Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 90-06; Vista/Carlsbad Sewer Interceptor; Redevelopment Permits (RP)ENVlTWl .TAL [MPACT ASSESSMFNfT^ PART [I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DE?.\RTMENT) CASE \0. PCD G.^C D.ATE; DECEN'3E.^. 3ACK'G^0L'\D C.\>£ N.-\.\!E: 'GS^A C\RL53.-\D : NTE RCE PT'OR 2. .APPLICANT: CITT OF C.ARLS3.AD 3. .ADDR£SS .AN'D PHONE NUMBER OF .APPLICANT; 20^5 LAS P.AL.\!AS CARLSBAD, CA 92OQQ C619) 438-1161 X ^30 4. DATE EIA FORM P.ART I SUBMITTED: AUGUST 17. 1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a 36" to 48" diameter Sewer Inrercec::: :. Jefferson Street from 1-5 to Oak Avenue aiong Oak Avenue from Jefferscn srreet :o the Ri:.: Right of Wav to a point 1.400 feet south of Tamarack Avenue. .Also, consrnicticr. i .. diameter sewer main in Chestnut Avenue from Harding Street to the Railroad Rieh: ':" EN'VTRONMENTAL IMP.ACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Anicie 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduc: _ Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the envirorjr.er. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the follovving pages in the form of a checklist. This chec^.. identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed projec: ar, provides the Ciry with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environiner.: Impact Repon or Negative Declaration. ' A Negative Declaraaon may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the projec: ; any of its aspects may cause a sigmficant effect on the environment. On the checldist, "NO" wiU be checke to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of :r project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may quaUfy for a Nega::% Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deerr.c insignificant. These findings are shown in the checkUst under the headings "YES-sig" and YES-ins:. respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form und: DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Panicular attention should be given to discu5 r mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 6) PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES •.5ig; YES Resuit :n •uns:able eanh conditions or increase :he e.xposure of people or properrv' D geologic -izards'' 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? 4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a nver or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 5. Resuit in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quaUry? 6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? 7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? 8. Affect the quantity or quaUty of surface water, ground water or pubUc water supply? 9. SubstantiaUy increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significaot archeological, paieontological or historical site, structure or object? X X -2- ET^ BIOLOGICAL ENVTRONM WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: yES YES 5ig; ,,nt.jj :2. .Affect :he diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (inciuding rrees, shrubs, grass. Tjcrorlora and aquatic plants)^ 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of e.xisting species? 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, umque or other farmland of state or local imponance? _X_ 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, aU water dwelHng organisms and insects? _X_ 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or resuit in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (msig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? _2L 18. SubstantiaUy affect pubUc utiHties, schools, police, fire, emergency or other pubUc services? _X_ -3- 3) HUMAJ^N .»NMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 19. 20. 23. 24, 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Result in the need for new or modified sewer sys:enis, solid waste or hazardous waste :cn:rol systems? .'.-^crease e.xis'ing noise levels^ Produce new light or glare? Involve a significant risk of an explosion or rhe release of hazardous substances (including, but not Umited to, oU, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? SubstantiaUy alter the density of the human population of an area? Affect existing housing, or create a demand fcr additional housing? Generate substantial additional traffic? Affect existing parking facUities, or create a large demand for new parking? Impact existing transponation systems or alter present pattems of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Alter waterbome, raU or air traffic? Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicycUsts or pedestrians? Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? Obstruct any scenk vista or create an aestheticaUy offensive pubUc view? Affect the quaUty or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? YES YES X MANDATORY RNDINGS OF SIGNIHCANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES V;ES 33. Does rhe project have the potential ro substantially degrade rhe quality of rhe envirorjT.en:. s'^b s: inn ally reduce rhe habitat of a fish or wild- life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restnct the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eUminate Imponant examples of the major periods of Califorma history or prehistory. 34. Does the project have the potential to achieve shon-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A shon-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts wiU endure weU into the future.) 35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively con- siderable' means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probeble future projects.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on htmian beings, either directly or indirectly? X -5- DISCUSSION OF EN'VIRONMENT.AL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION ^he project consists of trench grading to bury a 36" to 48" diameter and 12" diameter sewer inrrr:-. - v. ::h:n rhe '.ocal street and the ATS&F Railroad rights of way. The purpose of rhe proiec: :s :: ex- . - :r.e capacit^y- cf rhe existing Vista/Carlsbad Sewer Interceptor to meet current as well as rhe z:z -.- r-:ld-our derr.and of Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The new 36" ro 48" sewer mrerceo::: :e bur.ed parailei :o exisring inrerceprcrs under PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT The proposed interceptor wiU be located beneath existing streets and along rhe railroad r.zr.r :: . [herefore, no encroachment into a floodplain or geologically hazardous area wiU occur. Trencn gr^.:..- on relatively flat graded surfaces shouid not resuit in erosion problems. Trench grading wiU occur to accommodate the underground sewer interceptor which ends a: —.^ approximate boundary of the Agua Hedionda floodplain; therefore no modification of any warer.. _. will occur. The proposed project wiU actually reduce the potentially adverse impacts to air and /. quaUty by ensuring adequate sewer line capacity to the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility ro r.r-: current and future demands for sewer service. The proposed gravity flow sewer interceptors wiU require no additional pumping; therefore, addiric.--. fuel or energy requirements are minimal. All of the proposed grading wiU occur in previously disturbed transponation corridors rhere: . eliminating the risk of disturbance to any archaeological, palenontological or historical sites, strucrures. or objects. BI0LO3ICAL ENVIRONMENT The proposed projeci wiU occur under existing streets and within the ATS&F railroad right of u a> therefore, no adverse impacts to any species of plant or animal or habitat, or prime agricultural land wiU result. HUMAN ENvmQNMENT The project consists of the replacement of the existing sewer interceptor to supply current and future demand for sewer service. Any noise impacts wiU be those resulting from the temporary grading and constmction. The temporary grading and construction noise and dust impacts to surrounding residential and commercial deveiopment are unavoidable; these impacts are necessary to provide adequate sewer faciUties to the area. The required grading permil wiU restrict constmction operations to the hours or 7:00 a.m. to sunset on weekdays, and a dust abatement procedure is reqmred to minimize these impacts on the surrounding area. Since no consmiction above grade wiU occur, no Ught or glare impacts are aniicipated. -6- The interceptor wiU run under Jefferson Street, Oak Avenue, Chestnut Avenue and rhe ATS&F R- — nght of way and during construction of the system, there wiU be shon term impacts ro rhe " pattems of circulation and increased hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestnans due :o^ equipment on the street, street closures, the reduction in the size of the travel lanes, rrenc-^- other construction hazards associated with working aiong an existing and established c:r:u - - sysrem. These impacts wiU be reduced to a level of insignifcance by the use of safe consrr--:. - pracrices and an approved traffic management plan incorporating appropriate signage, barr.:^:- pnasing, dercurs if necessary, and traffic management during peak hour traffic penods recuire: condirion of rne grading permit. The location of the new interceptor has been engineered ro avoid damage to or corj.ic: v.i:.-. .r.. e.xisting utility lines dunng construction; therefore risk of explosion or release of hazardous subs:--- -: is minimal. The proposed expansion of sewer capacity resulting from the replacement of the existing ir.:er:r:: r is required to meet the cunent through the projected build-out demand for sewer services oaseu y. approved General Plan land uses for the area it wiU serve. Therefore, the proposed proiec: is r.:: growth inducing and no additional population, housing or traffic beyond that anticipated o> :r.e General Plan wiU result. Although a ponion of the new interceptor wUl be constmcted within the railroad right of way. r.: intermption or delay of scheduled raU trips is anticipated. The project wiU not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. The sewer interceptor wiU be constmcted entirely below grade and therefore will have no '.-.sua. impacts. The sewer interceptor wiU be constmcted under existing street and railroad rights of way; therefore, no recreational opponunities wiU be impacted. The proposed Vista/Carlsbad sewer interceptor projeci is one phase of the Sewer Master Plan and is required to expand the capacity of flow to meet the demand projected by the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan. The project was included in the 1987-88 Capital Improvement Program and will be constmcted entirely within the right of way of coUector and local streets and the railroad in the Nonhwest Quadrant. AN.ALYSIS OF VI.ABLE .ALTERNATFVES TO THE PRQPOSED PROJECT SUCH .AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) altemate site designs, c) altemate scale of development, d) altemate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now. :^ altemate sires for rhe proposed, and gj no pro;ecr airemative. A. B. E. The adopted Sewer Master Plan and the City's adopted Growth Managen-.enr Plan which has set standards for the phasing and capacity of additional sewer facilines provides the analysis of altematives for .A, B, and E above. C. Not AppUcable. D. F. The proposed sewer interceptor wiU be buried parallel to the existing interceptor m street and railroad rights of way; no altemate uses for the site are possible and no altemate site is appropriate. G. The no project altemative would preclude any future development in the City's nonhwest quadrant due to the City's adopted performance standard requiring sewer faciUties to meet demand to be provided concunent with development. AH:m -8- DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Depanment) On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find rhe proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the envirorLmenr. and a N DEGLAR^ATION wiU be prepared. I nr.d rhat airhcugh rhe proposed project could have a significant effect on rhe envircrur.er.:. not be a sigmf.can: effec: in this case because rhe mirigarion measures descnbec on a.-^. a::. sheer have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration wiU be proposed. [ find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVRG' IMP.AGT REPORT is required. f^- ^c-9o U-,^n^:77^/^y^7±l 7^^_£^ Date Signature / Date ^ r^Ji^^iartning pirector ^ LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONFTORING PROGRAM flF APPLICABLE^ ^.PPLIG.ANT GnNjrilRRENCF W7TH MITTGATTNG ME.ASURES -urs IS -O CERTIFY THAT I HAVT REVTEWED THE .ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES .^\D CONCUR WITH :"HE .ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJEC.. 10- Table 4-1. Engineering Data for the Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Reach Engineering Data City 0 f Carlsbad Ownership Minimum Size , in . Minimum Slope, % Length, feet Full Pipe Capac i ty, mgd Percent Full Pipe Capacity, mgd Full Pipe Available Capacity,^ mgd VCI 36 0. 50 6,690 30.0 0 0 0 VC2 42 0. 28 2, 790 34.0 15.5 5.3 4.7 VC3 36 0. 20 3, 170 19.5 15.5 3.0 1.6 VC5 27 (24) 0.36 2,500 12.0 27.3 2.6 0.9 VC6 30 0.24 1, 180 13.0 27.3 3.3 1.6 VC7 27 1.64 760 25.0 27.3 6.8 4.4 VC8 36 0.10 720 13.8 27.3 3.8 1.0 VC9 36 0.10 1 ,940 13.8 37.3 5.1 1.5 VCIO 36 0.10 4,330 13.8 37.3 5.1 0.5 veil 42 0.10 1,370 20. 5 37.3 7.6 0.8 VC13 42 0.10 3,520 20.5 51.7 10.6 3.8 VC14 42 • 0. 10 5,080 20.5 51.7 10.6 3.1 VC15 42 0.12 1,760 22.8 51.7 11.8 4.3 VC16 54 0. 28 310 67.2 45.24 30.4 22.0 1. Available capacity as of January 1, 1987. H 20 BUENA VISTA LIFT STATION VISTA METER STATION VCI3 VCK LEGEND EXISTING SEWERAGE FACILITIES VISTA/CARLSBAD INTERCEPTOR BASIN BOUNDARY SEWER DRAINAGE ZONE BOUNDARY ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY FIGURE 4-1 VISTA/CARLSBAD INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM CHAPTER 7 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM This chapter provides a description of the needed improvements to the conveyance system and treatment plants. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS There are improvements needed to the existing interceptors and a new interceptor is needed. Tables 7-1 through 7-5 and Figures 7-1 chrough 7-5 show the recommended improvements to the City of Carlsbad conveyance system. These figures and tables are arranged on the basis of the five sewage drainage basins within the City of Carlsbad. The total estiraated costs for improvements to the trunk and interceptor system is $56,824,000. The City of Carlsbad will fund through the connection fee process $49,126,000 of this amount. Developers will fund $7,698,000 of this amount. Facilities shown in yellow in Figure 7-1 through 7-5 are facilities which will be constructed by the City of Carlsbad through the use of connection fees. The developer funded facilities are shown in red. The connection fees are established on the basis of the City of Carlsbad funding only interceptor and interceptor lift station improvements. All improvements to trunk line collector sewers will be borne by the developers. Table 7-1. Improvements to Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Sewage . Drainage Basin IMPROVEiMENTS TO EXISTING INTERCEPTORS Reach Location Size,^ in. Length, feec Total Cost, $ Ownership, Z Cost, $ Year Needed VC3 VC5 VC6 VC7 VC8 VC9 VCIG VClOA veil Highway 78 East of Buena Vista Lagoon Jefferson Street Jefferson Street Arbuckle to Grand Grand Avenue Grand Avenue Washington Street Grand to Oak Washington Street Oak to Olive Chestnut Lateral AT & SF R.R. Olive Co Agua Hedionda Lagoon A2 36 Ul 30 48 48 48 12 54 3, 170 2, 500 1, 180 760 720 1,940 4, 330 1,800 1,370 871,750 562,500 324,500 152,000 234,000 630,500 1,407,250 162,000 513.750 15.5 27.3 27,3 27.3 27.3 37,3 37.3 100 37,3 135,120 153,560 88,590 41,500 63,880 235,180 524,900 162,000 191,630 Beyond 2000 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 Beyond 2000 49 Table 7-1. Improvements to Vista/Carlsbad ^^ainage Basin (Continued) lerceptor Sewage IHPROVMFIMTS TO EXISTT.^^C TNTFRCEPTOR^ Reach Location Si7.e , ' Length, Tot.'il C a r 1 s h =1 d Year i n . foet Cost, $ Ownership,'^ Co.st . Needed VCI 3 AT S SF R.R. Agua Hed ionda Lagoon to Cannon 54 3, 520 1,320,000 51.7 682,440 Bevond 2000 VC14 AT H SF R.R. Cannon to Palomar Airport Road 54 5,080 1.905,000 51.7 984,890 1997 VC15 Avenida Encinas Palomar Airport Road to Encina Water Pollution Control Facility Entrance 54 1 , 760 660,000 51 , 7 341,220 Bevond 2000 Subtot.il Interceptor Improvements 3,604.910 IMPROVEMENTS TO LIFT STATIONS Description of Improvements Size, Length, Total C,T rlsbad Yea r i n. feet Cost, $ Ownershi p. w Cost. J ?J e e d e d Buena Vista Lift Station Add Fourth Pump — — 128,000 15.5 20,000 1989 Add Fi fth Pump and Force Main Improvements — — 531,000 15.5 82,000 Beyond 2000 Agua Hedionda Lift Station Add Third Pump and Miscellaneous Improvements — 110,000 40,5 45,000 1989 Add Fourth Pump — — 95,000 40,5 38,000 1990 Relocate Station --888,000 40.5 360,000 Bevond 2000 Home Plant Lift Station Relocate Station — — 750,000 100 750,000 1989 Force M,nln 10 2,000 130,000 100 130,000 1989 Subtotal Lift Station Improvements 1,425,000 Subtotal City of Carlsbad Funded Improvements 5,029,910 CONSTRUCTTON OF NEW TRUNK SEWERS Reach Location Size, ' in. Length, feet Total Cost, $ CaxIs had Year Needed Reach Location Size, ' in. Length, feet Total Cost, $ Ownership Z Cost, $ Year Needed VCTIA VCTIB VCTIC Buena Vista Creek Buena Vista Creek Buena Vista Creek 00 00 c 1, 500 1 ,000 3,000 97,500 65,000 225,000 100 100 100 97,500 65,000 225.000 (3) (3) (3) Subtotal Developer Funded Improvements 387,500 TOTAL 5,417,410 Sizes recommended are based on ultimate flows from the City of Vista and the City of Carlsbad. Note: -Reaches VC3, VC5, VC6, VC7 and VC13 are recommended for improvements because of projected Vista flows exceeding full pipe capacity, Carlsbad does not exceed existing capacity rights. -Reaches VC8, VC9, VCIO, VCll, VC14 and VC15 are recommended for improvements due to both the City of Vista and the City of Carlsbad exceeding existing capacity rights. These are current C,3rlsbad ownership percentages. They may change to reflect a larger need by Carlsbad or VisCa when upgrading of the sewers is done. As required for development. 50 BUENA VISTA- LIFT STATION ViSTA METER STATION CITY OF CARLSBAD FUNDED IMPROVEMENTS DEVELOPER FUNDED IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING SEWERAGE FACILITIES VISTA/CARLSBAD INTERCEPTOR BASIN BOUNDARY SEWER DRAINAGE ZONE BOUNDARY ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY FIGURE 7-1 IMPROVEMENTS TO VISTA/CARLSBAD INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM 51 CITY OF CARLSBAO CAPITAL INPROVENEMT PROGRAM CURRENT ANO FUTURE (1990-91 TO BUILDOUT) PROJECTS PROJECT FUNDING PRIOR EXPNO'S BALANCE TOTAL YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 KO. PROJECT TITLE SOURCE i CNCUMBRC'S FORUARO APPROP 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-2000 2000 • SEUER PROJECTS EMCIMA UATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY PARALLEL OCEAN OUTFALL S£U 9.685.000 9.685.000 SCLIDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SEU 850.000 7.488,000 1.275,000 1,275,000 1.000.000 3.088,000 TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION SEU 1,585,285 28.721,413 845.000 845,000 982.000 1,118,300 1.118,000 5.591,600 16,636,228 SUILOING IMPROVEMENTS SEU 539.000 25.000 165,000 349,000 3201 CAL HILLS WATER RECLAMATION PLANT SCU 49.448 2.682.448 2,633.000 INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM t LIFT STATIONS 3J03 AGUA MEDIOIWA LIFT STATION SEU 1,053,991 111,744 1.525,735 560,000 3322 SUEHA VISTA LIFT STATION SEU 80,000 162,000 82,000 8UENA/SAN MARCOS INTECEPTOR SEU 1.372.000 500,000 872,000 32^? HCe^E PLANT LIFT STATION I FOdCE MAIN SEU 14,609 852,776 1,000.000 132.615 mi^H BATIQUITOS LIFT STATION t FORCE MAIN SEU 999.000 167,000 832,000 3249 CAKKOH RO; S AGUA KEOIOMOA INTERCEPTOR SEU 79,109 542.391 2.783.000 2,161,500 3 iJ2 VISTA CARLS8AD TRUKK LIME fd'C, l/C 7^ tidf, "^7 j SEU 581,410 >+ 1,177.968^ S 1.759.378 REACH VC-U l/d/D^ VdlO/yj SEU 990,000 990,000 REACHES VC-11. 13 » 15 SEU 1,250.000 1,250,000 3251 SEWER LIME UPGRADES SEU 9,026 240.974 250,000 CITY MAINTENANCE FACILITY SEU 500.000 500,000 5262 SEWER MASTER PLAN PHASE II SEU 55,730 1.170 56.900 ^1 TOR ING PROGRAM SEU 175 39.625 600,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 380,000 BASE MAPPING SYSTEM SEU 67.500 50.000 117.500 3252 BASE MAPPING SYSTEM UATER 67,500 50,000 117,500 SUBTOTAL SEWER PROJECTS 3.563.783 3.996.848 62,598,874 2,464,615 2,305,000 1,851,000 1.138,300 1,118,000 18,698,600 27,'.62,728 XXXXXXZXXXXXXXSESXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXSXXXSXXXSIISXXSXXX asxxxxsxi Kxxaixsxxxxxxxxxa BXXXXXXXX53 KXXXXXXSXXXXXXSXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX! XXXXXXXXSSKXXX3 xxxxr = x=:XEXSx