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