HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 49921
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4992
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO AMEND
THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO
ADDRESS THE DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL STREETS
CASE NAME: LIVABLE STREETS
CASE NO.: GPA Ol-Ol/ZCA 01-03
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of June 2001, on the
20th day of June 2001, and on the 18th day of July 2001 hold a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated April 24, 2001, and “PII” dated March 12,
2001, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinw:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration GPA Ol-Ol/ZCA
01-03 the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any
comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
B. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
D. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of July 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4992 -2-
City
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
City of Carlsbad
Revisions to engineering standards, a general plan amendment to
both the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element, as well as
a zone code amendment to revise goals, objectives, policies and
standards addressing the design of local public streets. More
specifically, proposed language addresses narrowing public streets
from a pavement width of 40 feet to a pavement width of 34 feet
and creating more pedestrian-friendly streets through the use of
traffic calming measures, parkways, trees, street connectivity and
off-set driveways.
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, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Adrienne Landers in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4615.
DATED: APRIL 24,200l
CASE NO: GPA Ol-Or/ZCA 01-03
CASE NAME: LIVEABLE STREETS
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 24,200l
MICHAEL J. HOMMtiER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZCA 0 l-03
DATE: March 12.2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Livable Streets
2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA
92008 (760) 602-4615
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: NA
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revisions to engineering standards, the Zoning Ordinance. and both
the Circulation and Land Use Elements of the General Plan modifving goals, obiectives, policies
and standards to modifi the design of public streets by narrowing the pavement street width,
providing narkwavs and trees, and incorporating; the use of traffic calming measures when
appropriate.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning El Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services . cl Population and Housing III Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems III Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
q Air Quality III Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
-
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Ix]
0
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A(n) Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIRMEIR 93-01
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIIUMEIR 93-01, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
* JbA/w+hW
Planner Signature
3ldOI
Date
Date
2 Rev. 03128196
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 a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment 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 an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EL&Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence
that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
-
a If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the E&Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
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 mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03128196
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source b?(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or
minority commnnity)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed offkial regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a>
b)
c)
4
e)
0
!a
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
SignificaG Impact
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
cl q q
q
q q
cl q q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
q
0
0
0
q
q
q
q
q q cl
0
q q
q q q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
0
q q cl
q
q q
q q q
lxl
q
q
Rev. 03128196
(x1
El
1xI
Ix)
txl
Ix1
lxl
txl
EKI
lxl
I8
IXI
lxl
I8
lxl
lxl
IXI
q
Ix1
El
5
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
4
f)
g)
h)
0
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
4
b)
c)
4
4
fl
g)
proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Potentially Significant Impact
?
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
*cl
III
El
Less Than
Significant Impact
0
0
III
No
Impact
Ix]
Ix]
El
Ix]
IXI
Ix]
lxl
lzl
IXI
(XI
lxl
Ia
Ix]
El
IXI
El
1x1
lxl
Lxl
6 Rev. 03128196
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
cl
4
e)
VIII.
a)
b)
c)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l :Pgs 5.4- 1
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
cl
d)
4
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals orradiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I -
5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
4
W
cl
4
4
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Other governmental services? (#l :Pgs 5.12.1-l -
5.12.8-7)
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
El
cl
LI
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
III
0
0
No impact
IXI
lxl
IXI
[XI
lxl
El
IXI
Ix]
lxl
IXI
El
Ix1
lzl
lxl
IXI
lxl
El
Ix]
7 Rev. 03/28/96
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a)
‘4
4
d)
e)
0
g)
XIII.
4
b)
c)
XIV.
4
b)
4
d)
d
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-I - 5.13-9)
Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5:12.1-l - 5.12.1.5)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l :Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l :Pgs
5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5)
Createlightorglare?(#l:Pgs5.11-1 -5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
1 - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
XVI.
4
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l :Pgs 5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fsh 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?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl q
cl
0
q
cl
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IXI
IXI
El
Ix]
lxl
IXI
IXI
•.l
Ix]
lxl
Ix]
Ix]
q lxl
lxl
Ix1
lxl
Ix1
8 Rev, 03/28/96
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
El cl q Ix1 -
0 cl III El
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
4 Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03128196
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project consists of revisions to engineering standards, a general plan amendment to both the
Land Use Element and the Circulation Element, as well as a zone code amendment to revise goals,
objectives, policies and standards addressing the design of local public streets. More specifically,
proposed language addresses narrowing public streets from a pavement width of 40 feet to a pavement
width of 34 feet. Also included is new language in the General Plan intended to ensure that new streets
are pedestrian-friendly, that street designs encourage walking and contribute to a sense of neighborhood.
Measures addressing this issue include reducing vehicle speed through the use of narrower pavement
street widths; incorporating traffic calming measures to further slow traffic; minimizing the number of
cul-de-sacs; improving street connectivity; reducing parking lane widths from 8 feet to 7 feet; providing
offset driveways, and improving street aesthetics with the use of trees and parkways.
The proposed amendments apply citywide but only to local public streets, which are those found in
single-family residential developments. Proposed standards would maintain a 60 foot wide right-of-way,
create a 34 foot wide curb-to-curb street width including a 20 foot wide travel lane and two 7 foot wide
parking lanes, and a combination of sidewalks and landscaped parkways making up the remaining 13 feet.
These dimensions would maintain the necessary 20 foot travel width required by the Uniform Fire Code
and would provide access for both emergency and service vehicles. Present street standards would remain
for cul-de-sac circumstances.
The net effect of the proposed amendments would be to remain with the same 60 foot right-of-way but
revamp the design to reduce asphalt, provide parkways and trees adjacent to the curb, relocate the
sidewalk away from the street and add traffic calming measures when appropriate. No additional space
would be required for dedication or improvement, therefore no additional environmental impacts are
expected. If anything, the reduced amount of impervious surfaces, the slower traffic, and the increased
pedestrian safety created by the use of traffic calming measures and the relocation of sidewalks further
from traffic would improve safety, water quality and aesthetics.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
. 1. Land Use and Planning - The proposed amendments will not conflict with the General Plan or
zoning designations or any applicable environmental plans adopted by the City because they do not affect
density or allowed land uses. The amendment will not be incompatible with existing or planned land uses
in any area and will not impact agricultural uses or established communities. Implementation of these
policies and standards support and strengthen goals and policies already found in the General Plan.
2. Pouulation and Housing - Since these amendments do not propose any development or affect
allowable land uses or densities, the amendment will not affect any population projections, induce
substantial growth, or displace any existing housing.
3. Geologic Problems - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this amendment, no
changes in topography resulting in unstable earth conditions, erosion of soils, ground shaking,
landslides/mudflows, alteration of deposition patterns, or other geologic problems will occur. The
ultimate placement of future roadways will be reviewed and considered at the time of development
applications as it is under current regulations. Detailed analysis of site conditions and possible
development impacts will be evaluated at the time a project application is submitted. Therefore the
proposed project will not result in any potentially significant geological impacts.
4. Also, Water - The proposed amendments are not specific to any site, but could apply citywide.
no development is being proposed, and no sites are being identified for specific uses through these
10 Rev. 03/28/96
-
amendments. Also, the proposed amendments will not change any regulations, policies, standards, or
guidelines already in place which adversely affect or address water conditions or the prevention/handling
of problems related to water bodies, absorption rates, hazards, discharge, turbidity, or the availability of
water. The ultimate placement of any future uses will be reviewed and considered at the time a
development application is submitted, just as it is under the current regulations. Detailed analysis of site
conditions and possible development impacts will be evaluated at the time a project application is
submitted. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any potentially significant water impacts.
5. Air Oualitv - As no site-specific project nor changes to standards or policies regarding air quality
is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, there will be no impact to air quality.
6. Transportation/Circulation - Implementation of the proposed project will not result in increased
daily vehicle trips. Proposed traffic calming features incorporated in the design of future neighborhood
streets may reduce vehicle trips by discouraging cut-through traffic. Vehicle speed will be reduced thus
minimizing the potential number and severity of accidents. Design features will be well-marked and
visible to drivers. Hazards or safety concerns will be minimized by slower vehicle speeds that provide
greater driver reaction time to recognize a problem and to either stop or take evasive action. Less
distance is required to stop a vehicle at slower speeds.
The twenty foot width, proposed to accommodate two way traffic, is consistent with the minimum
requirements of the Uniform Fire Code. The travel lanes proposed will not impede access by large tire
apparatus or ambulances.
On-street parking will be provided. The design will permit vehicles to be parked in front of a residence.
The opportunity for on-street parking spaces may be reduced in certain circumstances where a traffic
calming measure is implemented. However, adequate overall parking capacity will remain on the street
to serve the neighborhood needs. Parking lane width will be reduced from eight feet to seven feet leaving
a minimum of twenty feet for the travel lanes. That twenty foot requirement comes Ii-om the State Fire
Code. Based on over 200 field measurements, it was verified that the seven foot width did correspond to
existing field conditions in the city. The field measurements were taken on both a forty foot width and
thirty six foot wide streets. The distance measured from the face of curb to the outside edge of the parked
vehicle. The types of vehicles measured included sub-compact cars to large SWs. It was found that the
narrower the street the closer to the curb the vehicles parked. Parking lane widths, adequate emergency
vehicle access and traffic calming measures will all contribute to slowing traffic while providing safer
pedestrian environments and emergency access.
The parkway width will be increased from four and a half feet to seven feet and the sidewalk will be
placed behind the parkway instead of adjacent to the curb. City trees will be planted in the parkway
instead of outside of the right of way.
These are integrated changes that must be jointly incorporated to meet the intent of this new street design.
This change decreases the amount of hard surface and increases the amount of parkway planter within the
right of way. It also puts a greater distance between the pedestrian on the sidewalk and the streets travel
lane. The issues considered with these changes involved pedestrian safety, increase in permeable surface
and cost of maintenance of the trees in the parkway. Moving the pedestrian away from the street is safer
than being adjacent to the street. It also gives the pedestrian more of a feeling of walking with nature
instead of walking in a street. By having the trees closer to the street both the optical narrowing of the
street and the shadows cast on the street by the trees act to reduce the perceived street width, thus slowing
traffic down. Reducing speed has the direct benefit of reducing the severity of injuries of any people
involved in a vehicle related accident.
7. Biological Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, there will be no impact to biological resources. Although the proposed regulations
discourage the use of cul-de-sac streets, there are provisions included to permit this type of street when there are environmental features that need to be preserved. Any development application will be analyzed .
11 Rev. 03128196
in detail for potential impacts to biological resources.
8. Enerev and Mineral Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, there will be no impact to energy and mineral resources.
9. Hazards - The proposed project is not specific to any site and could apply any place within the
City. However, no development is proposed through this project. In addition, the project will not create
any new uses (i.e., uses not currently allowed in the City). Proposed policies and standards addressing
narrower street widths and relocated sidewalks are uses which typically do not present any risk of
explosion, release of hazardous substances, etc. However, any development proposed in the future will
be analyzed in detail for potential hazard impacts. Therefore, the proposed project does not result in any
potentially significant hazards impacts.
Street narrowing is not expected to interfere with either emergency response to a neighborhood or the
ability of residents to evacuate. The proposed design facilitates emergency evacuation by minimizing the
use of single access street design. Connectivity, a major feature of the proposal, ensures residents will
have more than one vehicular route of escape during a major emergency event. When single point
access must be used, the number of dwelling units served will be limited to twenty in accordance with
recommendations of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. This will mitigate any concern for large
numbers of residents being unable to quickly evacuate their neighborhoods.
The proposed street narrowing could impede the ability of emergency responders to protect homes from
advancing wildland fires. For that reason, portions of developments located adjacent to open space will require special consideration with respect to street design. The widths of single access streets (cul-de-sac)
will be maintained at the current standard of thirty-six feet.
10. Noise - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, there will be
no exposure to noise impacts and no exposure to unacceptable levels of noise.
11. Public Services - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment,
there will be no impacts to public services.
The proposed street narrowing could restrict capabilities of fire response personnel to operate upon arrival
at the scene of a residential fire. Often on narrow streets, the second and third fire engines responding are
unable to gain close access to the fire since the initial engine is parked in the street. This impediment
costs time and allows a fire to advance beyond normal expectations. The proposed elements of street
connectivity and off-set driveways mitigate this concern. Connectivity permits access to the fire scene by
fire vehicles from more than one direction. Off-set driveways will effectively widen the street at regular
intervals, providing a larger area to accommodate fireground operations. Single access street design is
discouraged if not eliminated by this proposal, since it would contribute to the emergency access problem.
When single access design is unavoidable, concerns for service capability will be mitigated by the
requirement for “built-in” fire protection in the form of automatic tire sprinklers in each residence. Fire
sprinklers will prevent advancement of the fne allowing additional time for responders to negotiate the narrower single access streets.
12. Utilities and Services Systems - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code
amendment, there will be no impacts to utilities and services systems. No development is proposed
through this project. Under the City’s adopted growth management regulations, all development in the
City is required to provide all necessary public facilities and services concurrent with development. This
requirement would not be altered by the proposed project. Underground utilities, located in the parkway, are normally placed under the edge of the sidewalk. By relocating the sidewalk away from the street, the
utilities would likewise shift with and stay under the sidewalk. This is done to protect the utilities from
anyone digging in the parkway. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant
impacts to public utilities and services systems.
12 Rev. 03128196
13. Aesthetics - The proposed amendments will improve the appearance of residential streets by
reducing the amounts of asphalt and by including parkways landscaped with trees.
14. Cultural Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this zone code amendment,
there will be no impacts to cultural resources. The proposed amendments are not specific to any site.
They could apply any place in the City. Any development application will be analyzed in detail for
potential impacts to cultural resources. However, the code amendments proposed currently (the
“project”) will not have any impact on cultural resources.
15. Recreational - The proposed amendment will not increase the demand for parks or other
recreational facilities and will not affect existing recreational opportunities because the proposed
amendment will not induce growth in the City and will not reduce the number or amount of areas
currently planned for recreational uses.
AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result from the
build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued
development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant
impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These
subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of
nitrogen and sult%r, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution
in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment
basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued
development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant
impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety of
mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway
and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle
trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions
to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote
energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies
when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant
Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not
required because the certitication of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246,
included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This
project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued
development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes.
Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial
intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no
jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections
along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of
intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-
13 Rev. 03128196
out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) measures to
ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative
modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and
commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The
diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates
impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General
Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are
included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study”
checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan,
therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR
93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the
General Plan’s Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at
the Planning Department.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an
application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is
still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago,
the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the
intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to
below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known
and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains
adequate to review later projects.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Imnact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR
93-O l), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURJZS (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
15 Rev. 03/28/96
. - ?
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
16 Rev. 03128196