Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 99-52; I-5 Water Pipe Undercrossing; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (8)08/22/2000 16:00 FAX 760 438 4178 ENG, INSPECTIONS i]02 ION June21,2000 Samuel A- Smalley „....-,.- - City of Carlsbad _... -'.-. "'-:•". " ; - 5950 El Camino Real ,-'•' : Carifibad,CA 92008 Reference: Cost Estimate for Restoration of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub at Interstate 5 Waterline Construction Site (RECON Number 3292B) 1927 Fifth Avenue. Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101-2358 619 / 308-9333 fax 30B-9334 Dear Mr. Smalley: Enclosed is a cost estimate for coastal sage scrub restoration on the Interstate 5 Waterline construction site. Included in the scope are tasks for preparing a restoration plan, implementing the plan, and maintaining and monitoring the restoration site for three years. The restoration plan will include seed and plant lists, strategies for planting and *t+M*£r biological monitoring requirements, and maintenance requirements. Preparing the plan will require a meeting with the regulatory agencies and incorporation of their comments into the draft plan. Implementing the plan includes weed control prior to planting, seed collection, plant production and management at the growing facility, and plant installation. Each of the three years of maintenance and monitoring includes regular site visits, an annual report, correspondence, plant care, and weed control. The total labor cost for these tasks is $13,065. with a cost breakdown as follows: Meeting with the agencies $ 300 Revegetation plan S 1,990 Implementation $ 1,075 Year 1 maintenance and monitoring $ 4,550 Year 2 maintenance and monitoring S 2,575 Year 3 maintenance and monitoring $ 2,575 RECON Environmental, Inc. has successfully restored coastal sage scrub habitat at other locations and can provide these services for you. If you would like us to proceed with the restoration, please send a written authorization for us to proceed. If you have any questions, please call RECON biologist Jennifer Radtkey. Sincerely, Bobbie Step Director. Resources Group BAS:JRR:arh Enclosure^) 08/22/2000 16:00 FAX 760 438 4178 ENG, INSPECTIONS i)03 Batiquitos Lagoon Restoration of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Scope of Work Revegetation Plan 1 . Prepare and submit a revegetation plan, 2. Revise plan after receiving comments from client and agencies. 3. Expend up to four hours in meetings wi th agencies. 1. Provide up to 32 hours of weeding to control non-native species prior to planting the native species. 2. Collect seed from native plants in the adjacent open space areas and grow them for planting at the restoration site. 3. Install seed and 30 native plants on approximately 0.01 acre where Diegan coastal sage scrub was removed during extraction of the old pipeline. Year 1 Maintenance and Monitoring 1 , Provide up to eight hours of monitoring by the project biologist. 2. Install seed and up to 20 more native plants as necessary on the restoration site to fill in open areas. 3. Provide up to 48 hours of weeding on the restoration site. 4. Prepare and submit an annual report to the client and resource agencies. Year 2 Maintenance and Monitoring 1 . Provide up to eight hours of monitoring by the project biologist. 2. Provide up to 48 hours of weed eradication on the revegetation site. 3. Prepare and submit an annual report to the client and resource agencies. Year 3 Maintenance and Monitoring 1 . Provide up to eight hours of monitoring by the project biologist 2. Provide up to 34 hours of weed eradication on the revegetation site. 3. Prepare and submit an annual report to the client and resource agencies. Total Cost: $13,065.00 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gray Davis GOVERNOR Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Loretta Lynch DIRECTOR 1QQQluuu City Of Karlsbad December 16,1999 Jason Martin City of Carlsbad 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 Subject: 1-5 Freeway Water Pipeline Undercrossing SCH#: 99111077 Dear Jason Martin: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on December 15, 1999, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. 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 the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, Terry Roberts Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 WWW.OPR.CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.HTML Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data SCH# 99111077 Project Title I-5 Freeway Water Pipeline Undercrossing Lead Agency Carlsbad, City of Type neg Negative Declaration Description Installation of a 16 inch underground water pipeline, spanning a distance of approximately 780 feet and underneath the I-5 Freeway, through a directional drilling technique. Lead Agency Contact Name Agency Phone email Address City Jason Martin City of Carlsbad 760438-1161 X4515 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD Fax State CA Zip 92009 Project Location County San Diego City Carlsbad Reg/on Cross Streets Parcel No. Township I-5 Freeway, 400 feet north of the Batiquitos Lagoon 216-140-30 and 216-452-13 Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways I-5 Airports McClellan/ Palomar NCTD Pacific Ocean, Batiquitos Lagoon Railways Waterways Schools Land Use Residential and open space/ Planned Community/ Residential and Open Space Project Issues Noise Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 11; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission Date Received 11 /16/1999 Start of Review 11/16/1999 End of Review 12/15/1999 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. Gray Davis GOVERNOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse STREET ADDRESS: 1400 TENTH STREET ROOM 222 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov/clearinghouse.html Loretta Lynch DIRECTOR DATE: TO: RE: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT December 1, 1999 Jason Martin City of Carlsbad 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 1-5 Freeway Water Pipeline Undercrossing SCH#: 99111077 This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is: Review Start Date: November 16, 1999 Review End Date: December 15, 1999 We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments: California Highway Patrol Caltrans, District 11 Department of Conservation Department of Fish and Game, Region 5 Department of Parks and Recreation Native American Heritage Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9 Resources Agency State Lands Commission The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your attention on the date following the close of the review period. Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: October 26, 1999 REVISED PLAN TO: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT - MIKE SMITH BUILDING DEPARTMENT - PAT KELLEY FROM: Planning Department, Jason Martin PROJECT TITLE: 1-5 Water Line Under-Crossing/CDP 99-52 _ __ APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad/Carlsbad Municipal Water District _ PROPOSAL: A request for a coastal development permit to install approximately 1650 lineal feet of water line underneath the I-5 Freeway, just north of the Batiquitos Lagoon. The water line would connect an existing stub located in proposed Street "C" of the Poinsettia Shores Area C development with an existing stub located in an open space area located near Piovana Court. The water line will be installed by directional drilling, a trenchless technology method. _ Please review and submit written comments and/or Conditions of Approval by November 5, 1999. If you have "No Comments", please so state. If not received by the date indicated, it will be assumed that you have no comment and the proposal has your endorsement as submitted. If you have any questions, please contact Jason Martin at 438-1 161, extension 451 5. THANK YOU COMMENTS: This project was initially authorized under the CIP for FY 98/99 for preliminary design and related studies. Planning, at the initiation of the CMWD, is preparing the required environmental documents and is processing the required Coastal Development Permit. The project is tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission review on December 15, 1999. c: File Randy Klaahsen, Carlsbad Municipal Water District 12/14/99 07:58 ©760 431 1601 CARLSBAD MWD •*-»-» LAS PALM 0001/008 & arlsbad Municipal Water District 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Administration: (760) 438-2722 Fax: (760) 431-1601 Facsimile Transmittal 5 Please deliver the following pages to the appropriate person below: Name: TQ^ J^av-i^ Agency: d^feVxVir^ " Fax No: Us This message is being sent from the Carlsbad Municipal Water District by: Name: '^^ Phone: A total of 7 pages are being transmitted, including the transmittal sheet. If you do not receive all of the pages, please notify the Carlsbad MWD at the number above. SU&T^-^T- T 5. Message:, 1 y k A fUek«J pi. v\O e 'To -T . J. X ,. J 12/14/99 07:58 431 1601 CARLSBAD MWD -»->-»• LAS PALM NOISE* CONTROL CnRPDRRTI O N EXPERTS IN NOISE AND SOUND CONTROL 6661 6 0 I03H Noise Control Corporation specializes in eliminating unwanted noise. We offer years of experience in noise and sound control for seismic retrofit projects, oil well drilling, water well drilling, soil remediation equipment, construction, excavation, and tunneling sites, pile driving, pumps, generators, blowers, and vertical turbines. In addition we supply noise and sound control materials as well as consulting services to advise on the design and engineering of projects. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PASADENA, CALIFORNIA ARROYO SECO BRIDGE • SEISMIC RETROFIT PROJECT Noise control blankets were suspended from the bridge to mitigate noise levels in the outlying neighborhoods. This noise control barrier averaged ten stories in height and over 3DO feet in length. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SEISMIC RETROFIT PROJECT SAN DIEGO, CAUFORNIA Sound barriers and dust/debris control for column seismic retrofit project. Los ANGOCS COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTION SITE Los ANGBLES, CAUFORNIA Construction site sound/noise control barriers. These barriers were designed to mitigate construction equipment noise. CARRIER INDUSTRIES CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA SOIL REMEDIATION EQUIPMENT Noise barrier with sound absorption capabilities to reduce sound pressure. TORCH OIL Los ANGOES, CALIFORNIA OIL WELL DRILLING Temporary sound barrier wall for 24 hour drilling operation within a residential neighborhood. P.O. Box 81774 * Bakersfield, CA 9338O * Phone (BOOJ 6OB-6473 * Fax (8O5J 391-3939 World Wide Web: www.noisecontrol.com * Email: ncc0noisscontrol.com 12/14/99 07:59 ©760 431 1601 CARLSBAD MWD ->-»-» LAS PALM 0003/008 NOISE CONTROL EXPERTS IN IMOISE AND'SOUND CONTROL SOUND BARRIER WALLS C Q R P O R R The separation of employees and/or patrons from noise generation of equipment activities is one of the most common reasons for noise and sound control. This is regularly accomplished by the design and installation of sound barrier walls. These walls are partitions made from wood, steel, masonry, or fabric. Sound barrier walls act as a barrier between two entities, Noise Control Corporation's sound barriers have been installed inside refineries, around drilling rigs, inside mini-malls where business share party walls, at ports of call, train stations, construction and excavation sites, and even night dubs. The principle supporting sound barriers is very simple: design the barrier to the appropriate density to prevent movement of the sound (energy) and absorption criteria to ensure modification of the sound. Noise Control Corporation has worked with acoustical consultants and owners in commercial and industrial settings to identify and successfully mitigate noise and sound, INNERSHIELD PANELS Research and development has proven that innershield panels are the most up to date technology for sound control barrier walls. These panels are lightweight for easy handling, dense enough to stop low frequency noise at the source, and strong enough to withstand a 70 mile per hour wind load. Made from steel tubing for structural integrity, the innershield panels are loaded with inorganic composites and an inner membrane of 24 gauge sheet metal. Water absorption is less than .05% by volume, and NRC is at .90, with an STC42 rating. The outer shell is made of PVC material and meets the fire marshal requirements for flame-retardant Additionally the panels are anti-fungal/bacterial. NOISE CONTROL BLANKETS Noise control blankets are utilized for a variety of sound control requirements and are manufactured and inventoried in configurations of B'xIQ", 8'x16', 10'x10', and 1O'x2D'. They offer an immediate solution to your noise control needs. Offered in density from 1 Ib, per square foot to 2 Ibs. per square foot, the blankets can readily be utilized for quick strike up and quick strike down operations. Noise control blankets with ratings of STC-2O and STC-30 are extremely effective for wrapping drilling rigs, soil remediation equipment, pump and generator enclosures, and construction site barrier walls. P.O,BaxB1774 * Bakersfietd, CA 933BO * Phone (BOOJ 6OB-6473 * Fax (BO5J 331-3999 World Wide Web: www.noisecontrol.eom * Email: ncc@noisecontrol.cam 12/14/99 08:00 ©760 431 1601 CARLSBAD MWD ->->-> LAS PALM 0004/008 NOISE CONTROL EXPERTS IN NOISE AND SOUND CONTROL ORPDRRTION APPLICATIONS OIL WELL/ WATCR WELL DRILLING Noise Control Corporation has perfected both the art and science for drilling application technology. We have developed "state of the art" sound reducing panels and blankets specific for oil sites. These noise control blankets have the highest sound barrier qualities available on today's market. Our noise control blankets are chemical resistant, fire resistant, and weather proofed for harsh environments. Most drilling sites requiring sound control are in locations which are noise sensitive and noise and sound control are part of the permitting process. Our typical design installation does not interfere with any operation of running pipe up the V-door or tong operations. Sound control for water well drilling differs from that in oil well drilling for a few reasons. Rrst, there is no room for noise control applications on the drilling rig. Secondly, the equipment differs in it noise sources, The blankets mentioned above are still utilized but are configured differently. The most common use for the sound control blankets is to erect a perimeter sound barrier wall up to 2Dr tall. This wall allows for separation between the rig and the community without interfering with the tight working areas of the location. We stock and store an inventory of panels approximately 1D' x 0Q1, SEISMIC RETROFIT Noise Control has become the industry leader in sound control applications for I both new bridge construction and seismic retrofits. Our most recent project was at the Arroyo Seco Bridge in the city of Pasadena for McCarthy Construction and I the California Department of Transportation. Noise control blankets were suspended from the bridge to mitigate 12-22 decibels of sound. The noise control harrier averaged ten stories in height and over 900 feet in length. This application mitigated typical constructions sounds such as rock drills, concrete operations. | jack hammers and pile drivers from nearby residences. mm CONSTRUCTION SITES Most construction safety codes require plywood perimeter fencing in urban or congested construction settings. This requirement is largely for security purposes, but does produce ancillary sound control. Local noise ordinances j generally reflect a higher standard for swing shift or "after work" hours. This balance of quiet neighborhoods and ongoing construction has been successfully accomplished by Noise Control Corporation. Our construction site sound barriers are either 1 D1, 20' or 30' tail. They come in various thickness and have different -« ratings for noise mitigation . EXCAVATION SITES The barrier wall system [as mentioned in Construction Sites] is also effectively utilized for major excavation sites. The barrier wall allows for maximum flexibility and options to the site manager. Dust control is always an issue, and our designs can allow for the attachment of sprinkler systems thereby reducing water equipment requirements. Noise Control Corporation has designed barriers that provide necessary site lighting and can support SO' x 20' equipment access doors. Most excavation sites have a permanent maintenance area. Our portable enclosure allows for noise mitigation of extremely noisy equipment such as compressors and generators. Noise Control Corporation's extensive experience means successful technology applications will allow you to work 24 hours per day. P.O. Box B1774 * Bakersfiefd. CA 933BO * Phone (8OOJ BO&6473 * Fax (805) 331-9999 World Wide Web: www.naisecontrol.com * Email: ncc@noisecontrol.com 12/14/99 08:00 ©760 431 1601 CARLSBAD MTO •*-»-» LAS PALM 0005/008 NOISE CONTROL LORPORPITION EXPERTS IN NOISE AIMb-oOUNO CONTROL APPLICATIONS TUNNELING SITES Tunneling sites differ greatly from both construction and excavation sites specifically .due to the nature of their operations. The equipment used in tunneling and the I operation itself are both demanding and challenging. From the vent shafts to the j mucking operations, noise is generated at all frequencies and measures in hertz. Noise Control Corporation has provided sound control barrier walls, equipment (enclosures, and silencers for two of the preeminent tunneling projects on the west j coast Our firm provided noise and sound control at the major excavation sites, the I station sites, the vent traps, and at the cement drop chutes on the Metropolitan! Transit Authority's Metrorail subway system in Los Angeles, California. Noise Control Corporation's knowledge has proven to be extremely valuable for tunneling contractors requiring sound control. PILE DRIVING Noise Control Corporation has performed work on various pile driving operations. This I experience includes hydraulic units driving conductor pipe for oil well drilling operations. I diesel driven hammers driving steel beams, concrete piles, and foundation pipe. Ours! extensive database has information regarding both the acoustical energy of pile drivers ij and the broad band of sound frequencies. Our sound control blankets are popular for j most pile driving operations. Noise Control blankets are made of heavy grade laminated material; are chemical resistant, anti-fungal for extremely wet operations, and flame I retardant. Designed to the Uniform Building Code for 70 mile per wind loading, the blankets withstand shock wave and concussion impacts. Our approach to pile driving is to provide sound control with the least amount of rig obstructions. We accomplish this by providing portable sound barriers that absorb and block the noise at its primary source. Mobility and the barrier's effectiveness are the keys to success for noise control. PUMP, GENERATORS, BLOWERS I The years of experience compiled by Noise Control Corporation has shown us that I similar enclosure applications can be utilized to mitigate tfie noise of'many different I equipment types. Noise Control Corporation can provide either permanent or I temporary enclosures tailoring solutions on a case by case basis. Since air circulation 1 is critical for cooling, our acoustical enclosures come with an air transfer system that I allows the cooling air to move in and out of the enclosure, yet does not allow the noise to I escape, These state of the art enclosures solve noise problems from various types of equipment Most typically, they are used on pipeline bypass pumps, equipment generators for source power during construction, blowers for agriculture storage facilities, and blowers on soil remediation equipment Noise Control Corporation is the unequivocal industry leader in these types of noise and sound control applications. VERTICAL TURBINES Noise Control Corporation has provided mitigation strategies to several vertical turbine applications. These units are most unique in that the frequency of noise generated by these units is very annoying. The high frequency sound of the vertical turbine is inherent to its mechanical nature. Horsepower and drive mechanisms vary, and even though the sizes of these units vary greatly, the noise levels generated tend to be very similar. Noise Control's sound control enclosures for these units have been ejcher elaborate or simple. This is determined by the sound level criteria. The governing criteria most often used in the local municipal noise ordinance. Noise Control Corporation designs, builds, and installs the enclosures based on field information, Based on analysis, we provide the most cost-effective solution for reducing or eliminating the noise. P.O. Box 81774 * Bakersfield, CA 33380 * Phone fSOOj BOGG473 * Fax (805)331-9999 World Wide Web: www.noisecontrol.com * Email: ncc@noisecontrol.com 12/14/99 08:01 ©760 431 1601 CARLSBAD MWD LAS PALM 0006/008 STC-22 Noise Control Barrier NOISE Frequency in Hertz Transmission Loss 63 9 125 10 250 8 500 20 IK 39 2K 43 4K 48 d(B)a STC-27 Noise Control Barrier Frequency in Hertz Transmission Loss 63 11 125 11 250 13 500 28 IK 39 2K 40 4K 53 d(B)a VW-22 Noise Control Barrier Frequency in Hertz Transmission Loss 63 9 125 10 250 8 500 20 1K 39 2K 43 4K 48 d(B)a NFtC Rating .85 WV-27 Noise Control Barrier Frequency in Hertz Transmission Loss 63 11 125 11 250 13 500 28 1K 39 2K 40 4K 53 d(Bla NRC Rating:1.00 Standard Sizes/Dimensions 10X10 Standard Color Grey / Construction Safety Yellow Other colors available upon request Material Comoosftion Flame Resistant Fabric Insulation Environmental Issues UV Resistant for 1 0 years Anti-Fungal /Anti-Bacterial Recyclable Acoustical Data STC Rating: 27 NRC Rating: 1.00 Warranty One year parts and labor Custom Sizes/dimensions All sizes available appropriate to customer requirements at an additional cost. Thickness /Weight 3 W Thick 1.04 Ibs per square foot Attachment Method Yi brass grommets on 12° center Flammabilitv Flame resistant/Flame Retardant to the State of California Fire Marshall requirement F4 19.01 Worklna Temperatures HighieOTtoa^O'F Ability to withstand wind loads up to 70 mph P.O. Box 81771 » BakersflQld. California 93380 4 800-605*473 • Fax 861-391-9999 12/14/99 08:01 -&760 431 1601 CARLSBAD MWD ->->-> LAS PALM JI007/008 4 1 1 4 1 m 4 4 i 4 4 3.08 DISPOSAL OF DRILLING FLUIDS ™ The Contractor shall furnish portable fluid (mud) tanks on the east and/or west sides of the freeway to contain all drilling fluids resulting from the freeway boring procedure; shall properly tf| dispose of all drilling fluids offsite, away from the freeway, at no additional cost to the District. Drilling fluids shall be recycled during the operation of the directional drilling procedure, where 4B possible. 3.09 LAYOUT AREA m A layout area has been indicated on the drawings. The contractor may provide additional area or another area for layout and pullback operations, if desired. However, the Contractor shall obtain«advance permission from landowner(s) for any activity outside the easement and temporary work spaces (see paragraph 3.05) and shall pay for any damages to such areas. The Contractor shall provide the District with right of entry to inspect the pipeline and pullback operations. 1 3.05 TEMPORARY WORK SPACE The District shall provide temporary work spaces for construction activities on the east and west side of the freeway, The Contractor is to provide means of ingress and egress to work sites at no additional cost to the District. The Contractor shall be liable for damages to the work space area from heavy trucks and equipment. The Contractor shall grade, furnish material as required, fill, level, build access roads, and perform all other site work required to accomplish the work. Contractor's activities shall be strictly confined to the easement and temporary work spaces shown on the Drawings. The Contractor shall obtain advance permission from landowner(s) for any activity outside the easement arid temporary work spaces and shall pay for any damages to such areas. 3.06 FIELD SURVEYS >t The Contractor shall furnish and set centeriine stakes of the proposed pipeline (except the section within Caltrans Right-of-Way) as shown on the alignment Drawings. The Contractor shall furnish and set the construction stakes necessary to establish the location and elevation of all facilities. The Contractor shall accomplish the work to comply with drawing layout and grade elevations, and shall be responsible for conformity and agreement of the work with the layout and elevations. 3.07 EASEMENTS Easements allowed for construction will be as shown on the Drawings. All brush and other debris caused by construction will be removed from the premises and disposed of legally. Restoration, seeding, fertilizing and mulching of easement shall be done by the Contractor. No trees will be removed without the District's advance permission. 3.10 RESIDENT NOTIFICATION Directional Drilling 02410-FM-4 994656,00 Foxes Landing Sewer Force Main 12/14/99 08:02 ©760 431 1601 CARLSBAD MWD -»-»-» LAS PALM El 008/008 4 *^§ v / The Contractor shall notify all adjacent residents before commencing construction. Residents \A \ sna" b6 notified of the construction and including during the pull back operation. v \\ ^J 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 1 i 1 I • 1 i 1 shall be notified of the construction and any obstructions to their access caused by construction, The Contractor shall prepare a Resident Notification Plan for submittal and approval by the Deputy City Engineer before construction is to commence. Two resident notices shall be provided in the plan; 1) a two-week advance notice, and 2) a two-day advance notice. The notification plan submittal shall include copies of the notices to be delivered, and the methods of delivery. 3.11 SOIL CONDITONS A soils report regarding the Foxes Landing Lift Station site has been prepared for the District by Kleinfelder, Inc. dated 18 May 1999. The accuracy of the soils report is not guaranteed. PART 4 - TESTING * 4.01 TESTING The Contractor shall hydrostatically test the pipeline after completion of the pullback operation in accordance with Technical Specifications Section 02661 -FM. Directional Drilling 0241Q-FM-5 994656,00 Foxes Landing Sewer Force Main September 17, 1999 TO: Don Rideout FROM: Randy Klaahsen SUBJECT: Interstate 5, 16-Inch Water Line Crossing I have completed the environmental impact assessment form-Part 1 for your review on the Interstate 5, 16- Inch Water Line Crossing project. The two areas that I feel may cause less than significant impacts are biology and noise. In regards to the biology, I would like to bring you and/or the assigned planner to the sight for a survey. It appears to me to be non-native type of plants, however I would like your confirmation of this. Secondly, we may have a noise impact with the directional drilling equipment. The equipment will be set up on the east side of Interstate 5 near Piovanna Court. The drilling equipment is run off a diesel engine. The noise level at a distance often feet away from the equipment is 90dba but with noise blankets can be brought down to 60 dba. The drilling operation noise will most likely occur between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. daily. The duration of the project is expected to be six weeks after the equipment is mobilized. I have attached the directional drilling alternative from the preliminary design report for your review. We are in the process of getting a Caltrans encroachment permit for the project. Caltrans is requiring an inspection vault on the east side of the freeway. It appears that this vault is presently located in a slope that may have Coastal Sage Scrub. I want to let you know that this can be moved further east out of sensitive vegetation. Please let me know when a convenient time would be to bring you to the site for a survey. We expect a January start date for construction. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Randy Klaahsen RK:rk Attachments 1 . Environmental Impact Assessment Form 2. Dirctional Drilling Proposed Plan and Profile 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 PROPOSED 16" WATER MAIN CONNECT 16" HOPE WATERLINE TO PROPOSED 16" WATER MAIN PROPOSED 16 HOPE WATERLIh WITH 30" CASING EXISTING 12" "ACP WATER MAIN 16" PVC PIPE 160 140 120 VERT. SCALE: 1" = 40 HORIZ. SCALE: 1" = 100 20 15+00 FEDERAL WETLANDS INSPECTION VAULT \ FIGURE N0.2 BATIQUITOS WATERLINE CROSSING DIRECTIONAL DRILLING - HOPE ALTERNATIVE 1 0 '. Interoffice / ' , © Date: December 22, 1999 To: Randy Klaahsen From: Jason Martin RE: The 1-5 Freeway Water Pipeline Undercrossing project-CDP 99-52 As you know, the Planning Commission at their December 15th meeting continued the above referenced item to enable staff to resolve a couple of issues. The item was continued to the January 5, 2000 meeting. Given the short turn around between meetings, we were not able to schedule the item for our normal Departmental Coordinating Committee (DCC) process/meeting. The DCC is the process where we transmit draft staff report packets on items which have been scheduled for Planning Commission consideration to applicants (such as yourself), in advance of Planning Commission meetings for applicant review and comment. This transmittal will fulfill that function. Please find a draft of the staff report packet to the Planning Commission for your review and comment. The packet includes: • A brief staff report outlining issues that were identified at the meeting. The report includes a staff recommended means of resolving those issues. • A revised Planning Commission Resolution for approval of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, which includes new/revised mitigation measures. Once again your signature, which indicates your acceptance of the mitigation measures, is needed. It is included on page 18 of the EIA. • A revised Planning Commission Resolution for approval of the Coastal Development Permit, which includes new/revised conditions of approval. • Miscellaneous items such as a modified copy of the original staff report on the item, and other exhibits. Please pay particular attention to the recommended mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Please return any comments you may have, and the signed original of the mitigation measures acceptance, to the Planning Department by end of business Monday December 27,1999. Call if you have any questions. Ill The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: January 5, 2000 Application complete date: September 17, 1999 Project Planner: Jason Martin Project Engineer: Bob Wojcik SUBJECT: CDP 99-52 - 1-5 WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSS1NG - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a water line project within the City's Coastal Zone located just north of the Batiquitos Lagoon and crossing underneath the 1-5 Freeway within Local Facilities Management Zones 9 and 19. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4695 APPROVING the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4696 APPROVING Coastal Development Permit CDP 99-52 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II.ITEM EXPLANATION On December 15, 1999, the Planning Commission considered the above referenced project where they heard testimony from Planning Department staff and the project applicant - the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD). The Planning Department staff report from that meeting is included as Attachment 3. At the meeting the Planning Commission continued the item so that staff could conduct additional research relating to issues regarding the Coastal California Gnatcatcher and City standards regarding construction activity/noise. Coastal California Gnatcatcher or the "Gnatcatcher" Given the project's close proximity to communities of coastal sage scrub, a known habitat for the Gnatcatcher, the Commission questioned whether noise associated with project construction had the potential to impact the Gnatcatcher. Staff researched previously prepared biological studies concerning the area, which were conducted prior to the Azure Cove development and prior to the Gnatcatcher's listing. Studies from the early 1990s indicated the presence of Gnatcatchers in the area. However, since much of the Gnatcatcher habitat was removed as result of the Azure Cove project and new non-native landscaping materials were planted in graded open space areas around the project, it is highly probable that Gnatcatchers have since relocated. The only way to determine the presence or absence of the Gnatcatcher with the desired degree of certainty, is to have a qualified biologist survey the site. Staff has contacted the local office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to discuss the issue, and to request a representative meet Planning 11 prFEiCDP 99-52 -1-5 WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING January 5, 2000 Page 2 Department staff at the site to assist in determining the area's habitat value. If the USFWS can conclude that it is unlikely that Gnatcatchers are present, no further action would be necessary. If it is determined that Gnatcatchers are potentially present, the CMWD would need to obtain the services of a qualified biologist to conduct a survey and evaluation of the site's surroundings. A mitigation measure/condition of approval has been developed accordingly, and has been incorporated into Resolutions 4695 and 4696, which are included as Attachments 1 and 2. The mitigation measure/condition of approval reads as follows: Prior to beginning any construction activity at the site, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), or their designee, shall submit to the Planning Department either; 1) a letter from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) indicating that the area in the vicinity of the project site is unlikely to be occupied by Coastal California Gnatcatcher or; 2) a study prepared by a qualified biologist concerning the area in the vicinity of the site and an evaluation of its potential as Coastal California Gnatcatcher habitat. In the event that a submitted study indicates a potential for impact on the Coastal California Gnatcatcher, the CMWD shall comply with all USFWS and City of Carlsbad standards for construction and mitigation thereof. Construction Hours At the meeting, the project applicant, the CMWD, requested that the Planning Commission amend the staff recommended mitigation measures and conditions of approval regarding permitted days of construction. To minimize anticipated construction noise impacts to adjacent residential uses, staff had recommended that construction activity be prohibited on Saturdays and Sundays. The CMWD requested that Saturday construction be permitted. At the meeting, staff stated a belief that the recommendation was based, in part, on Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) regulations as they relate to construction noise. The Planning Commission questioned whether there were any special provisions available to allow construction on Saturdays. After the meeting staff researched City regulations in more detail. The research indicated that the CMC does, in fact, allow construction activity on Saturdays. Additionally, the City Attorney has reviewed CMC Section 8.48 and determined that construction activity would be allowed on Saturday, between the hours of 8 AM and dusk. Staff has outlined 3 options available to the Planning Commission in this regard. The Planning Commission may in their discretion use one of the provided options, modify any of the provided options, or develop any alternative they believe to be appropriate. Staff identified the options as follows: Option 1 - The Planning Commission may limit construction activity beyond the minimum restrictions identified in the CMC, by prohibiting construction activity on Saturdays. The mitigation measure/condition of approval for this option would read as follows: Hours of construction shall be limited' to between the hours of 7 AM and dusk Monday through Friday. No construction activity is permitted on Saturday and Sunday. CDP 99-52 -1-5 WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING January 5, 2000 Page 3 The CMWD has expressed concern regarding this option. The CMWD estimates that a prohibition of Saturday construction would lengthen the construction schedule by 6 - 10 days at an estimated added cost of $5,000 per day. Option 2 - The Planning Commission may find that established restrictions in the CMC adequately mitigate noise impacts. The mitigation measure/condition of approval for this option would read as follows: Hours of construction shall be limited to those prescribed in the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) which are between the hours of 7 AM and dusk, Monday through Friday and between the hours of 8 AM and dusk on Saturday. No construction activity is permitted on Sunday or holidays specified in Section 8.84 of the CMC. The CMWD and the Planning Department are supportive of this option. Option 3 - The Planning Commission may find that a certain, limited degree of construction activity, and noise, on Saturday can be permitted. For example, activity may be limited to between the hours of 10 AM and 3 PM, or any time frame that the Planning Commission believes appropriate. The mitigation measure/condition of approval for this option could read as follows: Hours of construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7 AM and dusk, Monday through Friday. No construction activity is permitted Sunday or holidays specified in Section 8.48 of the CMC. Construction activity is permitted on Saturday but is limited to be between the hours of 10 AM and 3 PM. The CMWD has expressed concern regarding this option. They believe that this option would result in construction schedule delays and cost overruns, similar to those expected with Option 1. In conclusion, the Planning Department believes that the restrictions in the CMC have proven adequate in the past, and that there are no special circumstances associated with this project which warrant a requirement for more restrictive limitations than those identified in the CMC. The attached Resolutions 4695 and 4696 have been prepared to reflect Option 2 and the staff report has been modified. Should the Planning Commission wish to pursue Options 1 or 3, or any other option, they would need to direct staff to make specified changes accordingly. In an added environmental processing matter, the above noted issues have necessitated changes to the originally circulated Mitigated Negative Declaration document. Staff has determined that the changes do not constitute a "substantial revision" as defined in Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore no re-circulation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was required or conducted. (The original Mitigated Negative Declaration document for this project was already circulated for the required review period which ended in advance of the December 15, 1999 where the item was originally scheduled for public hearing). CEQA does require, however, an additional written finding be included in the Planning Commission's Resolution when substituting or adding mitigation measures after the circulation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration document. The additional finding has been incorporated I' PffECDP 99-52 - 1-5 WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING January 5, 2000 Page 4 into Resolution 4695. In summary, the project has been analyzed, noticed, and documented in full compliance with CEQA. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Resolution No. 4695 (Mitigated Neg Dec) Planning Commission Resolution No. 4696 (CDP) Report to the Planning Commission, dated December 15, 1999 Location Map Background Data Sheet JM:cs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8< 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4695 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ACCOMPANY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-52 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A WATER PIPELINE , .UNDERNEATH THE 1-5 FREEWAY, JUST NORTH OF THE J/BATIQUITOS LAGOON IN LOCAL FACILITIES 1 MANAGEMENT ZONES 9 AND 19. Y CASE NAME: 1-5 WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING D CASE NO.: CDP 99-52 WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, "Developer", has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding properties owned by the State of California, the Aviara Master Homeowners Association, and Greystone Homes Inc., "Owners", described as Existing public utility easements on portions of Lot 49 of CT 89-19, Map No 12902, and on CT 98-06, and transecting the right-of-way of the 1-5 Freeway approximately 400 feet north of the Batiquitos Lagoon shoreline. ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the. Planning Commission did on the 15th day of December, 1999, and on the 5th day of January, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Commission as follows: A) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND" dated November 12,1999, and "PII" dated December 21,1999, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 1-5 WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING CUP 99-52, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to APPROVING the project; and B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and C. they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and D. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, the Planning Commission, finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and E. Recirculation of the Negative Declaration is not required pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that: 1. Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1 of CEQA guidelines; and 2. New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects; and 3. Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect; and 4. New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. PC RESO NO. 4695 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Conditions: 1. The Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the 1-5 WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING CDP 99-52 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of January 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director PC RESO NO. 4695 -3- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CDP 99-52 DATE: December 21, 1999 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: 1-5 Water Pipeline Undercrossing 2. APPLICANT: Carlsbad Municipal Water District 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5950 El Camino Real. Carlsbad. CA 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: September 17. 1999 5.PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a underground water pipeline in the coastal zone which requires a Coastal Development Permit. (A more detailed description is provided in the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Section) SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would, be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation/Circulation Population and Housing | | Biological Resources Public Services Utilities & Service Systems Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics Hazards | | Cultural Resources X Noise I Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I I I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report/Mitigated Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Environmental Impact Report, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date Planning Director s Signature Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #l:Pgs 5.6-1-5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1-5.6-18) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement, of an established community (including a low-income or minority community) ? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) n n III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1.15) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) e) Landslides or mudflows? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 -1 - 5.1 -15) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) g) Subsidence of the land? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 -1 - 5.1 -15) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) D D n IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- H) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-11) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2- 11) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5-2-11) Potentially Significant Impact n Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D n an D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n n n V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute. to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- 1 -5.3-12) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) D n VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) D D nn VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs5.4-l -5.4-24) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) n n D n n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 1 -5.13-9) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1-5.13-9) D n IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5) n n X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- 15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- ' 1-5.9-15) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1-5.12.5-6) . b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1-5.12.8-7) e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) nnn •n n XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1-5.13-9) Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 -5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n n IEI XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs I I 5.11-1-5.11-5) '—' b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs I I 5.11-1-5.11-5) '—' c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1-5.11-5) [ [ XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10) c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1-5.8-10) D n D n XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D Rev. 03/28/96 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project involves a request by the CMWD for a CDP to allow the installation of an potable water pipeline. The pipeline would complete a important link in the water delivery system and connect two existing water pipeline stubs. The pipeline will span a distance of approximately 780 feet and be entirely underground. The two existing stubs are located on either side of the 1-5 Freeway, approximately 400 feet north of the Batiquitos Lagoon shoreline. The stub on the west side of the Freeway is located in "Area C" of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan area. Area C is currently undeveloped but is being prepared for a 85 unit residential development previously approved under CT 98-06. Surrounding uses are either vacant with pending residential, or developed residential. The nearest developed homesites are approximately 180 feet from the connection/construction site. The stub on the east side of the Freeway is in a developed area of the Aviara community. Specifically, the connection would occur in an graded and landscaped, open space lot which is situated in between the Lagoon and the single family neighborhood known as Azure Cove. The connection/construction site is in very close proximity to homesites and would be immediately adjacent to the home located at 880 Piovana Court. This site is the primary construction staging area for the project. Installation of the underground water pipeline is proposed to be conducted via a directional drilling method, which eliminates the need for open trenching. Use of this method will enable the installation to occur under the Freeway with no disruption to traffic flow. The method is also considered to be, in some respects, environmentally friendly since it involves little disruption to topography and surface vegetation. For logistical purposes the drilling activity, the primary construction staging area, will occur on the east side of the Freeway. Construction staging will necessitate the temporary removal of a relatively immature street tree and other introduced landscape materials. The tree will be re-planted, and other shrub and ground cover materials will be replaced, after the project has been completed. A subgrade utility vault, with a surface area of 48 square feet, is also proposed and will be installed adjacent to the pipeline connection in the open space area. Pipeline and vault installations would occur in existing easements when outside of the Freeway right of way. Installation under the Freeway (in the right of way), will require an encroachment permit from Caltrans. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion Land Use and Planning a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Population and Housing a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Geologic Problems a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. f) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. g) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion, h) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion, i) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Water a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. f) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. g) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion, h) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion, i) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Air Quality a) The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air 12 Rev. 03/28/96 emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. b) No Impact c) No Impact d) No Impact Transportation/Circulation a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.. b) No Impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No Impact, see referenced sources for discussion f) No Impact, see referenced sources for discussion Biological a) Less Than Significant Impact During the public comment period on this project, specifically at the Planning Commission public hearing, an issue was raised regarding the project's construction noise and its potential to impact California Coastal Gnatcatcher. The item was continued to allow additional investigation. As a result of that research it is not expected that the Gnatcatcher would occupy the vegetation area in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. The area is small and of a less than high quality. The area is approximately 1A acre in size and is coastal sage scrub interspersed with, or disturbed by, introduced vegetation species. The Gnatcatcher typically occupies large undisturbed areas of coastal sage scrub. Additionally, it is expected that the high levels of Freeway noise experienced in the project area (calculated at between 62 and 70 decibels in previously prepared noise studies) have driven the Gnatcatcher from the area. However, to ensure that the area is not occupied by Gnatcatcher and if in the unlikely instance that it may be, 13 Rev. 03/28/96 a mitigation measure has been incorporated into the project. The mitigation measure requires the applicant to either 1) obtain a letter from the US Fish and Wildlife Service indicating that the area is in not expected to be occupied by the Gnatcatcher or 2) retain the services of a qualified biologist to survey and evaluate the site for Gnatcatcher habitat. If it is found to be habitat the applicant would need to comply with US Fish and Wildlife Service and City of Carlsbad standards for construction and mitigation thereof. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Energy and Mineral Resources a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) «No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Hazards a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Noise a) As indicated in the project description section, the primary construction staging area is on the east side of the Freeway and in close proximity to residential uses. The CMWD has indicated that given the topography of the project site and the technological requirements of the directional drilling construction technique, staging is necessary on the east side of the Freeway. Construction will occur over a six week period. Residential uses are expected to be temporarily impacted by noise associated with construction activity. The CMWD is proposing to mitigate the temporary noise impacts by limiting construction hours and installing a "noise blanket". Hours of construction activity would be consistent with to those prescribed in the City Municipal Code. Construction activity would be limited to between the hour of 7 AM and dusk, Monday through Friday and between the hour of 8 AM and dusk on Saturdays. No construction activity would be permitted on Sunday. Additionally the CMWD is proposing the installation of a noise blanket to minimize the impacts to the immediately adjacent homesite. The "blanket" is actually a specially designed noise attenuation wall temporarily installed between the noise source and the homes. The wall is 16 feet tall and 80 feet long. According to data provided by the CMWD, the anticipated noise level, with the proposed mitigation, can be brought down to 60 dB (decibels). Staff believes that although the noise would be considered annoying by most people, a 60 dB level is not considered severe. (To assist in illustrating dB, consider the following scenario based on standards from the Noise Element of the City General Plan. An individual standing adjacent to the 1-5 Freeway, at the same grade of the road and with no noise attenuating devices such as landscaping, freestanding masonry block walls, or the exterior wall of a residence, the experienced noise level would be 75 dB). b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 Public Services a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Utilities and Service Systems a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. f) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. g) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Aesthetics a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. Cultural Resources a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. e) No impact,-see referenced sources for discussion. Recreation a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion. 15 Rev. 03/28/96 III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760) 438-1161, extension 4515. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 16 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Hours of construction shall be limited to those prescribed in the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) which are between the hours of 7 AM and dusk, Monday through Friday and between the hours of 8 AM and dusk on Saturday. No construction activity is permitted on Sunday or holidays specified in Section 8.84 of the CMC. 2. A noise attenuation wall shall be installed and maintained between the construction staging area on the east side of the Freeway and the developed residential home during construction. 3. Prior to beginning any construction activity at the site, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), or their designee, shall submit to the Planning Department either; 1) a letter from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) indicating that the area in the vicinity of the project site is unlikely to be occupied by Coastal California Gnatcatcher or; 2) a study prepared by a qualified biologist concerning the area in the vicinity of the site and an evaluation of its potential as Coastal California Gnatcatcher habitat. In the event that a submitted study indicates a potential for impact on the Coastal California Gnatcatcher, the CMWD shall comply with all USFWS and City of Carlsbad standards for construction and mitigation thereof. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 17 ' Rev. 03/28/96 1 PROJECT NAME: I-5 Freeway Water Pipeline Undercrossina FILE NUMBERS: CUP 99-52 APPROVAL DATE: January 5. 2000 CONDITIONAL NEC. DEC.: '_ The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). mz 5Jozsm I Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks jours of construction shall be limited to those prescribed in the arlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) which are between the hours of 7 AM and dusk, Monday through Friday and between the hours of 8 AM and dusk on Saturday. No construction activity is permitted on Sunday or holidays specified in Section 8.84 of the CMC. On going.Planning Dept.No O Z 32zo oImo TJfi><Q(D A noise attenuation wall shall be installed and maintained between the construction staging area on the east side of the Freeway and the developed residential home during construction. On going.Planning Dept.Yes the JLgr Wl Prior to beginning any construction activity at the site, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), or their designee, shall submit to the Planning Department either; 1) a letter from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) indicating that the area in the vicinity of the project site is unlikely to be occupied by Coastal California natcatcher or; 2) a study prepared by a qualified biologist ncerning the area in the vicinity of the site and an evaluation of its potential as Coastal California Gnatcatcher habitat. In the event that a submitted study indicates a potential for impact on the Coastal California Gnatcatcher, the CMWD shall comply with all USFWS and City of Carlsbad standards for construction and mitigation thereof. On going.Planning Dept.No Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD - Appendix P. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4696 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 99-52 ON PROPERTY LOCATED JUST NORTH OF THE BATIQUITOS LAGOON AND UNDERNEATH THE 1-5 FREEWAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 9 AND 19. CASE NAME: 1-5 FREEWAY WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING CASE NO.: CDP 99-52 WHEREAS, Carlsbad Municipal Water District, "Developer", has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding properties owned by the State of California, the Aviara Master Homeowners Association, and Greystone Homes Inc, "Owners", described as Existing public utility easements on portions of Lot 49 of CT 89-19, Map No 12902, and on CT 98-06, and transecting the right-of-way of the 1-5 Freeway approximately 400 feet north of the Batiquitos Lagoon shoreline. ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal Development Permit as shown on Exhibits "A"-"E" dated December 15, 1999, on file in the Planning Department, 1-5 WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING CDP 99-52 as provided by Chapter 21.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of December, 1999 and on the 5th day of January, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the CDP. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES 1-5 FREEWAY WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING/CDP 99-52 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies in that the water pipeline will be located underground and will not impact the visual quality of the Coastal Zone. 2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that the water pipeline will be located underground and will not disrupt any public coastal access. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to building permit. 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Coastal Development Permit. 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to. the Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. The Developer shall submit to Planning Department a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. PC RESO NO. 4696 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two (2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per Section 21.201.210 of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Hours of construction shall be limited to those prescribed in the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) which are between the hours of 7 AM arid dusk, Monday through Friday and between the hours of 8 AM and dusk on Saturday. No construction activity is permitted on Sunday or holidays specified in Section 8.84 of the CMC. 7. A noise attenuation wall shall be installed and maintained between the construction staging area on the east side of the Freeway and the developed residential home during construction. 8. All landscape materials removed or destroyed as a result of construction shall be replaced. Replacement landscape materials shall match existing and shall be installed within two weeks of completion of the project. 9. Prior to beginning any construction activity at the site, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), or their designee, shall submit to the Planning Department either; 1) a letter from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) indicating that the area in the vicinity of the project site is unlikely to be occupied by Coastal California Gnatcatcher or; 2) a study prepared by a qualified biologist concerning the area in the vicinity of the site and an evaluation of its potential as Coastal California Gnatcatcher habitat. In the event that a submitted study indicates a potential for impact on the Coastal California Gnatcatcher, the CMWD shall comply with all USFWS and City of Carlsbad standards for construction and mitigation thereof. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PC RESO NO. 4696 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of January 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director PC RESO NO. 4696 -4- ~^mr •^•^"The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: December 15, 1999 Application complete date: 9/17/99 Project Planner: Jason Martin Project Engineer: Bob Wojcik SUBJECT: CDF 99-52 - 1-5 WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a water line project within the City's Coastal Zone located just north of the Batiquitos Lagoon and crossing underneath the 1-5 Freeway within Local Facilities Management Zones 9 and 19. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4695 APPROVING the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4696 APPROVING Coastal Development Permit CDP 99-52 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Section 21.201.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the construction of certain public works projects within the City's Coastal Zone requires the processing and approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) is requesting a CDP to install a water pipeline in the Coastal Zone. The CDP application was reviewed for consistency with LCP policies and implementation. There are no unresolved issues. The staff recommendation for approval with conditions is supported by the analysis as follows. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The proposed project involves a request by the CMWD for a CDP to allow the installation of a potable water pipeline. The pipeline would complete an important link in the water delivery system and connect two existing water pipeline stubs. The pipeline will span a distance of approximately 780 feet and be entirely underground. The two existing stubs are located on either side of the 1-5 Freeway, approximately 400 feet north of the Batiquitos Lagoon shoreline. The stub on the west side of the Freeway is located in "Area C" of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan area. Area C is currently undeveloped but is being prepared for an 85 unit residential development previously approved under CT 98-06. Surrounding uses are either vacant with pending residential, or developed residential. The nearest developed homesites are approximately 180 feet from the connection/construction site. CDP 99-52 -1-5 WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING December 15, 1999 Page 2 The stub on the east side of the Freeway is in a developed area of the Aviara community. Specifically, the connection would occur in a graded and landscaped, open space lot which is situated in between the Lagoon and the single family neighborhood known as Azure Cove. The connection/construction site is in very close proximity to homesites and would be immediately adjacent to the home located at 880 Piovana Court. This site is the primary construction staging area for the project. Installation of the underground water pipeline is proposed to be conducted via a directional drilling method, which eliminates the need for open trenching. Use of this method will enable the installation to occur under the Freeway with no disruption to traffic flow. The method is also considered to be, in some respects, environmentally friendly since it involves little disruption to topography and surface vegetation. For logistical purposes the drilling activity, the primary construction staging area, will occur on the east side of the Freeway. Construction staging will necessitate the temporary removal of a relatively immature street tree and other introduced landscape materials. The tree will be re-planted, and other shrub and ground cover materials will be replaced, after the project has been completed. A subgrade utility vault, with a surface area of 48 square feet, is also proposed to be installed adjacent to the pipeline connection in the open space area. Pipeline and vault installations would occur in existing easements except for areas within the Freeway right-of-way. Installation under the Freeway (in the right-of-way), will require an encroachment permit from Caltrans. IV. ANALYSIS • Review of Required Coastal Findings A. Conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies The project is located in the Mello II Local Coastal Program Segment of the LCP which contains land use policies for the development and conservation of coastal and water areas within the segment boundaries. The proposed project will not obstruct views or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone in that the water pipeline will be located underground and will be installed via a directional drilling method which involves minimal, if any, disruption to existing topography and surface vegetation. There are neither agricultural activities nor any sensitive coastal resources (coastal sage scrub or chaparral habitat) on the construction staging site. Recently installed ornamental plant materials which exist on the construction staging area will be removed temporarily and will be replaced after the project is complete. The project will not obstruct any public coastal access. B. Coastal Overlay Zones The site is located in the Coastal resource Protection Overlay Zone, however, due to the location of the construction staging area in an area absent of slopes steeper than 25% and/or native vegetation, additional submittals, standards, or requirements do not apply. Construction of the project will adhere to the City's Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion. CDP 99-52 -1-5 WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING December 15, 1999 Page 3 V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project was conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Potential temporary impacts were identified and can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Staff is recommending the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMP). The impact areas and mitigation measures are discussed in full in the EIA and recommended MMP, which are included as an attachment to the Planning Commission Resolution for approval of the MND. The area of potential impact relates to noise. As indicated in the background section of this report, the primary construction staging area is on the east side of the Freeway and in close proximity to residential uses. CMWD has indicated that given the topography of the project site and the technological requirements of the directional drilling construction technique, staging is necessary on the east side of the Freeway. Construction will occur over a six week period. Residential uses are expected to be temporarily impacted by noise associated with construction activity. CMWD is proposing to mitigate the temporary noise impacts by limiting construction hours and installing a "noise blanket". Hours of construction activity would be consistent with those prescribed in the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Construction activity would be limited to between the hour of 7 AM and dusk, Monday through Friday and between the hours of 8 AM and dusk on Saturdays. No construction activity would be permitted on Sunday. Additionally, CMWD is proposing the installation of a noise blanket to minimize the impacts to the immediately adjacent homesite. The "blanket" is actually a specially designed noise attenuation wall temporarily installed between the noise source and the homes. The wall is 16 feet tall and 80 feet long. According to data provided by CMWD, the anticipated noise level, with the proposed mitigation, can be brought down to 60 dBA. Staff believes that although the noise would be considered annoying by most people, a 60 dBA level is not considered severe. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4695 (Mitigated Neg Dec) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4696 (CDP) 3. Location Map 4. Background Data Sheet JM:cs SEE DETAILED PLANS FOR RECISEALIGNMEN SITE 1-5 WATER PIPELINE UNDERCROSSING CDP 99-52 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: CDP 99-52 CASE NAME: 1-5 Freeway Water Pipeline Undercrossing APPLICANT: Carlsbad Municipal Water District REQUEST AND LOCATION: A request for a Coastal Development Permit to install an underground, potable water pipeline approximately 400 feet north of the Batiquitos lagoon.. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Existing public utility easements on portions of Lot 49 of CT 89-19. Map No 12902, and on CT 98-06. and transecting the right-of-way of the 1-5 Freeway approximately 400 feet north of the Batiquitos Lagoon shoreline. APN: 216-452-13 and 216-140-30 Acres: NA Proposed No. of Lots/Units: NA GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: Open Space/Residential Medium Density Density Allowed: NA Density Proposed: NA Existing Zone: Open Space/Planned Community Proposed Zone: NA Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan Current Land Use Site Open Space Open Space Open space North Planned Community Residential Medium Residential South Planned Community/OS Residential Medium/OS Residential/Open space East Planned Community Residential Medium Residential West Planned Community Residential Medium Residential PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: NA Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District Sewer District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): NA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT /\ Negative Declaration, issued November 15. 1999 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated. Other,