HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-10-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 31241
2
3
4
5
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3124
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF A WATER LINE, STREET
WIDENING, AND MEDIAN INSTALLATION ON EL CAMINO REAL
BETWEEN CHESTNUT AVENUE AND HOSP WAY.
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
CASE NO.: PCD/GPC 90-4
6
7 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of October, 1,
a WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all test?
9
relating to the Negative Declaration. 11
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered 2 10
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by :
12
follows: l3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Corn
14 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
15 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Cc
16 hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated $
based on the following findings: 17 20, 1990, and "PII", dated September 11, 1990, attached hereto and made a pi
3.8
22
21
20
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project IT l9
Findinzs:
significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded and developed pursuant to an earlier envi
analysis.
3. The street is adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed proj
23 11 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantl!
24
28
27
26
..... 25
by this project.
.....
ll
I/ 0 0
/I PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning CI
I 11 of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of October, 1990, by the follo
2
3
4
5
6
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, McFadden, Erwin a:
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners: Hall and Holmes.
7 ABSTAIN: None.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ATTEST:
SHARON SCHRA", Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
A;? 2 -& #+\ :** I ,,;rL:Lk ti i" .///y
I *! L" ! "i ?! ,/&J&y.-.? i,' ,'LT
MICHAEL J. ROLZMX~ER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
15
16
17
18
19 II 1 20
21
22
23
24
25
26 I/
27
28
PC RES0 NO. 3124 -2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: El Camino Real between Chestnut Avenue and Hc
Way.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of water line, widening of the street, and plant
of a raised landscape median.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proj
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality 1
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of s
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant imp
on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this actio]
on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plann
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the pu
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning rtment within 21 d
of date of issuance.
DATED: September 20, 1990
CASE NO: PCD/GPC 90-4
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
PUBLISH DATE: September 20, 1990
MG:wo
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438"
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
w W
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plann
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of October, 1990, by
following vote, to wit:
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
SHARON SCHRA", Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
MG:rvo
PC RES0 NO. 3124 -2-
1 '3 '. 0 .m
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. PCD/GPC 5
DATE: September
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: El Camino Real Water and Street Immovements
2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad - Municipal Projects
3, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad. CA 92009
(6191 438-1161
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 26. 1990
5, PROJECT DESCRIPTION; Installation of water line, widening - of street, and plantinF of I
median alonn - El Camino Real between Chestnut Avenue and 1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City c
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the en
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. Th
identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed I
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an En\-
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
-k A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that thc
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will
to indicate this determination.
sc h EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any as
project may cause a simificant effect on .the environment. The project may qualify for
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can
insianificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given tc
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
"
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
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
YES
(sig) YES (insig)
-
NO
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
,yo ,- 0
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRJXTLY OR INDIRECTLY!
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 replenishment 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?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
x%s E21
- -
-
-
-
@s E21
-
-3-
N(
-
-
-
-
-
P
W "
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
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 hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
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-
-.
as
-
E$)
-
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x -
X
X
X
.a .- 0
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: E? YES NO (msig)
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 wildl-ife
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 en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory.
34. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, enviromental
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?
- -
- - -
- - -
- -
-5 -
w ." 0-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project entails the installation of a new, larger water line, the reduction in width of the existing
and subsequent street widening, and the landscaping of the new median. All improvements will OCCUI
the existing public right-of-way of El Camino Real from Chestnut Avenue northward to Hosp Way.
P hvsical Environment
1. The project will not involve grading in undisturbed areas and will not produce any geologic h
2. Since the project is confined to the existing right-of-way, no unique physical features will be af
3. Since the project involves only trenching, no erosion impacts are anticipated,
4. No natural watercourses will be affected.
5. An incremental increase in air pollutants will accompany construction of the project but this sho:
introduction of aerosols is not considered to have a significant affect on ambient air quality,
6. No changes to air movement, temperature, or other climatological variables are anticipated.
7. As discussed in #4 above, no changes to natural watercourses are expected.
8. With the increased size water piping, public water supply is expected to increase.
9. Besides the incremental, insignificant depletion of natural resources (fossil fuels) during constn
no increase in usage or depletion is anticipated.
10. See #9 above.
11. Since all improvements are within the developed right-of-way, no alteration of historical signil
is expected.
12. No significant vegetation or adma1 life currently exist within the project area.
13. The only new vegetation that will be introduced will be the landscaping within the median. No in
to nearby vegetated roadsides or neighborhoods are expected.
14. Since all improvements are within the developed right-of-way, no farmland will be lost.
15. See # 12 above.
16. While some native animal species may use the landscaped median area, no new animal specit
expected to be introduced.
-6 -
.* 4 ” e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (cont’dl
Human Environment
17. The land use (transportation corridor) will remain the same.
18. The widening of the street will positively affect traffic flow and the enlarging of the wati
positively affect potential water supply. No adverse affects are anticipated.
19. No new sewer or waste systems will be needed.
20. There will be an incremental increase in noise levels during construction but this incr
considered significant.
21. Since the improvements are within the existing right-of-way, no new light and glare is ex
insignificant, short-term amount of light may exist during construction if nighttime worl
involved.
22. No risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances is expected as trenching and pavinl
will be relatively confined.
23. The improvements will not contribute to an increase in population or density as no
development is being proposed.
24. See # 23 above.
25, The improvements are necessary to accommodate the existing and predicted traffic volur
not generate additional traffic.
26. No parking exists along El Camino Real at the current time and therefore no impacts tc
anticipated.
27. A short-term impact to circulation will occur during construction, however this i:
insignificant in light of the necessity of the project and the benefits to circulation at th
project.
28. No waterborne, air, or rail traffic currently exist onsite.
29. During construction, all hazardous areas will be blocked off and demarcated with safety
as such, no significant impacts to motor vehicles, pedestrians, or cyclists are anticipated
30. Through traffic circulation will be continually provided during construction of the project
adverse impacts to emergency access are expected.
31. Since all improvements are within the existing right-of-way, no adverse impacts to scc
anticipated. Landscaping of the median will create a positive affect on aesthetics.
-7-
m. 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (cont’d]
32. No recreational opportunities currently exist within the right-of-way, therefore the pro
improvements will not affect recreational opportunities.
33. The project will not affect any fish or wildlife habitats, endangered species, or eliminate examg
California history, as the entire right-of-way is already developed.
34. The increase in circulation potential will provide a long-term benefit to traffic and no environn
impacts are being created.
35. No cumulative impacts are anticipated as the entire right-of-way is already developed and landsc
and circulation potential are increasing.
36. No environmental effects are anticipated since the entire right-of-way is already developed
therefore no effects will cause adverse impacts on human beings.
-8-
I'
i --e 0
" -
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATrVES 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) Phasing of the project will cause multiple interruptions in traffic flow and therefore not
b) Expansion of the roadway on the other side of El Camino Real (west side) wo
realignment of the center line and dedication of additional right-of-way.
c) The scale of the improvements are necessary to accommodate anticipated traffic volume
demands. Alternate scales of development would not accomplish the same results.
d) The site is already developed as a major arterial and alternate uses would not be log
e) The improvements to the roadway and water line need to be in place prior to, or at
demand. Development at a future time would cause a failure in facility performance
f> The site is already developed as a major arterial and alternate sites for the circulat
would be illogical.
g) See "e" above.
-9-
0 -- i * 1
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
& I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGI
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, the1
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attache
sheet 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 ENVIRONME' IMPACT REPORT is required. + @fg k
c e
Signature
I - - -sIrt/Cro - I,. , " I1 I I
date I v Planning Director
MG:wo
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-10-
- .*
Trn La’ 0 .-
b
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE EWEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
..
-11-
I1 w w
1
2
3
4
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3125
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENLARGEMENT OF A WATER LINE, STREET
WIDENING, AND MEDIAN INSTALLATION ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
IN THE EL CAMINO REAL RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN CHESTNUT AVENUE AND
HOSP WAY.
CASE NAME: CITY OF CARLSBAD
CASE NO.: PCD/GPC 90-4
6 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain proedrty to wit:
7 El Camino Real right-of-way from Chestnut Avenue northward to Hosp Way in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, Statdof Calfomia,
a //
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and reffrred to the Planning Commission; and
9 i
WHEREAS, said verified application Constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of 1
/,
10 / i Carlsbad Municipal Code; and / 11 8'
12 I/ WHEREAS, the Planning Co&ssion did on the 17th day of October, 1990, consider s '/
13 11 request; and 1 /
I 14 WHEREAS, at said he,dring, upon hearing and considering all testimony and argumel
g to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to
/
RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follo
e and correct.
ased on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPRO1
GPC 90-4, based on the following findings:
El Camino Real is designated a prime arterial within the Circulation Element of
General Plan. prime arterials shall be improved to three lanes in each direction wit
raised median
2. The proposed improvements will increase the safety of the general public.
25 3. The project will contriiute to the provision of comprehensive public services and facilii
26 4. The proposed improvements are consistent with the El Camino Real Corridor Developm
Standards.
,/.
I
28