Loading...
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