HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-07-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 32640 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3264
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A PLANNING COMMISSION
DETERMINATION FOR GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO TAMARACK
AVENUE BETWEEN CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND
INTERSTATE 5.
CASE NAME: TAMARACK AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
CASE NO: PCD/GPC 90-3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of July, 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 E
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the informatic
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Plannir
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissic
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannil
Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration accordil
to Exhibit "ND", dated May 30, 1991, and "PII", dated May 7, 1991, attachc
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 project m;
have a significant impact on the environment.
24
25
26
27
28
2. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significanl
impacted by this project.
...
...
* /I a 0
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 of the Plannil
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of July, 1991, by t
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schrm
Savary, Erwin, Noble & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
. - - . "._ . .
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSIOP ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 3264 -2-
I1
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Tamarack Avenue Improvements between 1-5 and Carlsbad Boulevard.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tamarack Avenue improvements within the existing right-of-
way including: modification of the west side of the Tamarack
Avenue/Jefferson Street intersection, a travel lane in each
direction, curb, gutter, sidewalks, on-street parking spaces and
bicycle lanes.
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 for 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 Ire invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Pat Entezari in the
Municipal Projects Department at 438-1161, extension 4385.
DATED: MAY 30, 1991 1 :I b \< i L - Li!’
M[CHAE:.J*2R
CASE NO: PCD/GPC 90-1 Planning Director
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLISH DATE: MAY 30, 1991
MJH:ENM/vd
2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161
I- NOTICE OF COMPLETION Mail to: State clearinghouse, 1400 Tent t, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 - 916/- e- /1*.j See UTE Eelw:
Project Title: PCD/GPC 90-1 - Tamarack Avenue Improvements
Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad Contact Person: Eric Munoz
Street Address: 2075 Las Palms Drive Phone: (619) 438-1161, ext. 4441
City: Carlsbad Zip: 92009 County: San Diego
PROJECT LOCATIW:
County: San Diego City/Nearest Cmni ty: Carlsbad
Cross Streets: Tamarack Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard and I-5 Total Acres: ---
Assessor's Parcel No. --- Section: --- Tup. --- Range: --- Base: -
Uithin 2 Miles: State Huy #: 1-5 Uateruays: Pacific Ocean and Aqua Hedionda Lasoon
"___"____""_"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""---.
Airports: --- Railways: ATS&F Schools: Jefferson Element: ________"""___"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-----"
DOCUIENT TYPE
CEQA: - NOP - Supplement/Subsequent NEPA: - NO1 OTHER: - Joint Docunent - Early Cons - EIR (Prior SCH No.) EA Final Docunent
X Neg Dec - Other - - - Draft EIS Other
FONSI Draft EIR - -
_______________"___"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""". - -
LOCAL ACTILN TYPE
- General Plan Update - General Plan Amendment - General Plan Element - Comnunity Plan
_"""""""""""""
DEVELOPMENT TYPE
,-
- Specific Plan - Master Plan - Planned Unit Development - Site Plan
."_""""""""""""""
- Rezone - Annexation - Prezone Redevelopnent
Use Permit
Land Division (Subdivision, X Other Planning
Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) Carmission Detenninatiw General Plan Consistency (PCD/CP
- - Coastal Permit - -
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".
Residential: Units Acres Water facilities: Type - Office: Sq. Ft. Acres Transpottat ion: Type Errpl oyees Comnercial: Sq. Ft. Acres Emp l oyees Mining: Mineral
Industrial: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees Pouer : Type Uatts -
Recreational
- HCD - - - - - - - - Educational Uaste Treatment: Type
- X Other: Public Imrovements
- - - Hazardous Uaste: Type
""_""________________1______________"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""----""---------"
PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN WCUYNT
- X Aesthetic/Viswl Flood Plain/Flooding Schools/Universities Uater Quality
Uater Supply/ - Agricultural Land
Air Quality
Coastal Zone
Drainage/Absorption
Economic/ Jobs public Services/Facilities X Traffic/Circulation
Fiscal - Recreation/Parks - Vegetation - Cunulative Effect
- Forest Land/Fire Hazard - Septic Systems
Geologic/Seismic - Sewer Capacity Ground Uater
- X Noise - Solid Uaste Wildlife
- - - - - - Archaeological/Historical - Minerals Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading - Uetland/Riparian - - - Population/Housing Balance - Toxic/Hazardous - - - Grouth Inducing
Landuse
Other
- - - - - "______""_"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""--"--""------------------~ -
Present Land use/Zoning/Genard Plan Use
The project area is within the existing right-of-way of Tamarack Avenue between 1-5 and Carlsbad Boulevard.
___""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~
Project Description
The proposed improvements include modification of the west side of the Tamarack/Jefferson intersection, bike lanes, curb, s and sidewalks.
NOTE: Clearinghouse uill assign identification nunbers for all neu projects. If a SCH nunber already exists for a project
from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft docunent) please fill it in. Revised Octobef
m W
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMWT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. PCD/GPC 90-1
DATE: January 22, 1991
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Improvements to Tamarack between Carlsbad Blvd.
and Interstate 5
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: January 22, 1991, Amended May 7, 1991
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of bicycle lanes, sidewalks and
some on-street parking on Tamarack Avenue.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have
appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist
identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by
the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis
for deciding whether to prepare en Environmental Impact Report or Negative
Declaration.
a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives nonsubstantial
evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant
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 amy aspect of the project may cause a sianificant 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 insianificant. These findings are shown in the checklist
under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears
at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular
attention should be given to discussing mitigations for impacts which would
otherwise be determined significant.
e a
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geological 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?
X
X
X
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach X
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? . " .I
- 5. Result in substantial adverse effects'on
ambient air quality?
X
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?
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
I W
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or number of any species of plants (including X.
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?
X
X
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
.i .- X
16. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
X
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of any area?
X
18. Substantially affect public utilities
schools, police, fire, emergency or
other public services?
19. Result in the need for new or modified
sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous
waste control systems?
X
X
20. Increase existing noise levels? X
21. Produce new light or glare? X
m 0
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
X
23. Substantially alter the density of the X
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 €or 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?
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL 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
wildlife 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.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
X
9 - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSZU, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
34. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A
short-term, environmental 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 individually limited but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects
of an individual project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effect of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future project.)
36. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
X
X
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
see attached
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development,
e) development at some future time rather than now,
f) alternate sites for the proposed, and
g) no project alternative.
d) alternate uses for the site,
a) Phasing the road improvement is not necesary nor desirable since the project is
small in scale and the improvements to circulation are neccessary.
b) Alternative site designs have already been considered. The present alternative
was found to be most practical.
c) Alternatives of different scale were studied €or this site. However, the present
scale was found to be most practical.
d) The site is presently used as a transportation corridor. The proposed
improvement8 would not affect that use, and the use would not change even if the
0 0
proposed project were not built.
e) The road improvements are needed at this time, future development would not be
feasable.
f) No other site would be appropriate for these improvements, as they are designec
expressly for this location,
g) The present situation is undesirable because it is unsafe for pedestrians anc
bicycle traffic.
8 e
TAMARACK AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 DISCUSSION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES
The project is the proposed improvement of Tamarack.Avenue within the City of Carlsbad between Carlsbad Boulevard and Interstate 5. The proposed improvements will be constructed within the existinq
60 foot right-of-way. The improvements will include bicycle lanes, sidewalks and some limited on-street parking between Garfield
Street and the railroad right-of-way, where there is sufficient dedication to accommodate parking, A raised median is proposed
between Linmar Lane and Jefferson Street with some improvement to
the Jefferson Street/Tamarack Street intersection.
Tamarack Avenue at this location is a two lane street which has been designated as a IICollector Street" on the City's General Plan. The road in its existing condition is a two lane east/west roadway which currently carries 9,200 vehicles per day and is expected to carry 13,000 vehicles a day in the future. Tamarack Avenue provides access to the beach for vehicular traffic as well as pedestrians and bicyclists. Currently vehicles park in the dirt adjacent to Tamarack. Tamarack Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard and Interstate 5 does not have sidewalks or bicycle lanes. A hazardous situation exists for pedestrians and bicyclists who compete with vehicles also using Tamarack.
There are three large Eucalyptus trees near the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street and various smaller trees along the right-of-way. Tamarack Avenue has rolling hills with flat areas between the hills. Overall the street slopes downward toward the beach from Interstate 5. Speed is currently posted at
25 mph which is not proposed to be changed. The natural topography of the street helps to achieve the 25 mph maximum speed on this major roadway.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Air Oualitv/Dust Control:
Air quality could be potentially impacted during construction by dust raised during minor grading and other construction activities. The City has standards for requiring dust control through sprinkling during grading and construction operations. The amount of dust generated during construction will not be of a sufficient level to significantly impact short-term air quality. In addition,
City requirements will control dust during construction.
0
Page 2
Tamarack Avenue Improvements Part 2 - Initial Study
Noise:
Lonq-Term Noise - As a part of the Environmental Opportunities and Constraints Report prepared for this project, noise contours for
the proposed project were generated. Current traffic volumes on
Tamarack are approximately 9,200 vehicles per day. Future volume is anticipated at 13,000 vehicles per day. The proposed project will not substantially increase traffic levels, rather it will
accommodate the traffic currently using Tamarack as well as future traffic.
The travelway for vehicles is not proposed to be widened or moved
any closer to homes than it currently is, except along the portion of Tamarack that lies between Linmar Lane and Jefferson Street. Noise projections for this segment of Tamarack which were computed and tabulated by San Diego Acoustics, Inc. vary from the south side to the north side of the street. The variance in noise contours
is a reflection of the l-foot difference in width which exists at
this location.
To determine noise contour values the noise consultant must first establish a "mythical point" which is used as the center of sound. This point is determined by measuring 50 feet outward in each direction from the center line to a hypothetical point on each side
of the road. Two (2) values are obtained for each side of the road
by measuring back in from each hypothetical point to the center of both the nearest and the farthest travel lanes (on both sides of the center line). The square root of the product of the two values is the mythical point for the center of sound. Therefore, a mythical point must be determined for each side of the street. In this case the two sides of the street have different mythical point values because there is a l-foot difference in width (the south side of the street is 1 foot wider than the north side). The two values for the center of travel lanes on the south side are 23.5 feet and 77.5 feet, and the square root of this product is 42.7 feet, Meanwhile, on the north side the values for center of travel lanes are 22.5 feet and 76.5 feet, with the square root of their product being 41.5 feet.
The mythical points, which are underlined above, are plugged into a logarithmic noise model which is used to compute CNEL contours. The reason that the noise contour values are so different on table
3.1 in the Opportunities and Constraints Analysis, is due to the logarithmic nature of the model which causes small differences to be magnified.
m - Page 3 Tamarack Avenue Improvements
Part 2 - Initial Study
At this location (Tamarack between Linmar Lane and Jefferson Street) and other segments of Tamarack, noise levels already exceed the City standard of a maximum of 60 CNEL within 5 feet of a
are anticipated with the completion of the proposed project. For the most part, only parking areas, sidewalks and bicycle paths are being installed closer to existing residences, and in these locations, the noise impacts to the residences will not increase. Between Jefferson and Hibiscus where the travelway moves closer to existing homes the increase in noise levels is not significant. The noise levels in this area are currently above the City standard (Policy 17). The noise levels will increase over time due to the anticipated increase in traffic that will occur with or without the proposed improvements to Tamarack. This project does not result in a significant noise impact because the proposed project will not generate additional traffic or noise, but, rather will accommodate the existing and projected traffic on Tamarack.
Short-term Noise - Some short-term noise impacts may occur as a result of this project, The City has standards relating to the
hours that construction work may be done within the City limits. While construction noise may inconvenience residences along Tamarack for a short period during construction, this impact is not considered significant.
Traffic Safety:
In its current configuration Tamarack Avenue presents a serious traffic hazard to pedestrians and bicyclist which use Tamarack as access to the beach. Cars park in the dirt along Tamarack forcing bicycles and pedestrians to compete with vehicles for access on Tamarack. The proposed project will alleviate this hazard by providing bicycle lanes and sidewalks. In addition, in the area where sufficient dedication exists (between the railroad right-of-
way and Garfield), on-street paved parking areas will be provided (approximately 18 spaces) .
property line. However no additional significant noise impacts
Tree Removal:
Three large Eucalyptus trees exist adjacent to the intersection of Jefferson and Tamarack. The proposed raised median has been
designed to retain these trees. Some smaller trees would have to be removed. The City's Parks Department has identified several trees (twenty-four Queen Palms) which will be removed and preserved for relocation throughout the City. The remainder of the trees will be disposed of. The removal of these trees is not considered to have a significant visual impact.
W e
Page 4
Part 2 - Initial Study Tamarack Avenue Improvements
Land Use:
The proposed project does not require the demolition or removal of any structures. All work is to be done within the existing right- of-way with the exception of a small portion of right-of-way to be acquired west of the railroad tracks. No structures exist within this right-of-way. This project will not result in a significant
impact to land use. There is a small area adjacent to Tamarack Avenue that is currently being used for agricultural uses. The proposed improvements will not impact the agricultural use because the actual travelway will not be widened as a part of this project.
Coastal Zone:
This portion of Tamarack Avenue is located within the Coastal Zone
and is therefore subject to compliance with coastal zone standards. The proposed improvements will not result in a visual impact (see Tree Removal section). In addition, the proposed improvements will enhance access to beach areas for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Tamarac2.EIS (amended)
w - - (To Bo -fetmd By The Planning Department)
On the basim of thin initial rva!uattont
-X, I find thm propored projOCt - have a signifioant of feet an tho
OnVj,$OWI¶t, rnQ a WATrVs DICC2ARATIOH Will h prepar8d.
- X find that rlhkeugh th pibpared project could have a oignLf icant ef fee on the envLronmsnt, then wLU nut bo a rlgnfZicant afreat in ,tUe caae becaugr tho
mitlgatlon masurwm 4rrorib.U on an attached rheet have barn added to the projoct. A Gonditlonrt RmgatLvr Poolatation will be propornod, - 2 find the propor& project HAY hatre b Pigntficant effect on the mnvironrntkfltal,
Md M SNVZI10NEQNTU ZXPACT RlWORT fa required.
&&" D fa %dd&w,
Clignrtuh
/I !.r ' f, 4, 5 Z-qI /' v' '4
data I! Planning Direct& J
/I !.r ' f, 4, 5 Z-qI /' v' '4
data I! Planning Direct& J
trt -
ATfACg YITfCATIQN lWNLIOR;rW PRO" (ZF XPPLICISBLE)
Go""
mx6 18 TO mTI?X TMT f mV8 Ril" THE ABOVE YITIGATIOH MEABWS ARD CONm m'T# - &UI;IITfdR OF -8E Kp1Ssml M TBL PROJPCT.
Data signature