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