Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutChecklist- CALIFORNIA NATIONAL curyir CITY OF NATIONAL CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1243 NATIONAL CITY BLVD., NATIONAL CITY CA, 91950 June 25, 2014 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form (Based on the State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G Rev. 12/98) 1. PROJECT TITLE: Cortez Cremations and Funeral Services Corporation 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of National City — 1243 National City Blvd., National City, California 91950 3. LEAD AGENCY CONTACT: Martin Reeder, AICP — Principal Planner (619) 336-4313 I e-mail: mreeder(a�nationalcityca.gov 4. PROJECT LOCATION: 100 West 35th Street, National City CA 91950 5. PROJECT APPLICANT'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Angela Cortez Guzman 1332 North Paradise Ridge Way, Chula Vista, CA 91915 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site is located on the south side of West 35th Street east of National City Blvd. and north of State Route 54 in the Southland Industrial Park. The building in which the project would be located is 60,559 square feet in size. The project applicant, Cortez Cremations and Funeral Services Corporation, proposes to operate a crematorium offering human cremation services from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. seven days a week in a 2,228 square -foot suite within the existing building. The facility will install one new modern cremator and an approximately 18-foot exhaust stack (hot air duct). The stack/duct would protrude approximately five feet above the roof of the building. The footprint of the existing structure would not be altered. The proposed new cremator is designed to improve combustion efficiency and reduce air pollutant and odor emissions by re -burning combustion gases before they are released to the atmosphere. Project implementation may only occur following issuance of an `Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate' by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and will be subject to permit conditions limiting or requiring specific actions to ensure compliance with APCD air pollution control requirements, thereby minimizing the impact of any emissions increase and ensuring no significant adverse effect upon ambient air quality. The project applicant will be subject to periodic inspections by the District to confirm compliance. Forecasted Activity Based on the manufacturer's recommended maximum daily cycles of the proposed cremator, there would be no more than six cremations performed per day. This equates to maximum of 182 cremations per month. Cremator Description The proposed cremator (Model A-200HT by American Crematory Equipment Company) operates on natural gas and is designed with a "hot hearth" floor (heated by circulating combustion gases to reduce fuel consumption) and two combustion chambers, namely a main chamber and a secondary afterburner chamber, to enhance thermal and combustion efficiency and reduce air pollutant and odor emissions. The main component of the cremator consists of steel exterior walls, loading door, insulation, interior walls, a hot hearth floor, a main chamber, secondary (afterburner) chamber, settling chamber, automatic burner control panel, burners, forced draft fan, and exhaust stack. Cremation Process Initiating the Process — To begin the cremation process, the secondary chamber is preheated until a set -point temperature is reached. The charge (body and container) is then loaded into the main combustion chamber, and the main burner is fired to begin the cremation cycle. During the cremation process, heat is released when combustion of the charge occurs. To maintain optimal combustion temperature, the main burner is automatically adjusted as necessary via a temperature controller connected to a thermocouple (a sensor for measuring temperature). Air Pollution Control — The combustion gases from the main chamber are drafted into the secondary chamber, where heat from the afterburner combusts the gases for air pollution and odor control. Modern secondary chambers are designed for increased "retention time" (the amount of time combustion gases are held in the secondary chamber prior to discharge) to maximize combustion and destruction of air pollutants and odors. Any remaining combustion gases then flow to a settling chamber, where the gases cool and slow down and noncombustible particulate matter 2IPage has an opportunity to settle out of the air stream. Lastly, the air stream passes through an exhaust stack and is discharged to the outside atmosphere. Disposition of Cremated Remains — At the end of the cremation cycle and following a cool - down period, all remaining cremated matter is removed from the cremator and placed in a container or urn for disposition as directed by the family of the deceased. In most cases, the recipients permanently retain the container and its contents as a memorial to the deceased. In some cases, the recipients choose to scatter the cremated remains in the environment, provided a burial and disposition permit is first obtained pursuant to State law. Project Construction The proposed cremator would be pre -assembled prior to arriving at the project site. No ground -disturbing activities would be involved with the installation, and the footprint of the existing building would not be altered. The most equipment -intensive activities would include the use of a flatbed truck to transfer the new cremation equipment onto t h e project site. This activity would last less than one week, with the majority of the remaining construction completed by onsite handwork. There are noise -sensitive land uses located within 1,000 feet of the project site. Residential land use is located approximately 560 feet to the south of the project site, across the Sweetwater River. These residences are located in the City of Chula Vista. However, any off -site audible construction noise related to the project would be short- term and not substantial. Furthermore, noise would be no louder than normal construction activities currently occurring in the area, and would still be subject to noise standards contained in the Municipal Code, which takes into account neighboring land uses. Operation of the cremator within the building is not anticipated to create substantial offsite noise. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES: Air Pollutant Emissions Implementation of the proposed project would result in modest increases in air pollutant emissions. However, this potential emissions impact is partially mitigated by the use of a new, modern cremator. The design and operation of modern cremators, including a more lengthy retention time of the combustion gases in the secondary afterburner chamber, maximizes combustion and destruction of air pollutant emissions. Air pollutants potentially emitted from the cremator is mostly common products of combustion, including particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide. Trace amounts of toxic air contaminants (potentially more harmful to public health) may also occur, including mercury from silver amalgam dental fillings and dioxins from the burning of plastic. (In a small 3IPage minority of cases usually involving unidentified human remains or autopsies performed by the Medical Examiner, the body is delivered to the crematorium in a plastic bag.) APCD staff will perform a detailed application and engineering evaluation to identify applicable District rules and prescribe specific operating conditions and air pollutant emission limits to ensure compliance and protection of public health. APCD rules that potentially apply to minimize emissions include: • Rule 20.2, New Source Review — Non -Major Stationary Sources; • Rule 50, Visible Emissions; • Rule 51, Nuisance; • Rule 53, Specific Air Contaminants; • Rule 58, Incinerator Burning; • Rule 68, Oxides of Nitrogen from Fuel Burning Equipment; and • Rule 1200, Toxics New Source Review. Project -related air pollutant emission levels are below Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) trigger levels established in APCD Rule 20.2 for new or modified stationary sources of emissions. Projects with stationary -source emissions exceeding AQIA trigger levels require further analysis during the APCD permitting process to determine whether such emissions could cause a violation of ambient air quality standards. Project -related emissions are not expected to exceed AQIA trigger levels and emissions are presumed to be less than significant. However, there is residential use (sensitive land use) within 1,000 feet of the proposed crematory use, which will be reflected in the APCD permit process. It should be noted that no crematory activities would be permitted without the appropriate APCD permits, which may require additional mitigation measures to ensure that there are no impacts to nearby sensitive uses. Additionally, a screening -level Health Risk Assessment will be required by APCD to determine the potential for project -related toxic air pollutant emissions to have unacceptable health risk levels at the nearest sensitive receptor or land use. Results would need to indicate that toxic emissions would not exceed applicable toxics screening emission rates established pursuant to District Rule 1200. (The toxics screening emission rates consider distance to nearest receptor.) Consequently, if the assessment does not identify any unacceptable health risk levels, toxic emissions resulting from project implementation would not have consequences above acceptable health risk levels. If it is determined that unacceptable health risk levels at the nearest sensitive receptor or land use do exist, APCD permits will not be issued. Wage Potential for Upset Conditions Large or Obese Cases — Large or obese cases contain greater amounts of fatty tissue, which combusts at a rapid rate and creates combustion gases at a greater volume, temperature, and velocity than normal. The increase in gas volume could potentially overload the secondary chamber, preventing it from combusting the gases as quickly as they are produced and resulting in the discharge of smoke. Additionally, increased gas temperature and velocity reduces retention time because the combustion gases pass through the secondary chamber faster than normal and are not properly combusted by the afterburner, again resulting in smoke. Further, in extreme cases, increased volume, temperature, and velocity of combustion gases may lead to flames out of the exhaust stack. Modern cremators have higher capacity and are better designed to handle the increased volume, temperature, and velocity of combustion gases created during cremation of large or obese cases. Manufacturer's recommendations and crematory industry standards and practices are designed to mitigate the potential for upset conditions. This includes: (1) ensuring the main chamber is cool before commencing the cremation of a large or obese case; (2) carefully regulating the flow of gas to the burner and amount of oxygen in the chamber; and (3) safety controls on the cremator that shut down burners if necessary. Lastly, the crematory is equipped with a "Class B" fire extinguisher to extinguish fires of flammable material, if necessary. Heat Build -Up — Heat absorption by the interior walls and lining of the cremator increases with each additional cremation performed during the day. This could lead to overheating and rapid combustion during the cremation process, again resulting in smoke. The cremation burners compensate for this heat buildup by automatically adjusting to a low -fire mode, as necessary. Manufacturer's recommendations and industry standards and practices, as described above, also help address and mitigate this issue. Smoke and Odor Complaints APCD has occasionally received complaints about smoke or odors from existing crematories in San Diego County. Such complaints are investigated by District staff and the cause of problem is identified and resolved, if possible. District experience indicates that, in general, the number of complaints received regarding a specific crematory is proportional to the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor or land use. According to APCD records (as of 2007), over the past ten years 26 complaints have been received regarding eight human or pet crematory operations, and appropriate enforcement action was taken. Upon investigation by APCD, either no violation of District rules was found or a Notice of Violation (NOV) was issued. None of these incidents were determined to have caused a public nuisance as defined in District Rule 51. Two of the odor complaints were associated with the Greenwood 5IPage Memorial Park and Mortuary, located north of National City. In both cases, District inspectors dispatched to the site to conduct an investigation did not encounter any odors or violations of District Rules. Current complaint records will be taken into consideration as part of the APCD permitting process. APCD experience indicates that operation of crematory equipment should not violate air pollutant emission standards or create a public nuisance, provided there is sufficient distance between crematory equipment and the nearest sensitive receptor —approval of an approximate 560-foot separation between the project a n d the nearest residential land use will need to approved by APCD as part of their permitting process —and the crematory equipment is properly maintained and operated in accordance with the District Permit to Operate, manufacturer's recommendations, and industry standards. In the event the equipment is not properly maintained and operated, the resulting violation can be corrected through APCD enforcement action, including the issuance of a NOV or, if necessary, abatement order. For these reasons, potential odor and smoke impacts associated with the proposed project are anticipated to be less than significant. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Topography San Diego County is divided by the Laguna Mountain Range, which runs approximately parallel to the coast about 45 miles inland and separates the coastal area from the desert portion of the County. The Laguna Mountains reach peaks of over 6,000 feet with Hot Springs Mountain peak rising to 6,533 feet, the highest point in the County. The coastal region is made up of coastal terraces that rise from the ocean into wide mesas which then, moving farther east, transition into the Laguna Foothills. Farther east, the topography gradually rises to the rugged mountains. On the east side, the mountains drop off rapidly to the Anza-Borrego Desert, which is characterized by several broken mountain ranges with desert valleys in between. To the north of the County are the Santa Ana Mountains which run along the coast of Orange County, turning east to join with the Laguna Mountains near the San Diego- Orange County border. Climatology The climate of San Diego County, as with all of Southern California, is largely dominated by the strength and position of the semi -permanent, high-pressure system over the Pacific Ocean (known as the Pacific High). This high-pressure ridge over the West Coast often creates a pattern of Tate -night and early -morning low clouds, hazy afternoon sunshine, daytime onshore breezes, and little temperature variation year-round. The climatic classification for San Diego is a Mediterranean climate, with warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. Average annual precipitation ranges from approximately 10 inches on the Wage coast to over 30 inches in the mountains to the east (the desert regions of San Diego County generally receive between 4 and 6 inches per year). The favorable climate of San Diego works to create air pollution problems. Sinking, or subsiding air from the Pacific High creates a temperature inversion (known as a subsidence inversion), which acts as a lid to vertical dispersion of pollutants. Weak summertime pressure gradients further limit horizontal dispersion of pollutants in the mixed layer below the subsidence inversion. Poorly dispersed anthropogenic (man- made) emissions, combined with strong sunshine, lead to photochemical reactions, creating ozone in this surface layer. Daytime onshore flow (i.e., sea breeze) and nighttime offshore flow (i.e., land breeze) are quite common in Southern California. The sea breeze helps to moderate daytime temperatures in the western portion of San Diego County, which greatly adds to the climatic draw of the region. This also leads to emissions being blown out to sea at night and returning to land the following day. Under certain conditions, this atmospheric oscillation results in the offshore transport of air from the Los Angeles region to San Diego County, which often results in higher air pollution concentrations being measured at San Diego County air pollution monitoring stations. Transport of air pollutants from Los Angeles to San Diego has also been shown to occur aloft within the stable layer of the elevated subsidence inversion. Ambient Air Quality Standards National and State ambient air quality standards are established for criteria pollutants, which are widespread, common air contaminants known to be harmful to human health and welfare. The criteria pollutants are ozone, inhalable particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and sulfur dioxide. Additional State standards have been established for sulfates and hydrogen sulfide. The standards are set to protect the elderly, very young, and chronically sensitive portions of the population, and are required to include a reasonable margin of safety to protect against potential hazards which research has not yet identified. (In some cases, the State standards provide a wider margin of safety than the national standards.) An area that does not meet a particular standard is designated as a nonattainment area for that pollutant and must develop an air quality plan defining the combination of local, State, and federal actions and emission controls necessary for expeditious attainment in the area. Air Quality Status The District operates an extensive ambient air monitoring network, continuously monitoring air pollution levels at numerous sites throughout San Diego County in compliance with federal and State requirements. Data generated at these monitors are 7IPage used to define the nature and severity of air pollution in San Diego County and to determine attainment status. San Diego County has generally experienced substantial improvement in ambient air quality over the past several years, demonstrating emission control measures are working. Of the six criteria air pollutants regulated by EPA and the eight regulated by the ARB, only ozone and inhalable particulate matter occur in concentrations sufficient to violate either national or State standards in San Diego County. Toxic Air Contaminants — Two of the APCD's air monitoring stations, in Chula Vista and El Cajon, measure toxic air contaminants as well as criteria pollutants. Toxic air pollutants are constituents of certain volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and other contaminants that are believed to be carcinogenic with no identified threshold below which no adverse health effects occur. Industrial toxic air contaminant emissions in the region have been reduced by 70% since 1989. 9. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY INVOLVEMENT: No other public agencies are known to require approval of the proposed project. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below, if any, would be potentially affected by this project. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑x Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Hazards / Haz. Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 0 No Potentially Significant Impacts Wage 11. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: u I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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 pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 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. On the basis of this Initial Study, I believe the following: there are no new significant environmental effects and no substantial increase in severity of effects identified in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION or ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the proposed project or property are present as the result of either 1) changes in the project; 2) changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken; or 3) new information which could not have been known without the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous Negative Declaration was adopted or Environmental Impact Report was certified. Therefore, the previously adopted NEGATIVE DECLARATION or certified ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT will be considered adequate upon completion of an ADDENDUM to reflect minor technical changes. 9IPage u On the basis of this Initial Study, I believe the following: new significant environmental effects or an substantial increase in severity of effects identified in an earlier Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project or property are present as the result of either 1) changes in the project; 2) changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken; or 3) new information which could not have been known without the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the original earlier Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report was adopted. Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT/SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. June 25, 2014 Signature Date MARTIN REEDER, AICP PRINCIPAL PLANNER Printed Name Title 10jPage 12. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Instructions for Environmental Checklist Form 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the 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, 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 Environmental Impact Report is required. 4. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report, or other California Environmental Quality Act process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. 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. 5. Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 6. 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 Tess than significance. 1 Based on Appendix G of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 CCR, Section 15000 et seq.). 11IPage Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact 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? 0 X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X (a) through (d): The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. The project also includes installation of an exhaust stack on the roof of the existing building, although this would not alter the visual character of the roof, which already contains protrusions from exhaust/intake vents, air conditioning units, and skylights. Project implementation would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; would not substantially damage scenic resources; would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the surroundings; and would not create a new source of light or glare adversely affecting day or nighttime views. Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no adverse impact on aesthetics. ***************************************************************** Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. 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 12IPage b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? X (a) through (c): The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. The footprint of the existing building would not be altered and no ground -disturbing activities would be involved. Project implementation would not convert prime or unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance to non-agricultural use; would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson contract; and would not involve other changes that might ultimately result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no adverse impact on agricultural resources. ***************************************************************** Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 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 (a) through (e): The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. The footprint of the existing building would not be altered and no ground -disturbing activities would be involved. No school or other sensitive land use exists within 1,000 feet of the building, although there are 13IPage residential uses within 560 feet of the project, which will be reflected in the APCD permit process. Again, it should be noted that no crematory activities would be permitted without the appropriate APCD permits, which may require additional mitigation measures to ensure that there are no impacts to nearby sensitive uses. As described in Section 6 above, the proposed cremator operates on natural gas and are designed with a hot hearth floor and two combustion chambers, namely a main chamber and a secondary afterburner chamber, to enhance combustion efficiency and reduce air pollutant and odor emissions. As described in Section 8 above, project - related air pollutant emission levels would be below Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) trigger levels established in APCD Rule 20.2 and would therefore be presumed to be less than significant. Further, toxic emissions would be below toxic screening levels and therefore would not have consequences at the nearest sensitive receptor above acceptable health risk levels. Moreover, project implementation may only occur following District issuance of air quality permits (Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate) and will be subject to permit conditions limiting or requiring specific actions to ensure compliance with District air pollution control requirements, thereby minimizing the impact of any emissions increase and ensuring no significant adverse effect upon ambient air quality. Cortez Cremations and Funeral Services Corporation would be subject to periodic inspections by APCD to confirm compliance. Lastly, as described in Section 6 above, potential odor and smoke impacts associated with the proposed project are anticipated to be less than significant. Based on the above discussion, project implementation would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the air quality plan; would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation; would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which San Diego County is non -attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no adverse impact on air quality. ***************************************************************** Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 141Page 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by §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? 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? 0 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 (a) through (f): The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. Project implementation would have no effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; would have no impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the U.S. Fish and 15IPage Wildlife Service; would have no effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by §404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; would not interfere 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; would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no adverse impact on biological resources. ***************************************************************** Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant 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 CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? LJ ❑ n b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? XI c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? n d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? n (a) through (d): The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. The footprint of the existing building would not be altered and no ground -disturbing activities would be involved. Project implementation would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource; would not destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; and would not unlawfully disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no adverse impact on cultural resources. ***************************************************************** 161 Page Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY / SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or death involving: ❑ ❑ 0 • 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? ❑ ❑ 0 • Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ X • Seismic —related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ X • Landslides? ❑ ❑ X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ 0 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? ❑ ❑ 0 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ❑ ❑ 0 e) 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? ❑ ❑ 0 (a) through (e): The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. The footprint of the existing building would not be altered and no ground -disturbing activities would be involved. Project implementation would not expose people to the risk of Toss, injury, or death associated with earthquakes, seismic ground shaking, seismic -related ground failure, liquefaction or landslides; would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil; would not require the construction of any building or structure, thereby resulting in a potential to be located on an unstable geologic unit or on expansive soil; and would not require the installation of septic tanks or wastewater systems. 17IPage Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no adverse impact on geology/soils. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. HAZARDS / HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, and 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) Emithazardous 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 §65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X e) Fora 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 work g 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 18IPage h) Expose people or structures to a XI 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? (a) through (h): The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. The footprint of the existing would not be altered. The project applicant has certified that no residual hazardous materials result from cremation operation. As described in Section 7 above, toxic emissions would be below toxic screening levels and therefore would not have consequences at the nearest sensitive receptor above acceptable health risk levels. Additionally, the potential for hazardous fire is mitigated through industry standards and practices, automatic temperature controls on the cremator, and the presence of a Class B fire extinguisher in the crematory. Project implementation would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials; would not 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; and would not emit hazardous emissions, or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; would not require the construction of any building, structure or facility which could potentially be located on or a site pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; would not require the construction of any building, structure or facility which could potentially be located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan; and would not expose people or structures to wildland fires. Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no adverse impact on hazards/hazardous materials. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY / WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? L I L I X 19IPage 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 alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? 0 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that 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? O. 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? 0 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 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? U X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? n X (a) through (j): The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. The footprint of the existing would not be altered. No ground -disturbing activities would be involved and the footprint of the existing building would not be altered. Project implementation would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; would not substantially 20IPage deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge; would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area; would not 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; would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality; would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area; would not place structures which would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area; and would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, death, inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no adverse impact on hydrology/water quality. ***************************************************************** Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. LAND USE / 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 or natural community conservation plan? X (a) through (c): The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. The footprint of the existing would not be altered. Project development would occur on an existing developed site and would not change the existing physical setting of the site. The project site is surrounded by developed land uses. Project implementation would not physically divide an established community; would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; and would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan. Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no adverse impact on land use/planning. ***************************************************************** 21IPage Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. 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 (a) and (b): The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. The footprint of the existing would not be altered. No ground -disturbing activities would be involved and the footprint of the existing building would not be altered. Project implementation would not 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; and would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no adverse impact on mineral resources. ***************************************************************** Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. 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? E X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X 22IPage 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? 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 (a) through (f): The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. The footprint of the existing would not be altered. No ground -disturbing activities would be involved and the footprint of the existing building would not be altered. As described in Section 6 above, the new cremator would be delivered to the project site on a flatbed truck and installed within the crematory building. Additionally, there are noise -sensitive land uses located within 1,000 feet of the project site. Residential land use is located approximately 560 feet to the south of the project site, across the Sweetwater River. These residences are located in the City of Chula Vista. However, any off -site audible construction noise related to the project would be short-term and not substantial. Furthermore, noise would be no louder than normal construction activities currently occurring in the area, and would still be subject to noise standards contained in the Municipal Code, which takes into account neighboring land uses. Operation of the cremator within the building is not anticipated to create substantial offsite noise. Project implementation would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards; would not expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise; would not result in a substantial permanent, temporary, or periodic increase in ambient noise levels; and would not affect any airport land use plan or private airstrip. Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no adverse noise impact. ***************************************************************** Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. POPULATION / HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial 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 23IPage b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ X (a) through (c): The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. No ground -disturbing activities would be involved and the footprint of the existing building would not be altered. Project implementation would not induce substantial growth and would not displace substantial numbers of housing or people, requiring the construction of replacement housing. Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no adverse impact on population/housing. ***************************************************************** Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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 following public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ r Police protection? ❑ ❑ a Schools? ❑ ❑ X Parks? ❑ ❑ X Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ X The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. Project implementation would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities; would not result in the need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant 24IPage environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives as they relate to fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public services or facilities. Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no adverse impact on public services. ***************************************************************** Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. 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? (a) and (b): The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. Project implementation would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities and does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no adverse impact on recreation. ***************************************************************** Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? E O. 25IPage b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ❑ ❑ 0 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? ❑ ❑ 0 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ( e.g. sharp curve or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ❑ ❑ X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ 0 (a) through (g): The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. The footprint of the existing would not be altered. As described in Section 6 above, the installation of the cremator would result in a maximum of six cremations per day. Project implementation would not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system; would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of standard established by the regional congestion management agency for any road or highway; would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses; would not result in inadequate emergency access or parking capacity; and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no adverse impact on transportation/traffic. ***************************************************************** Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. UTILITIES / SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: 26IPage a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 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? 0 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? 0 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 project's 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? ❑ 0 X g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X (a) through (g): The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. Project implementation would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the regional water quality control board; would not require or result in the construction of new water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities; would not require water supplies in excess of existing entitlements and resources or require new or expanded entitlements; would not require additional wastewater treatment capacity or landfill capacity; and would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no adverse impact on utilities/service systems. 27IPage ***************************************************************** Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. 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? 0 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)? 0 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 (a) through (c): The proposed project consists of the installation of a new modern cremator within an existing industrial building. Based on the analyses presented herein, it is concluded that the project (a) would not: have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, impact 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; (b) would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; and (c) would not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Based on the above discussion, it is expected that project implementation would have no impact with respect to the mandatory findings of significance. ***************************************************************** 28IPage