EL CENTRO AQUATIC CENTER Study-El Centro... · Project title: City of El Centro Aquatic Center 2....

EL CENTRO AQUATIC CENTER INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 16-01

CITY OF EL CENTRO

EL CENTRO AQUATIC CENTER ADAMS PARK FROM 4TH

STREET TO 6TH STREET

APN 053-041-001 AND APN 053-044-001

DECEMBER 2016

Prepared By:

City of El Centro Community Development Department Planning & Zoning Division 1275 W. Main Street

InitialStudy/MitigatedNegativeDeclaration

ElCentroAquaticCenter Page|2 December12,2016

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST/INITIAL STUDY

1.

Project title: City of El Centro Aquatic Center

2.

Lead agency name and address: City of El Centro 1275 W. Main Street El Centro, CA 92243

3.

Contact person and phone number: Norma M. Villicaña, Director of Community Development (760) 337-4545

4.

Project location: The proposed project is located at the southeast corner of Adams Avenue/SR86 and 6th Street. The site is bound by Adams Avenue/4th Street/SR86 to the north and east, Park Avenue to the south, and 6th Avenue to the west. (Refer to Exhibit A-Location Map).

5.

Project sponsor's name and address: Community Services Department City of El Centro 1249 W. Main Street El Centro, CA 92243

6.

General Plan designation: Current- Public Proposed- Public (No Change)

7. Zoning designation: Current- Limited use Proposed- Limited Use (No Change)

8.

Description of project: The project consists of the construction of a 3.5 acre aquatic center on existing open space consisting of a city park and a section of existing roadway (5th Street). Existing structures at the site consist of a restroom building and two ramada shades which would be removed. Existing park landscaping includes grass, palm and eucalyptus trees which would be removed. 5th Street would be vacated between Park Avenue and Adams Avenue. Refer to Exhibit B - Design Rendering and Exhibit C- Site Plan for improvement plans and illustrations.

The project includes an eight (8) lane competition pool; 2,039 square foot warm up pool; 1,605 square foot activity pool; and 5,335 square foot lazy river. Buildings at the site would include a 5,107 square foot building containing locker rooms, staff offices, a snack bar, storage and an event room. A utility building measuring 2,045 square feet would house mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems for the facility. Site parking will consists of 99 off-street parking stalls and 14 on-street parking stalls. Existing plans also designate the eastern portion of the site for the future construction of a water slide and an additional equipment building.



9. Project Objectives: The project will provide a modern aquatic center to the residents of the City of El Centro. It is anticipated the aquatic center would be a region-wide destination. The proposed facilities will allow for recreational swimming activities and facilities to host competitive swimming events. Due to long and hot summers, recreation swimming is a popular activity for the city’s approximately 45,000 residents. Since 2004, there has been no public pool available, when the previous public swimming pool was demolished to construct the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Sports Pavilion.

10. Surrounding land uses and setting: Land uses in the area are varied, consisting of multi-family residential, motels, restaurants, and offices. SR-86 abuts the project site to the north (Adams Avenue) and west (4th Street). SR-86 consist of a four lane roadway and serves as a major arterial roadway within the city. Prior to construction of Interstate 8, the area was previously a regional east-west travel corridor through Imperial County and initial development consisted of motels and other businesses serving travelers. Uses immediately surrounding the project site are as follows: North: Adams Avenue/State Route 86, multifamily apartments, motels, restaurants and offices. East: 4th Street/State Route 86, Adams Park, and Union Pacific Railroad. South: Multifamily Residential, Senior Multifamily Residential, Salvation Army, and Imperial Valley Blind Center West: 6th Street and Sidewinder Skate Park

11.

Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.)

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – Encroachment Permit

Imperial County Public Health Department, Division of Environmental Health – Public Pool Health Permit

Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES Permit



Exhibit A – Location Map



Exhibit B – Design Rendering



Exhibit C – Site Plan



Exhibit D – Site Photographs

View of the project site from Park Ave. and 5th St.

Project site from Park Ave. and 4th St.




N. 5th Street from Park Ave.

6th St. and Adams Ave.




Project site from 4th St/SR-86

Park Ave. south of project site



ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry Resources

Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology & Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Hydrology & Water Quality

Land Use & Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population & Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation & Traffic Utilities and Service Systems

Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

X

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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document in accordance with 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 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Norma M. Villicaña, AICP, Director of Community Development

Date



EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported

by the information sources cited. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained when it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,

cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist

answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the

incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an

effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify 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 Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Include references to information sources for potential impacts. Reference to a previously-prepared or

outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals

contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance



Issues: Potentially

Significant Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant

Impact

No Impact

I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

X

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

X

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

X

Explanation: (a) The project is located in the City of El Centro, which lies on relatively flat topography. Notable scenic vistas are limited to distant views of the Superstition Hills, Mt. Signal and the peninsular mountain ranges to the west. Views of these vistas are already obscured by existing development to west of the project site. The project will not result in impacts to a scenic vista. (b) The project is not in the vicinity of a scenic state highway as there are none within the vicinity of the project site. (c) The project would result in a substantial change in the visual character of site. It will eliminate approximately 3 acres of open space park area for the construction of an aquatic center. Existing landscaping consists of palm trees, eucalyptus trees, and grass. As shown on the photos (refer to Exhibit D), large areas of the site are not landscaped and consist of native earth (dirt) and many trees are either in poor condition or dead. The project will result in higher quality landscaping to replace former landscaping. Drought resistant trees will be planted around the perimeter of the project site and within the parking area. The proposed project will result in improvements to the visual character of the site and will not degrade it. (d) The project will result in a substantial increase in the number of light sources at the site compared to existing conditions. All lighting fixtures will comply with Section 29-149 “Lighting Standards” of the Zoning Code. These standards require that lighting fixtures reflect away from abutting roadways or development.



Issues: Potentially

Significant Impact




Impact

No Impact

II. AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

X

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

X

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause, rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined, by the Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Governmental Code section 51104(g))?

X

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

X

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

X

Explanation: (a-b) The project site is designated as Urban and Built Up Land under the 2012 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Urban and Built-Up Land is defined as built-up land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres. As such, the proposed project site will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. Given that the proposed project site is not zoned for agricultural use, the project will not conflict with any Williamson Act contract. (c) Currently, the land is zoned for limited use. This zoning designation is intended for public facilities such as schools, parks, or railways. As such, the project will not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause, rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. (d) The project will not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use as the site is zoned for single family residential land uses and does not consist of forest land. (e) The proposed project will not involve other changes in the existing environment which could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program land to the north, east, south and west is designated Urban and Built-Up land. There is no forest land near the project area or within the project area; thus, there will be no impact to forest lands.



Issues: Potentially Significant

Impact




Impact

No Impact

III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

X

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

X

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

X

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

X

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

X

Explanation: The project site is located in Imperial County which is under the jurisdiction of the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD). ICAPCD is the local agency responsible for developing air quality plans, monitors air quality, and enforce air quality requirements. Imperial County is designated as a state and federal non-attainment area for particulate matter (PM) 2.5, PM 10, and ozone standards. As such, the ICAPCD has prepared a State Implementation Plan to demonstrate how the County will meet air quality standards. To aid environmental impact analysis, ICAPCD has developed daily emission thresholds to determine significance of construction phase and operation phase related activities to regional air quality. The following section summarizes the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, which is contained in its entirety in Appendix A. (a-c) The project site, like all other construction sites, must comply with mitigation measures specified within Regulation VIII to reduce fugitive dust generated by construction activities. In order to reduce dust generation, all construction projects are required to implement construction mitigation measures to reduce visible dust emissions to less than 20% opacity. Mitigation measures have been included hereto. Air quality analysis has found that construction phase activities with implementation of the fugitive dust mitigation measures discussed below will not exceed the thresholds for any pollutants. The facility’s operating emissions will not exceed regional air quality thresholds and do not warrant further mitigation. (d) Sensitive receptors include schools, child-care centers, playgrounds, hospitals, retirement homes, and single & multi-family residential dwellings. These types of institutions generally contain persons particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to air contamination. Multifamily development is located just south of the project site, across Park Avenue. Because construction and operation emissions from the project site do not exceed significance thresholds, impacts would be less than significant. (e) The proposed project will allow for the development of a recreational center. Noxious odors will consist of refuse generated by the facility. Refuse will be stored in enclosed containers and periodically collected and will not result in a noticeable impact.



Mitigation Measures: AQ-1 | The operator shall implement the following standard mitigation measures for fugitive PM10 control:

a) The operator shall insure that all disturbed areas, including bulk material storage which is not being actively utilized, will be effectively stabilized and visible emissions will be limited to no greater than 20% opacity for dust emissions by using water, chemical stabilizers, dust suppressants, tarps, or other suitable material such as vegetative ground cover.

b) The operator shall insure that all on-site and off-site unpaved roads will be effectively stabilized and visible emissions be limited to no greater than 20% opacity for dust emissions by paving, chemical stabilizers, dust suppressants, and/or watering.

c) The operator shall insure that all unpaved traffic areas with 75 or more average vehicle trips per day will be effectively stabilized and visible emission be limited to no greater than 20% opacity for dust emissions by paving, chemical stabilizers, dust suppressants, and/or watering.

d) The operator shall insure that all transport (import or export) of borrow material used as cover material will be completely covered unless six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container is maintained with no spillage and loss of borrow material. In additions, the cargo compartment of all haul trucks is to be cleaned and/or washed at delivery site after removal of bulk material.

e) The operator shall insure that all track-out or carryout will be cleaned at the end of each workday. f) The operator shall insure that all movement of borrow material handling or at points of transfer shall be

stabilized prior to handling or at points of transfer with application of sufficient water, chemical stabilizers, or by sheltering or enclosing the operation and transfer line.

AQ-2 | The operator shall implement the following standard mitigation measures for construction combustion equipment:

a) The operator shall insure the use of Tier 2 vehicles or the equivalent alternative fueled or catalyst equipped diesel construction equipment.

b) The operator shall insure that idling time will be minimized by either shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes as a maximum.

c) The operator shall limit, to the extent feasible, the hours of operation of heavy-duty equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use.

d) The operator shall, where practicable, replace fossil-fueled equipment with electrically driven equivalents (provided they are not run via a portable generator set).




Impact




Impact

No Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

X

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

X

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

X

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

X

Explanation: (a) The project site consists of urban park land developed more than 100 years ago. The area has been previously disturbed from construction operations and it would be unlikely that any sensitive species would be located at the site or would populate the site. Vegetation at the site consists of turf grass, palm trees, and eucalyptus trees. A search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s California Natural Diversity Database produces several “Species of Special Concern”, however, given that area has been constantly used by humans, it is not considered a suitable habitat for those species. (b-f) The project site does not contain riparian habitat or wetlands. The project will not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species as it is surrounded by developed sites and urban land uses. The City of El Centro does not have any ordinance or policies protecting biological resources or has in place natural or habitat conservation plans.




Impact




Impact

No Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

X

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to

§15064.5?

X

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

X

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

X

Explanation: (a-c) In 2009 a cultural resources record search was conducted for the Dr. M.L. King Jr. Sports Pavilion Project Site located approximately 700 feet east of the project site. The records search was for a 0.5 mile radius surrounding the site of the Sports Pavilion. No resources were located at the aquatic center project site. The nearest resources identified was US 80 highway, now SR-86 (Adams Ave.) which abuts the project site to the north. The project site itself is not a resource, as the buildings and structures of the site are not significant. There is no potential for an adverse change in the significance of a historic resource during the construction of this project. (d) No human remains were identified in the project area through the records search. However, if human remains are encountered during future project construction, the California Health and Safety Code and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) require that work in the immediate area must halt, the remains must be protected, and the county coroner must be notified immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, then the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be notified (typically by the coroner) within 24 hours, as required by Public Resources Code Section 5097. The NAHC would identify and contact a most likely descendant, who would be given the opportunity to provide recommendations for the treatment of the remains within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. Compliance with these requirements would ensure a less than significant impact on human remains.




Impact




Impact

No Impact

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

X

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

X

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

X

iv) Landslides? X

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

X

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

X

d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

X

The following section summarizes the findings of a geotechnical investigation report prepared by Twining, Inc, which is contained in its entirety in Appendix B. Explanation: (a) The site is not located within an Earthquake Fault zone, however the Imperial Valley is a seismically active area. Within 4 miles of El Centro are the Imperial fault zone to the east and the Superstition Hills fault zone to the northwest. Per the geotechnical investigation report, field observations at neither the site nor review of published geological literature indicated any surface traces of active faults at or near the site. Nonethelesss, nearby faults have produced significant earthquakes in the past and it is likely that the site will be subject to strong shaking during the design life of the proposed improvements. The proposed project will require implementation of project design measures and adherence to the California Building Code. Implementation of these design and building techniques would reduce the impacts to a level that is less than significant. (b) The project site has been previously developed and will not result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (c) The proposed project site is not located on an unstable geologic unit. The proposed project would not induce geologic or soil instability on or offsite. (d) The proposed project will be connected to city sewer services.




Impact




Impact

No Impact

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the project:a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

X

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

X

Explanation: (a-b) A Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Analysis was conducted by Urban Crossroads for the project and is included as Appendix C. Based on GHG emission thresholds established by the California Associations of Air Pollution Control Officers it has been determined that the project will have a less than significant impact on GHG or climate change and no mitigation shall be required.




Impact




Impact

No Impact

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

X

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

X

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

X

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

X

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

X

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

X

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

X

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

X

Explanation: (a-b) Swimming pools require the maintenance of water chemistry to protect the health and safety of persons in the pool. Chemicals typically used in public pools include sodium hypochlorite and muriatic acid. The levels in which the public would be exposed to is generally not harmful to people. Chemicals will be stored in approved tanks and will not be accessible to the public. There will be no impacts due to hazardous materials. (c) The project site is not within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school site. (d) A search on the State Department of Toxic Control website’s Envirostor database and the State Water Resources Control Board website’s GeoTracker database site did not produce any records for the project site. (e-f) The site is not within the plan area for an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. (g) The project does not involve a land use or activity that could interfere with emergency-evacuation plans for the area. (h) The project site is located within an urbanized area, far removed from wildland areas.




Impact




Impact

No Impact

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

X

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

X

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

X

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

X

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

X

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

X

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?

X

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

X

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X

(a) City Ordinance requires the El Centro Wastewater Treatment Plant to limit the amount of total dissolved solid (TDS) levels in effluent. In El Centro, a major source of TDS in wastewater is from groundwater infiltrating damaged and aging sewer lines. Pools also produce TDS as a result from water disinfection processes which enter the sewer system in backwash from pool filter maintenance and other aquatic processes. While the project contribution to citywide TDS is expected to be small, it has the potential to cause the wastewater treatment plant to exceed certain limits regulated by the State. Sewer infrastructure improvements such as relining pipes affected by groundwater infiltration will reduce impacts from the project to less than significant levels and are being proposed as a mitigation measure. (b) The project would not deplete ground water resources as potable water is available to the site.



(c-e) The project will result in development at the site and will increase the area of impervious surfaces, impact existing drainage patterns and produce surface runoff. Prior to issuance of any buildings permits, grading and drainage plans shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements to reduce the amount of surface runoff from entering public storm water facilities and minimize flooding or polluted runoff. Implementation of City storm water requirements and regulations will result in in a less than significant impact resulting from surface runoff. (f) The proposed project will not otherwise degrade water quality. (g-h) The project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as identified by FEMA Maps as such the project will not lead to flooding of structures or redirect flood flows. (i-j) The project is not located near a dam, levee or within an area susceptible to seichis, tsunamis or mudflows. Mitigation Measures: HWQ-1 | Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, sewer infrastructure improvements shall be completed to reduce TDS levels. Such improvements shall lower overall TDS amounts entering the wastewater treatment plant so wastewater from the project entering the sewer system will result in acceptable TDS levels at the water treatment plant.




Impact




Impact

No Impact

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

X

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

X

Explanation: (a) The project will result in the development of existing open space land used currently used as a city park. A segment of 5th Street will be vacated as part of the project and no longer will be accessible. The 6th Street and Adams Ave/SR-86 signalized intersection will remain and serve as the principle north to south access between 4th Street and 8th Street. The project will not result in the division of an established community as 6th Street will continue to provide north and south access. (b) The project is consistent with the Public Land Use designation per the General Plan and the Limited Use zoning designation. It will not conflict with adopted land use plan, policy or regulation. (c) There is no habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans that are applicable to the site.


Impact




Impact

No Impact

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

X

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

X

Explanation: (a,b) The project site is within an urban area and is not identified in the General Plan as having any known mineral resource value or as being located within any mineral resource recovery site.




Impact




Impact

No Impact

XII. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

X

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

X

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

X

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

X

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

X

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

X

This section summarizes the finding from the a Noise Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, which is contained in its entirety in Appendix D Explanation: (a) The Noise Element of the General Plan and Chapter 17.1 of the El Centro Municipal Code provide Noise standards and guidelines. It is expected that the project will result in an increase in noise levels generated at the site from onsite vehicle movements, outdoor pool activity, running of facility equipment. Noise analysis, however, indicates that the expected increase in in sound levels will be below Noise Element guidelines and Municipal code requirements and will produce a less than significant impact. (b) During project construction heavy equipment will produce localized groundborne vibration. Such events will be intermittent and felt by surrounding properties when construction activities occur at the project site perimeter with heavy construction machinery. Moreover, expected vibration levels at the project site are expected to be barely perceptible to sensitive uses surrounding the site. Due to the minimal degree of vibration to impact the project site and the temporary and infrequent occurrence of such vibration, impacts are considered less than significant. (c) Operational noise levels will not contribute to an increase the ambient noise levels from existing conditions and will result in a less than significant impact. (d) A temporary increase in noise levels due to construction activity will occur, however, will not exceed the 75 dBA construction levels and will have a less than significant impact. (e-f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip.




Impact




Impact

No Impact

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

X

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

X

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

X

Explanation: (a) The proposed project will result in the construction of a public recreational facility. It is unlikely that it will result in an increase of new homes or businesses. (b-c) The project will not result in a displacement of housing or persons that will require the construction of replacement housing.


Impact




Impact

No Impact

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

1) Fire protection? X

2) Police protection? X

3) Schools? X

4) Parks? X

5) Other public facilities? X

Explanation: 1) The project is less than one (1) mile from El Centro Fire Station No 1, located at 775 W. State Street. In the event of an emergency, the project site is easily accessible by the El Centro Fire Department. It is foreseeable the site may result in an increase of emergency calls as an public aquatic center than the existing park space, however, the increase will not be significant. 2) The City of El Centro Police Department (ECPD) is the primary law enforcement agency that patrols the land within the City boundaries. The Police Department station, located at 150 N. 11th Street, less than one (1) mile from the project site. The project will not significantly increase the demand of police protection and will not require the construction of new police facilities. 3) It is unlikely that the project will have any effect on school demand as it will not result in an increase in population. 4) While the project will result in the removal of 2.8 acres of park space, it would be replaced with a public



aquatic center. The City of El Centro does not currently have a public pool, or have a facility for competitive swimming events, thus, the project will enhance recreational activities in the City. 5) The project will convert existing open space parkland into an aquatic center. This will result in a less than significant impact to public services.


Impact




Impact

No Impact

XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

X

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

X

Explanation: (a) The project would result in the removal of park land to construct a public aquatic facility that would include pools, indoor recreational facility, and result in the development of local swimming recreational programs. While the project will remove an existing facility, it will be replaced with a recreational facility that will be more beneficial to the community as it will enhance recreational opportunities. (b) The site is located in an urban park and will not result in an adverse physical effect on the environment.


Impact




Impact

No Impact

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

X

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

X

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks?

X

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

X



e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

X

A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan (LL&G) Engineers and is included in Appendix E. Intersections and roadway segments surrounding the project site were analyzed for existing performance and projected performance based on the expected traffic generated by the project and cumulative growth. It is expected that the project will generate a 423 average daily trips (ADT) with 30 peak hour trips on week days and 860 ADT with 60 peak hour trips on weekends. No cumulative projects that could potentially add traffic to the study area were identified with a 5% growth factor added to future traffic volumes to account for future development. Explanation: (a-b) The Circulation Element of the General Plan maintains a goal of maintaining traffic conditions to a minimum Level of Service (LOS) C for most roadways and LOS D for major roadways such as Adams Ave/SR-86 abutting the project site. A significant impact is determined if the LOS is lower than the standard for that segment. Per the Traffic Impact Analysis a cumulative impact has been determined at the Adams Ave/6th St. intersection as it will result in a reduction of the LOS from D to E due to cumulative growth. Mitigation measures are being recommended to reduce their impact to less than significant. (c) The project will not affect air traffic patterns. (d-e) The proposed project will not increase hazards due to a design feature as the proposed project does not involve construction that would increase hazards. The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. (f) The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies related to traffic, circulation, and pedestrian facilities. Mitigation Measures: TRA-1 | Intersection #2. Adams Avenue / 6th Street – Restripe the northbound approach to provide a dedicated left-turn lane and shared thru / right-turn lane. Restripe the southbound approach to provide a dedicated left-turn lane and shared thru / right-turn lane. Reconfigure the existing traffic signal to provide protected signal phasing.


Impact




Impact

No Impact

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

X

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

X

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

X

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

X



e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

X

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

X

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

X

Explanation: (a) The El Centro Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) has the capacity to accommodate 8.0 million gallons of wastewater per day. The treatment plant would be able to treat additional wastewater as it has sufficient capacity. The project site is connected to the City’s sewer system. (b) The proposed project will not require or result in the construction of water or wastewater treatment facilities. As such, there will no environmental impacts due to the construction of water and wastewater treatment facilities. Both, water and wastewater treatment facilities have the capacity to continue to serve the project. (c) The project will increase the area of impervious surfaces at the project site and would require the construction of storm water drainage facilities. Onsite storm water drainage shall be designed to keep surface runoff onsite and will not require the expansion or construction of public drainage facilities. A Hydrology Study was prepared by D-Max Engineering to analyze projected storm water runoff and is attached as Appendix F. It concluded that due to the construction of onsite retention, total peak flow from 25 and 100-year 6 hour storms will decrease on and offsite runoff from existing conditions. (d) The City of El Centro Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is permitted through the State Department of Public Health and has a capacity of 14 million gallons per day and has the available capacity to serve the project site. The City of El Centro receives raw water from the Imperial Irrigation District and treats the raw water for consumption for use by its customers. The City of El Centro has sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources and no new or expanded entitlements are needed to serve the site. (e) As stated, the City of El Centro WWTP serves the project site. There will be no significant increase in demand to the WWTP as a result of the project. (f-g) The current solid waste service provider is CR&R Waste Services, and has sufficient landfill capacity to serve the project site. The City of El Centro has renewed its contract with CR&R through 2027.




Impact




Impact

No Impact

XVIII. 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?

X

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)?

X

c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

X

Explanation: (a-c) The project would allow for the construction and operation of an aquatic center on 3.5 acres of land currently occupied by an urban park. Existing conditions at the park are not suitable to serve as a habitat for fish or wildlife species or result in any impact to fish or wildlife population. Existing vegetation at the site consist of turf grasses, ruderal weeds, and non-native trees. As the site is located well within a developed urban area, it will not restrict the range of plan or animal species. The site is mostly vacant aside from a restroom and ramada, and does not contain any historical or cultural significant resources.

Construction at the site may result in temporary impacts to sound and air quality, however enforcement of existing air quality and construction requirements will result in a less than significant impact. Operation of the facility will also result in impacts to traffic and circulation as it would result in an increase trip generation and a portion of 5th Street will be vacated. Mitigation measures calling for minor roadway improvements will reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

Pool filter backwash entering the sewer system will affect TDS levels at wastewater treatment facilities. The addition of water into pool filter backwash is being proposed as a mitigation measure to reduce TDS impacts to the sewer system. This will be a temporary measure until permanent sewer infrastructure improvements such as sewer pipe lining are implemented to reduce TDS from groundwater infiltration.

Overall, the proposal will not have a significant impact on the environment as project will result in infill development on property within a developed portion of the City of El Centro.



FINDINGS

The environmental analysis of this Initial Study indicates that the proposed project would not have the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, as based on the results of this environmental assessment:

The proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment and would not 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, or 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.

The proposed project would not have the potential to achieve short-term goals at the expense of long-term environmental goals.

The proposed project would not have immitigable environmental impacts, which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity of the site. The proposed project would not cumulatively lead to significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significance, when added to proposed, planned, or anticipated development in the area.

The proposed project would not have environmental impacts, which may have adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly.

The City of El Centro has determined that the proposed project would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment and no additional environmental analysis. The City of El Centro intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for El Centro Aquatic Center.

SOURCE REFERENCES The following is a list of references used in the preparation of this environmental document. Unless attached herein, copies of all referenced reports, memorandums and letters are on file with the City of El Centro Community Development Department – Planning & Zoning Division. References to Publications prepared by Federal or State agencies may be found with the agency responsible for providing such information. 1) California Department of Conservation-Division of Land Resources Protection. 2014 “Imperial County

Important Farmland 2014” Map 2) California Department of Fish and Wildlife-Biological Information and Observation System database,

https://map.dfg.ca.gov/bios/ 3) California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor Database, envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/ 4) California Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Database, geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov 5) City of El Centro. 2004. “City of El Centro General Plan” 6) City of El Centro. 2007. “Chapter 29-Zoning” 7) D-Max Engineering, Inc. 2016. “Hydrology Report Including Offsite Drainage Areas for El Centro

Aquatic Center” 8) Linscott, Law, & Greenspan. 2016. “Traffic Impact Analysis El Centro Aquatic Center”. 9) Michael Brandman Associates. 2009. “Adams Avenue Indoor Sports Complex Cultural Resource

Assessment” 10) Urban Crossroads. 2016. “El Centro Aquatic Center-Air Quality Analysis”. 11) Urban Crossroads. 2016. “El Centro Aquatic Center-Greenhouse Gas Analysis”. 12) Urban Crossroads. 2016. “El Centro Aquatic Center-Noise Impact Analysis”.

EL CENTRO AQUATIC CENTER Study-El Centro... · Project title: City of El Centro Aquatic Center 2....

Documents

Transcript of EL CENTRO AQUATIC CENTER Study-El Centro... · Project title: City of El Centro Aquatic Center 2....