Sue A.
1991 A Cultural Resource Survey of the La Jolla Spectrum Property, La Jolla,
California. Prepared by RECON for McKellar Properties, San Diego.
Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern
Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230.
Warren, Claude N., Gretchen Siegler, and Frank Dittner
1993 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods. In Historic Properties Background Study
for the City of San Diego Clean Water Program. Brian F. Mooney Associates for
Clean Water Program for Greater San Diego.
Warren, Claude N., and Max G. Pavesic
1963 Shell Midden Analysis of Site SDI-603 and Ecological Implications for Cultural
Development of Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County, California. Annual Report
1962-63, pp. 407-438. Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Should you have any questions regarding this project, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely yours,
Jerry Schaefer, Ph.D.
Senior Archaeologist
Attachments: Figure 1 Project Location on USGS 7.5' Map
n
Source: Adapted fromUSGS 7.5' minute series, Encinitas, California-San Diego Co., N3300-W117.5/7.5
1968, Photorevised 1975, NAD 27
Project Location: NE!/4 of the NEW of the SW/< of Section 34 T.12S. R4W SBBM
2000
Figure 1
Project Location on
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle