Loading...
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