Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-05-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 37761 a <4 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 28 I/ e 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3776 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN SUPPLEMENT TO THE BUILDOUT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. CASE NAME 1995-1996 SUPPLEMENT TO THE BUILDOUT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CONSISTENCY FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 1995-1996 CASE NO: PCD/GPC 95-02 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of May, 19 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1 relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the IF Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the E Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration accox Exhibit “ND”, dated April 17, 1995, and “PII”, dated April 12, 1995, i 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 19 Supplement to the buildout Capital Improvement Program may have a sig impact on the environment. 2. No development is proposed with the 1995-1996 supplement to the buildout Improvement Program, therefore no site-specific environmental impacts wil ~ ... ... I I1 0 0 - i 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 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of Ma by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Welshons; Commissioners Compas, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble and Savary. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMl Y MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director I1 PC RES0 NO. 3776 -2- NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Citywide, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is the determination of General Plan Consistency for supplemental projects to the Buildout Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The 1995-96 supplemental projects to the City of .Carlsbad Buildout CIP consist of 35 individual projects in the following categories: civic projects; drainage projects; park projects; sewer projects; water projects; traffic signal projects; and, street projects. All CP projects with any future or current funding (including unfunded projects) are included in the buildout CIP listing. As the Carlsbad Municipal Water District merged with the City in 1990, ail anticipated water projects have been included in the CIP. 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 €or 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, If you have any questions, please call Terri he Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4447. DATED: APRIL 17,1995 CASE NO: PCD/GPC 95-02 Planni g Director CASE NAME: 1995-96 SUPPLEMENT TO BUILDOUT CIP PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 17,1995 fi- J. HOL2)dILLER 'Iwd 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 @ -. . . . . . . .. e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. PCD/GPC 95-02 DATE: APRIL 12. 1995 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: 1995-96 Supdement to the Buildout CaDital ImDrovement Promam 2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad. CA. 92009. (619) 438-1 : 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMTX'ED: N/A 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Review of the Citv of Carlsbad's 1995-96 sumlemental ~rol buildout Capital ImDrovement Program for consistencv with the City's General Plan. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involl one impact that is a "Potentially Sigmfkant Impact", or "Potentially Signiiicant Impact Unless Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Land Use and Planning - Transportation/Circulation - Public Services - Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Servic - Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics - Water - Hazards - cultural Resources - Air Quality - Noise - Recreation - Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 04/M/! 0 e * DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). 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. I find. that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will n a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have bee added to the project. A 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 sisnificant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicd legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as descr on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPoRT/MlTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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, there WILI NOT be a sigmfkant effect in this case because all potentially sigrufkant effects (a) have been analyzec adequately in earlier EIRs pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated purs to the earlier EIRs, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projc Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. &A dm9- 4- I3 45 Planner Signature Date lkQd",U 4113 IL~ s Planning Directorbghatme * Date TW:vd 2 Rev. 04/06/! 0 0 . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Envi Impact Assessment to determine if a project my have a significant effect on the environment. The Envi Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies an) biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with in to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Dc or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. b A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately sur an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is a supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to pn the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document t or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. b "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential iml e "Potentially Sigruficant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" appiies where the incorporation of i adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards ind policies. measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially SignScant Impact" to a "Less Than Significanl The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, a: explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. b "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is sig b Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effec environment, but fi potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earli~ Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Deciaration, including revisions or mitigation that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstanws requiring a supplem supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental ( have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is requir Compliance). 0 When "Potentially Sisnificant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prep if the Significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable stanc the effect wiil be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursua earlier EIR. e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the pje b If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation ma agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate ''Potentially Si 3 Rev. 04/06/95 0 0 - Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" my be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaratio~ prepared. 0 An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limi following circumstances: (1) the potentially signifbnt effect has not been discussed or mitigated in EIR purmant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures tl the impact to less than sipficant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the signifia has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce t to less than significant, or; (4) through the EM-Part, II analysis it is not possible to determine th significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation E reducing a potentially signtfcant effect to below a level of signtficance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fc DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to 1 mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 04106E 0 e Issues (and Suppcptiug Infmatim sourceS): I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ' . population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Potentially Significant hpct - - - - - - - - Potentially Significant Unless LessThan Mitigation Significant Incorporated w=t I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 Rev. 04/06p 0 Issues (and Suppating Informatian sourceS): III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic gro~d shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions horn excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattern, or the rate and amount of surface runoil? b) Exposure of peuple or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 6 0 Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS Significant Mitigation Impact Incapcrated - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LessThan Significant Impact I - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 04/w 0 e Issues (and Supporting Lnfonnatim Sources): c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of Surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Potentially Signifcant Potentially UdeSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant hpact Incupmated Impact - - - I d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? - - - e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? - - - f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? V: AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 04/06/9! e Issues (and Supporting Infmatiaa hmes): VI. TRANSPORTATIONI~CULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from 'design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. fam equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers. for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage -. trees)? 8 0 Potentially significant Potentially UdeSS LeSsThan Significant Mitigatian Significant Impact Incorpcrated m=t I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \ Rev. 04/w e 0 Issues (and Supporting lnfmaticn Scums): Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS hThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impct h-ated , bwt c) Lacally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) WetIand habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? - - - - - - e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? - - - VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? - - - b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? - - - c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? - - - IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? - - - b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan ob emergency evacuation plan? - - - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? - - - d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? - - e 9 Rev, 04/06/S 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Infamati- Sources): e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Potentially Significant Potentially UIlleSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incaporated met - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - e) Other governmental services? - - - XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the. proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? - - - b) Communications systems? - - - 10 Rev. WofjP 0 Imes (and supparting Information sources): c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Stom water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 11 0 Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impct Incorpcaated Impc t - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 04/06/ e Issues (and Suppming Infcxmaticm Sources): XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? XVI. 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 wild life 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) 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) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 12 0 Potentially significant Potentially Unless LessTban Significant Mitigation Significant Impact -ad bpct 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. oq0615 0 e XVTI. EARLER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identlfy the followi on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses 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 bas on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Sigmfkant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 13 Rev. 04/06/5 0 e - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION The project is the determination of General Plan consistency for supplemental projects to the Builda Improvement Program (CIP). The 1995-96 supplemental projects to the City of Carlsbad Buildout C of 35 individual projects (see attached project list) in the following categories: civic projects; projects; park projects; sewer projects; water projects; traffic signal projects; and, street projects. .projects with any future, or current funding (including unfunded projects) are included in the bui listing. As the Carlsbad Municipal Water District merged with the City in 1990, all anticipated watc have been included in the CIP. The projects in this supplemental update include only new projects added to the CIP since the 1994 year. Therefore, the CIP includes all projects anticipated by the City to date. While the Bui identified individual projects contemplated at the time, the City acknowledged that on an annual basi of the CTP would identrfy any additional projects needed to be added to the CP and subsequen annual basis, a separate Planning Commission Determination of General Plan Consistency is prc ensure that these supplemental projects are consistent with the General Plan. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. Non-Relevant Environmental Issues Due to the nature of this project, the following EIA Part II checklist categories are not relevant or i therefore, the "No Impact" column has been checked. I. Land Use Planning - a),b),c),d),e) II. Population and Housing - a),b),c) III. Geologic Problems - a),b),c),d),e),f),g),h),i) w. water - a),b),c),d),e)f),g)Jl),i) V. Air Quality - a),b),c),d) VI. Transportation/Circuhion - a),b),c),d),e),f),g) VII. Biological Resaurces - a),b),c),d),e) Vm. Energy and Mineral Resources - a),b),c) X. Hazards - a),b),c),d),e) X. Noise - a),b) XI. Public Services - a),b),c),d),e) 14 Rev. ww e e " 8 XZT. UtiIities and Services Systems - a),b),c),d),e),f),g) Xm. Aesthetics - a),b),c) XTV. Cultural Resources - a),b),c),d),e) XV. Recreation - a),b) B. Environmental Impact Discussion I. Land Use Planning The proposed supplemental ClP projects are based on present and planned General Plan land uses ar in the City. Therefore, no alteration is p- xed to the General Plan land uses or zoning with this su to the Cp. If alteration should be necessq, such change would require individual environmental II. Population and Housing The CIP projects are planned as a direct result of the Citfs Growth Management Program and Gene Therefore, the CIP projects should not substantially alter the planned density of the human popul; substantially affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing. Therefore, this : supplement to the CIP should not conflict with regional or local population projections, result i~ inducing impacts, or displace housing. III. Geologic Problems No unstable earth conditions or increased exposure of people to geologic hazards will result as the 1 not involve individual project approval. Each project suggested in the i995-96 supplemental to the CIP will receive project specific environmental review. Therefore, no impacts from fault rupture ground shaking or failure, seiche, tsunami, volcanic hazard, landslide, mudflows, erosion, subside! expansion or to unique geologic or physical features are anticipated with this project. IV. Water The potential for any specific project of the CIP to impact absorption rates, drainage patterns, rate 01 of runoff, surface waters, water courses, or water quality will be evaluated during environmental re site-specific projects. V. Air Quality The proposed supplemental to the CIP does not include specific site design for individual projects. to ambient air quality, air movement, temperature, and odors will be reviewed on an individual proj where specific mitigation in keeping with the requirements of CEQA can be imposed. VI. TransDortation/Circulation The CIP identifies streets, bridges and traffic signals which are needed in order to develop the City to 15 Rev. 04/06/95 4 e -. - conditions. Such facilities are anticipated'to be provided prior to or concurrent with need. Becaw does not involve site specific project review, individual projects will require environmental analysis to any impacts involving transportation or circulation impacts. VII. Biolocrical Resources Because the CIP does not involve site specific project review, individual projects will require envk analysis to evaluate any impacts to plant and animal species, including sensitive habitats such as wetl; forests and coastal sage scrub. VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources The potential for any specific project of the CIP to significantly impact energy conservation pl; renewable resources or mineral resources will be evaluated during individual environmental revie' specific CIP projects. LX. Hazards Each project suggested in the 1995-96 supplemental to the buildout CIP will receive project environmental review. Therefore, no impacts from accidental explosion, emergency evacuation, healtl or fue hazards are anticipated with this project. X. Noise The potential increase in noise levels for construction of the improvements necessary for the CIP : associated with the operation of the facilities will be evaluated through project level environmental XI. Public Services The CIP is intended to ensure that public services are in place prior to or concunent with need. As CIP should not adversely impact public services. Because the CIP does not involve site specifj review, individual projects will require environmental analysis to evaluate any impacts involvir services. XII. Utilities and Services System The CIP is intended to enswe that public utilities and service systems are in place prior to or concul need. As such, the CIP should not adversely impact public utilities and service systems. Becausc does not involve site specific project review, individual projects will require environmental analysis tc any impacts involving utilities and service systems impacts. XIII. Aesthetics The potential for the creation of significant adverse new light or glare will be evaluated through prc environmental review. Impacts to scenic vistas or the creation of aesthetically offensive public viev considered at the project level when detailed plans are available for review. 16 Rev. M/W! a e 0 .; . XN. Cultural Resources The CIP contains only conceptual locations for proposed facilities. The existence of any arc1 paleontological or historically si&1cant site will be evaluated with the individual project env review when more detailed location and grading information is available. The potential impacts cultural values or religious or sacred uses will also be evaluated during project specific environmen XV. Recreation Included in the proposed CIP supplement are Park projects. However, as the CIP does not involve si project review, individual projects will require environmental analysis to evaluate any impacts involv on the quality of existing recreational opportunities. 17 Rev. 04/06/9! * 0 0 .3 LIST MITIGATING MEASURES CIF APPLICABLE) N/A ATTACH MITlGATlON MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) N/A i 18 Rev. 04/06/95 t e 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES ms IS TO.CERTIFY THAT r HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASUR AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 19 Rev. 04/06/95 , e e * 1995/96 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL PROJECT LIST Civic Proiects b Opportunistic Sand b Coastal Rail Trail Drainage Proiects b State Street Storm Drain Repair Park Proiects b Alga Norte 50M Swimming Pool b Holiday Park Irrigation Renovation b Cannon Park - A.D.A Retrofit Water Proiects b Industrial Park Reclaimed Water System F Reclaimed Water Facilities Phase I1 Preliminary Design Report b Reclaimed Water Pump Station Upgrade F Carlsbad Village Drive & E Reservoir Recoating & Repair b Water Resources Development Report Sewer Proiects b Ellery & C Reservoir Recoating & Repair b Agua Hedionda Lift Station Containment Basin b Forest Sewage Lift Station b Chinquapin Sewage Lift Station b Vancouver Sewage Lift Station v 2 e 1) Traffic Signals b b b b b b b b b b e Alga Road and Cazadero Drive Carlsbad Boulevard and Chestnut Avenue Carlsbad Boulevard and Oak Drive Carlsbad Village Drive and Avenita de Anita Carlsbad Village Drive and Valley Street Chestnut Avenue and Pi0 Pic0 La Costa Avenue and Cadencia Street La Costa Avenue and Piraeus Street La Costa Avenue and Saxony Road La Costa Avenue and Vieja Castilla A154 t6b4d Ulld bhaurb5 bRtJt Street Pro-iects b East Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge at Batiquitos Lagoon b Lake Shore Gardens Soundwall b Sidewalks - Villas to Dove Lane b Alga Road Medians ,b Park Drive Slope Repair I 1 I