The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-12-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 3169e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2% PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3169 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE MASTER PLAN. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL, WATER DISTRICT DECLARATION FOR THE CITY-WIDE POTABLE WATER CASE NO.: PCD/GPC 90-7 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of December, 1990, and on the 19th day of December, 1990, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all I testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit IINDI', dated November 1, 1990, and "PII", dated October 25, 1990, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. Since this action does not involve any site development, no impacts to traffic or sensitive resources will result. ... ... ~ I e e 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 2 by the following vote, to wit: 3 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of December, 1990, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Holmes, Erwin, Marcus & Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner McFadden. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 14 15 W . MICHAEL J. HOLZMIHER x I1 PLANNING -DIRECTOR 17 18 19 20 21 22 I/ 23 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 3169 -2- 28 I/ I1 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: City of Carlsbad Citywide Potable Water Master Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Review of the Carisbad Municipal Water District's Potable Master Plan for consistency with the City's General Plan. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. DATED: NOVEMBER 1,1990 CASE NO: PCD/GPC 90-7 Planning Director APPLICANT: CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1990 MG:lh 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161 0 e ENwRON"AL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. PCD/GPC 90-7 DATE: OCTOBER 22. 1990 IACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT POTABLE WATER MASTER PLAN 2. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5950 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD. CA 92008 1619) 438-2722 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: AUGUST 20.1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT'S POTABLE WATER MASTER PLAh FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN. MIIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct ar The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklis dentifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project anc ?rovides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmenta :mpact Report or Negative Declaration. lnvironmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a sigmficant effect on the environment ' A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project o any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checkec to indicate this determination. '. An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of thc project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negativc Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemec insinnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" and "YES-insig respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form unde DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discuss in^ c PHysrw -0- WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? 4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? 6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?' 7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? 8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? -2- w E? - - - - - - - - - E8 - - - - - - - NO X X X X - X X X X - X X X 0 a BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT - WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: &s 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishmenr of existing species? 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? - - - - - HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ES 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? - 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? -3- E8 NO X X - X - X - X E8 NO - X - X e HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 20. Increase existing noise levels? 21. Produce new light or glare? 22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazqdous substances pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (including, but not limited 10, oil, 23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? 24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 25. . Generate substantial additional traffic? 26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? 27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? 29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 30. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? 31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? -4- w as YES NO (imlg) X X X - - - - - X - - X - - X X - - - - X - x X - - - - - - X - - X - __. - X - - X - - e 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE MLL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY 33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. animal community, reduce the number or 34. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) 35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively con- siderable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? gs (insig) YES NO - - - X - - X - - X - - X -6- 0 w DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Potable Water Master Plan is a summary of findings and recommendations concerning the existing and ultimate conditions of the City's water distribution system. Included within the plan are only those improvements to be constructed by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. Improvements required by any developer as conditioned by a specific project will be reviewed at the individual project level. While this Master Plan makes specific recommendations as to the upgrades and new facilities, eacl municipal project will receive its own environmental review and general plan consistency evaluation As such, it has been determined that the Potable Water Master Plan does not produce any adversc environmental effects in and of itself. PHYSXCAL ENVIRONMENT 1. The Potable Water Master Plan does not involve individual project approval and, therefore, no unstable earth conditions or geologic hazards will result from this conceptual master plan. 2. No specific project is proposed with this master plan, therefore, no change in topography or unique physical features will result. 3. Each project suggested in this master plan will receive independent environmental review, therefore, no site specific soils impacts will result from this plan. 4. This master plan will not result in any modification to any natural watercourse as it only suggests conceptual improvements to be reviewed on a project-by-project basis. 5. Construction of each project will produce an incremental increase in aerosols and change the radiative and evaporative properties of the surfaces. However, these increases will be reviewed in more detail at the project specific environmental review process. 6. See #5 above. 7. See #4 above. 8. The master plan proposes implementation methodology that will provide ample public water supply from the present to the ultimate buildout of the City. The affects of each project on surface and ground water will be reviewed on a project-by-project basis. 9. Construction of each project will produce an incremental increase in usage of fossil fuels, however, the impacts of this incremental increase will be reviewed on the specific project level. 10. See #9 above. 11. This master plan is conceptual only. The existence of any archeologically or historically significant site or object will be evaluated with the individual project environmental review. -6- 0 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12. As stated previously, the Potable Water Master Plan does not involve site specific project review. The individual environmental analysis will evaluate any project specific impacts to flora or fauna, including habitats and introduction of new species. 13. See #12 above. 14. The evaluation of possible loss of acreage of agricultural crop of farmland will be conducted at the individual project level. As such, this master plan in and of itself does not produce any adverse effects to this resource. 15. See #I2 above. 16. See #12 above. 17. The master plan is based on current and planned landuse and therefore no alteration is proposed. 18. The potable water master plan provides a guide for development of a vital public utility, therefore no adverse affects will result. 19. The development of waste systems to accommodate the increased water availability will be according to the City's Sewer Master Plan. The adequacy of waste systems for each improvement wiU be evaluated on a project-by-project basis. 20. The potential incremental increase in noise or light and glare during construction and perhaps operation of any recommended improvement will be evaluated at the project-level environmental review. 21. See #2O above. 22. Since the master plan does not involve site-specific details on construction of any improvements, the risk of explosion, release of hazardous substance, or any risk of upset must be evaluated on the improvement project level. 23. While the water master plan will allow residential development to occur according to the City's General Plan, the master plan does not independently alter density, population or housing supply. 24. See #23 above. 25. Although the Water Master Plan will indirectly allow for future development, the adequacy of circulation utilities, to accommodate any possible increase in traffic, including all terrestial waterborne, dl and air tr&c, will be evaluated on a project-by-project basis. -7- 0 I 26. The water master plan does not affect any existing parking facilities nor does it create a parking demand as it is only conceptual and any site specific parking impacts will be evaluated with each improvement project. 27. See #25 above. 28. See #25 above. 29. Any site specific traffic hazards will be evaluated on a project-by-project basis and, as such, the water master plan has no independent traffic hazard potential. 30. This conceptual plan will not have any adverse affects on emergency response or evacuation plans and any site specific impacts will be evaluated at the project level environmental review. 31. Since the master plan does not deal with site-specific issues, such as scenic vistas or recreational opportunities, the individual projects will have to comply with these environmental issues. 32. See #31 above. 33. As discussed previously, the site specific environmental issues related to the recommended improvements will be reviewed on a project-by-project basis. This includes any long-term or cumulative effects as well as any direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. 34. See #33 above. 35. See #33 above. 36. See #33 above. -8- e e ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. A) The Potable Water Master Plan already proposes phasing of improvements, B) Since no site designs are proposed with this master plan, alternates will be considered. C) The scale of improvements recommended by the Master Plan are based on the City's General Plan. Alternate scales of development would not provide the ' necessary level of service. D) See "B" above. E) Since the master plan proposes development through time, with performance standards to be continually evaluated, no alternatives exist. F) See "B" above. G) The no project alternative would halt expansion of a vital public facility and conflict with the General Plan of the City. ilG:lh -9- a e DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATF DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there v not be a sigruficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached shl have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. - I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMEN? IMPACT REPORT is required. + / 0 /zqq G Date LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1 ATT'ACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -10- e e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature -11-