HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-06-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 3225ll 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3225
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FORA PLANNING
COMMISSION DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY TO WIDEN PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD TO
PRIME ARTERIAL STANDARDS.
CASE NAME: PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
CASE NO: PCD/GPC 90-5
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of June, 1991, hol
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering a
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the informatio
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Plannin I
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Commission considered all factors relating to the Conditional Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissio
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannin
Commission hereby APPROVES the Conditional Negative Declaration according t
Exhibit "ND", dated August 20, 1990, and "PII", dated June 14, 1990, attache
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings and subject to tk
following conditions:
Findings:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project mz
have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The road in its current state of improvement is substandard and will be widenc
to an adequate size to handle traffic.
3. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significant
impacted by this project and therefore mitigation is not necessary.
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
4. The new facility will reduce potential traffic hazards.
5. Improved circulation as a result of the street widening has the potential of
reducing automobile emissions.
Conditions:
1. The adjacent riparian habitat area shall be clearly demaiked on Palomar Airport
Road grading and construction plans.
2. The identified riparian habitat shall be staked and fenced by a q&ed biologh
prior to grading pennit issuance to the satisfaction of the City Planning
Department for protection from construction equipment.
3. There shall be no encroachment into the habitat area which includes no storage
of construction equipment and no grading for cut or fill.
4. prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit for the review and
approval of the Planning Director evidence confirming that a qualified consulting
biologist has been retained to supervise and monitor biological mitigation during
consmction.
5. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall provide evidence
acceptable to the Planning Director that the consulting biologist has attended at least one meeting with the general construction contractor to become acquaintei
with the construction schedule and to familiarize the contractor with the requirec
biological mitigation conditions.
6. During the grading and construction phase of the project, the consulting biologis
shall monitor grading adjacent to native vegetation to be preserved. The biologis
may temporarily halt, divert, or redirect construction activity to insure that then
are no impacts to biological resources. The consulting biologist shall restrict acces
to sensitive areas, inform construction workers about out-of-bounds areas, ant
monitor the work as it proceeds.
7. The applicant shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Game 01
the need for a 1601 permit. If a permit is required, the applicant shall compt
with the conditions of that permit.
8. prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a soils report shall be prepared. If th
soils report indicates the presence of fossil bearing material then a standard thre
phased program, on file with the Planning Department, shall be undertaken I
avoid possible significant impacts on paleontological resouTces under the directia
of the Planning Department.
PC RES0 NO. 3225 -2-
28
ll 0 0
1
2
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
3
4 following vote, to wit:
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of June, 1991, by the
5
6
AYES: Chairperson Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm,
Savary, Erwin, Noble & Hall.
7 NOES: None.
8 ABSENT: None.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
ABSTAIN: None. 6@=\
ATTEST:
i \;
r\ '\
?
\i'
*d
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
t
MICHAEL J. HMZMILER 1
PLANNING DIRECTOR
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 PC RES0 NO. 3225 -3-
28
a
City
0
of Carlsbad
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Approximately 1,000 feet east of El Camino Real to
Avenida de la Rosa which is roughly 2.95 miles,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A two phase program widening Palomar Airport Road to prime
arterial standards.
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 Conditional Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a
significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project.
Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Conditional 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 21 days of date of issuance. .
DATED: AUGUST 20, 1990
CASE NO: PCD/GPC 90-5 Planning Director
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 30, 1990
CW:h
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. PCD/GPC 90-5
DATE: JUNE 14, 1990
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Palomar Airport Road Widening
2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad. CA 92009
(619) 438-1161
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 29, 1990
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A two phase promam wideninn Palomar Airport Road to prime arteria:
standards from approximately 1.000 feet east of El Camino Real to Avenida de las Rosa which is rounhlj
2.95 miles.
,NVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
lTATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact
issessment to determine if a project may have a sigmficant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact
ssessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological
nd human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the
asis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its
aspects may cause a sigruficant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate this
determination.
An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may
cause a siRnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if
adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insidcant. These findings are shown
in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively.
discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
[SCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for
lpacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
0
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
NILL 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-
0
YES YES
(sig) (insig)
X
-
-
NO
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
m W
BIOLOGICAL, ENVIRONMENT
NILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
-2.
.3.
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
Introduce new species of plants into an area,
existing species?
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
YES YES
(sig) (insip)
NO
X
- - x
.4. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
5. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
6. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
JILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
7. Alter the present or planned land use
a. Substantially affect public utilities,
of an area?
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
X - -
- X
X
YES YES NO We) (insip)
- - X
- - X
-3-
e 0
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
VJLL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
.9. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems?
!O. Increase existing noise levels?
!1. 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?
YES
(C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
YES
(dig)
-
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NO
x -
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
x
X -
x
X
x
X
-4-
w w
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
wru THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
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, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
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.)
time while long-term impacts will
36. Does the project have environmental
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
effects which will cause substantial
YES YES NO
big) (ins@
X
X
X
X
c -3-
e 0
XSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
'hysical Environment
Zarth conditions within the project
4lthough grading will occur onsite
stabilize manufactured slopes. The
site are stable and there are no identified geologic hazards in the area
proper compaction and slope planting will take place which will furthe
greatest area of fill is east of the City of Carlsbad City line in the City o
San Marcos where the road crosses a canyon. Fill has already taken place in this section from the initia
:onstruction of the road and will be increased through the road widening. The majority of the remainder o
the site will be in cut.
The project is not in close proximity to the ocean or any larger bodies of water. Therefore there will not b
an effect on beaches or channels.
Air quality will not be directly effected by the project because the project itself will not release emission:
The amount of traffic which travels on Palomar Airport Road is existing and is generated from other source:
The road widening will move the traffic more efficiently which will in turn reduce driving times.
There is not any anticipated change in air movement, odor, moisture or temperature. Because the project i
not in the vicinity of marine, fresh or flood waters there will not be the possibility of changing their coursf
During construction water will be used however it is not a resource that is necessary once the road has bee:
widened. There will be surface run off but it will be mostly contained in the public stormdrain system. N'
natural resources that are scarce will be used and the project will not use substantial amounts of fuel c
energy.
The site was reviewed for the potential of archaeological, and paleontological significance. Based on th
information that is available there was no indication that any significant sites will be disturbed as a result c
the road widening.
Biolonical Environment
Overall kldlife diversity on the project site was determined to be low due to past disturbances, traffic o
Palomar Airport Road and adjacent land uses. The site lacks dense cover, trees and rock outcroppings whic
contribute to habitat diversity and hence wildlife diversity. The combination of these facts support the findin
that there will not be a sigruficant adverse impact to the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any specie
of animals. The project will not introduce new species of animals. A barrier exists in the existing Palom:
Airport Road. That barrier to the movement of animals will be increased by the widening however it cannc
be considered significant because those animals which could cross the road currently will still be able to d
so.
There will be a reduction in agricultural acreage but not in sigruficant proportions. The agricultural lan
which will be disturbed is not prime, unique or of state or local importance.
Four primary vegetative associations were detected onsite: disturbed habitat, disturbed coastal sage scrul
southern mixed chaparral, and riparian willow woodland. Disturbed agricultural habitat covers the majoril
of the property within the proposed grading zone.
-6-
w w
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (cont'd)
Disturbed (or successional) coastal sage scrub occurs on roadcuts and previously disturbed slopes betwee
displacement resulting horn previous road construction, as well as the preponderance of successional natit
species or non-native weedy species. Disturbed vegetation is comprised of non-native, exotic or weedy specie:
This habitat dominates the majority of the site, and is a result of past or present agricultural or grazin
activities, roadway construction, and utilities placement and maintenance.
Riparian woodland is considered willow woodland and is a sensitive habitat. Wetlands as a whole ar
considered sensitive. The willow woodland is dominated by dense mature stand of willows with scattere
sycamores and coast live oaks. The understory appears to be well developed. This habitat is current1
bisected by the existing Palomar Airport Road and .05 acres will be disturbed by further road widening.
High-interest plants include those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1985a), Californi
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG 1985), and California Native Plant Society (Smith and Berg 1988). Th
CNPS listing is sanctioned by the California Department of Fish and Game and essentially serves as their li:
of "candidate" species. One sensitive plant species was detected onsite. Potentially-occurring species ar
briefly discussed below.
Numerous individuals of California adolphia were observed within the disturbed coastal sage scrub an
southern mixed chaparral habitats. Total population scattered along the alignment is estimated 2
approximately 100 individuals. California adolphis is not listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or th
California Department of Fish and Game. The California Native Plan Society lists the species as list 2, plant
that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but are more common outside the state.
Numerous individuals of California adolphia were observed within the disturbed coastal sage scrub an1
southern mixed chaparral habitats. Total population scattered along the alignment is estimated a
approximately 100 individuals. California adolphis is not listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or th
Zalifornia Department of Fish and Game. The California Native Plant Society lists the species as list 2, plant
that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but are more common out side the state.
Several sensitive plants are known from the project area. The majority of these are associated with habitat
x vegetative associations which comprise the majority of the study area. Most of these species would hav
been detectable during the survey period. Five of the sensitive species considered potentially occumng ar
shrubs which are easily detectable throughout the year.
FIuman Environment
rhere is an existing road and the widening of that road will not alter the existing use of the area. Publi
;ervices, especially emergency related services requiring vehicular access, will benefit from the road widening
The project will not produce solid or hazardous waste and will therefor not require new waste contrc
;yS terns.
Yoise and light/glare will increase when there is an increase in the number of trips. those increases will a
present impact existing industrial uses along the corridor. Because of the relative proximity to the flight pat1
3f the airport the noise and light from the automobile traffic along Palomar Airport Road is insignificant.
Old Linda Vista Road and Palomar mort Road. This area is relatively disturbed, as evidenced by soli
-7-
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (cont’dl
The construction of the road and the road itself will not involve hazardous materials. Housing may E
effected by the construction of new roads which are otherwise inaccessible but the widening of an existin
road will not have a significant effect on human density in an area nor create a demand for addition:
housing.
Reconstruction of the road will not generate additional traffic but it will better accommodate existing traffi
The project will not affect existing parking or create a new demand. All parking is required at destinatio facilities Le,, workplace, shopping centers,
The project should relieve some congestion on the existing route and provide a safer transportation corridc
for motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The wider road will enhance emergency response plans an
provide better access to all facilities within the project area.
-8-
w
4NALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development,
d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now,
f) alternate sites for the proposed, and
g) no project alternative.
a) The project is proposed as two phases creating additional phases will cause a longe
construction period which will have a negative impact on traffic flow for a longe
period of time.
b/c) An alternate site design or scale could have a greater or different impact on thl
environment.
d) There can be no alternate uses of the site.
e) Delaying the project would not have a positive environmental impact. There would bc
a continued negative impact on existing traffic levels.
f/g) There are no alternative sites for the project and a no project alternative will havc
negative impacts on traffic levels.
-9-
0 0
IETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On lhe basis of this initial evaluation:
- I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATrVE
- X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wil
DECLARATION will be prepared.
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
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 ENVIRONMENTAI IMPACT REPORT is required.
*
$/$7/!&
ate j Slgnature
@/27/% 44
Date Planning Director
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE1
-10-
0 e
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
;p (/&."..-
flg- 312 7/7 ci
Date i %&re
:w:km
" -11-