Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-17; City Council; Resolution 88-156'1 L 1 2 3 4 5 @ a RESOLUTION N0.88-156 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STREET WIDENING AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS TO PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD (WEST). APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD I WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 17th day of May, 15 6 11 regular meeting, and 7 11 WHEREAS, at said meeting, upon hearing and considering all 8 9 10 11 12 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the i submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, Council considered all factors re1 ating to the Conditional Decl arat i on. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Counci 1 a l3Ij A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 14 B) That based on the evidence presented, the City Council hereby AP 15 30, 1987, and Exhibit "PIT", dated December 23, 1987 attached ~ Conditional Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", date' 16 made a part hereof, based on the fol 1 owing findings: 17 Findinqs: 18 1. The initial study required mitigation measures be incorpol the project sufficient to reduce potential environmental im 19 /// 22 /// 21 2. The proposed project is necessary to increase traffic safc 20 level of insignificance. reduce local flooding and drainage hazards. 23 /// 26 /// 25 /// 24 /// /// 27 28 /// 0 @ 1 3. The Planning Commission has determined that the project is with the City’s General P1 an and Local Coastal Program. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of thc 2 3 4 City Council held on the 17 day of May, 1988 by the following vote, 5 11 AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and 6 7 8 NOES: None ABSENT: None 9 lo ATTEST: 11 12 l3 ALE*hUTENKRAN-erl/ 8.17 14 (SEAL) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 w 2075 LAS PALMAS a I.L PLANNING DEPARTMENT “7 CARLSBAD, CALlFORNl (619) 438-1 I€ aitp of Carlsbab NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Palomar Airport Road between Pasel Norte and 7,900 feet 2 thereof. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Street widening improvements of exi2 road to prime arterial standards. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review ol above described project pursuant to the Guidelines Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carls As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declarz that the project will not have a significant impact on environment) is hereby issued for the subject proj Justification for this action is on file in the Plan Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive document on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas DX Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Plar Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: December 30, 1987 MICHAEL J. HOLkMILLE3 CASE NO: PCD/GPC 87-3 Planning Director APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLISH DATE: December 30, 1987 EXHIBIl 9 e PCDIGPC 87-3 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD - WEST ASSESSMENT ExDlanation of Environmental Determinations The numbered items below refer to the Initial Study Checklist 1. Earth - The project will widen a portion of exis Palomar Airport Road (PAR) to its desigr Itprime arterial" standards. The current aligr which will not be significantly altered follc broad creek valley. There are no unstable E conditions. or unique geologic structures in area. The project has been conditioned eliminate short-term construction related erc impacts. The project related mitigation prc (see No. 4 Plant Life) will stabilize 1 drainage and contribute to long term benefits erosion control. 2. Air - The improvement to prime arterial standards allow the projected regional traffic on PA] move more efficiently and thus aid in redu projected and planned for deterioration regional air quality. 3. Water - The project includes drainage improvements will have a beneficial effect on local st flow. 4. Plant Life - The project will have direct and indirect imp on approximately one acre of disturbed wetland related habitats. A mitigation program creates approximately 1-7 acres of impr wetland and related habitat has been include( part of this project which reduces poten, impacts to a level of insignificance. 5. Animal Life - The mitigation program noted above should imp the habitat and benefit animal life in the are' 6. Noise - There will be short-term construction re1 noise impacts; however, the improvements will place in a non-residential and a gener undeveloped area. There will be long- unavoidable noise impacts related to incre regional traffic volumes. The adjac developable areas are designated for 1 residential uses. Also, adjacent develop * 0 standards require minimum 50 foot setbacks the right of way so that the unavoidable impacts will be minimized. 7. Light and Glare - Street lighting is not part of this projeci will be added as a subsequent phase. The s lighting is for safety reasons and will produce adverse glare, 8. Land Use - Improvement of PAR to "prime arterial" stan will permit the road to operate at an accep level of service and will not significantly I land use patterns. 9. Natural Resources - Not applicable. 10. Risk of Upset - The project does not increase the risk of re: of hazardous materials resulting from accidc Instead the project should add to traffic Si and therefore decrease such a risk. 11. Population - Not applicable, 12. Housing - Not applicable. 13. Transportation/Circulation - The project should have a positive effec regional traffic circulation. It will generate new traffic but instead provide a 1 to accommodate existing and future traffi acceptable levels of service. No pal facilities are involved and parking is not nc in the future allowed on the road. As x previously, the project will reduce trz related hazards and increase safety for trz (including bicycle) and pedestrians. 14. Public Services - The only material effect the project will hat public facilities or services is a proportl and anticipated increase in road maintenz This is not considered a significant ad1 impact on City facilities. -2- e e 15. .Energy - Nonsubstantial amounts. of energy (fuel) wil used during construction. Regional growth related traffic will require increased supplic energy. However, construction of PAR improven will not by itself have any significant effec energy demands. 16. Utilities - Only storm water drainage will be effected by project and that is considered to be benefici: 17. Human Health - Public safety will be increased as a resul this project . 18. Aesthetics - The road widening project is to an exis facility. No views will be obstructed. manufactured slopes will be landscaped. 19. Recreation - Recreational opportunities will be enhance( construction of bicycle lanes. 20. Archaeological/Historical - An archaeological survey of the project resulted in the relocation of three previc recorded sites and the recording of a new z Impacts to the previously recorded sites are by CEQA standards considered significant. limited testing program to determine significance of the new site has been incorpol into this project. The project will a condition mitigate any significant imp determined by this testing program so that a 1 of nonsignificance will be achieved. 21. Mandatory Findings' of Significance - A. The biological resource mitigation program the part of this project because of higher than replacement ratios should increase diversity. B. The project helps implement one of the Cj General Plan long-term goals of providing a and efficient circulation system. -3- a 0 C. The project aids in reducing cumulative g related impacts. associated with traffic, control, and loss of biological resources. , D. The project should have both direct and ind positive effects on humans by achieving pal the City's long-term circulation goals. -4- 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPA?TMENT) CASE NO. PCD/GP DATE : Dec, 23, I. BACKGROUND 1 , 'APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad, Municipal Project Department 2, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drivc Carlsbad, California 92009 (619) 438-1161 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: July 8, 1987 11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written ur: Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) YES MAYBE - 1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e, Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? EXHll a 2. Air - Will the proposal have - significant results in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c.' Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water - Will the proposal have - slgnlficant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? YES MAYBE - - -2- e YES - MAYBE - 4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the diversity of Species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? x b. Reduction of the numbers of any . unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural cro*p? 5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds,' land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare - Will the proposal sig- " nificantly produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -3- 0 0 YES MAYBE - - 9. Natural Resources - will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural.resources? b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal lnvolve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilit- ies, or demand for new parking? c. 1mpac.t upon existing transporation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? -4- 0 e YES - 14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect uponr or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy - Will the proposal have signif- icant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? -5- MAYBE - e e YES - - MAYBE 18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of qn aesthetically offensive public view? 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon 'the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? - 20. Archeological/Historical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? X 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed project such as a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site desig c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the e) development at some future time rather than now, f) altern sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) The project is phased. b) N/A c) Inconsistent with the General Plan d) N/A e) Inconsistent with the General Plan f) N/A g) tnconsistent with the General Plan -6- @ 0 - YES - MAYBE 22. Mandatory Findings of significance - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- ’ advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SEE ATTACHED EXPLANATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS -7- 1) e IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed by the Planning Department) On the bases of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X 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 Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re 12/23/87 Date V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) A. The recommended mitigation measures contained on pages 23 through 25 of the attached Biological Resources Report prepared by WESTEC Services, Inc., as well as the conceptual mitigation program (Attachment B of the same report) are incorporated herein by reference as mitigation to reduce biological impacts to a level of non-significance. B. Paleological Resources Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to issuance of a mass-grading permit, the developer of the roadway should present a letter to the City of Carlsbad indicating a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out the resource mitigation. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a MS or PH,D, in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques). 2. Prior to grading, a limited pregrade salvage of the fossil site discovered at Station 42+50 should be carried out to collect all exposed fossil remains. -8- e 3. A qualified paleontologist should be at tt pre-grade meeting to consult with the gradir and excavation Contractors. 4. A paleontological monitor should be onsite i all times during the original cutting c previously undisturbed sediments of th4 Santiago Formation to inspect cuts fc contained fossils. Periodic inspections c cuts involving the Sweitzer Formation is als recommended. (A paleontological monitor j defined as an individual who has experience j the collection and salvage of fossi materials. The paleontological monitor shoul work under the direction of a qualifie paleontologist). @ 5. In the event that well-preserved fossils ax discovered, the paleontologist (0 paleontological monitor) should be allowed t temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading t allow recovery of fossil remains in a time1 manner. Because of the high potential for tf: recovering of small fossil remains, such 2 isolated mammal teeth, it will be necessary t set up a screen-washing operation on the site 6. Fossil remains collected during this salvaq program should be cleaned, sorted, ar cataloged and then, with the owner' permission, deposited in a scientifi institution with paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. 7. The scientifically important roadcut exposure along the north side of Palomar Airport Roa (Stations 34 to 39) should be protected frc total destruction by leaving them partial1 unplanted and free standing. This does nc mean that grading cannot take place in thi area, only that if new cuts are made, the should not be completed covered by plants o concrete. As a part of the streetscap program for this section of Palomar Airpor Road, a paleontologist shall be retained t assist in the design and landscaping of th streetscape. This street in the design an landscaping of the streetscape. Thi streetscape program will help ensure tha future generations of geologist an paleontologists will be able to view and stud the type locality of the Palomar Terrace. - 9- 0 0 c. Archaeological Mitigation Newly recorded site PAR-1 shall undergo a limite testing program per the recommendations containe ' in the Archaeological Survey prepared by WESTE Services, Inc. (attached). Based on the results o the testing, a determination of significant impact and mitigation of impacts will be made and i necessary included as part of the project. Do Local Coastal Program (Mello 11 Segment) Mitigatio Measures LCP Policv 3-4 Grading shall comply with the City of Carlsba grading ordinance, and Grading activity shall be prohibited during th rainy seaSon, from October 1st to April 1st of eac year; and All graded areas shall be landscaped prior t October 1st of each year with either temporary o permanent landscaping materials to reduce erosio potential. Such landscaping shall be maintainel and replanted if not well-established by Decembe 1st following the initial planting. A runoff control plan shall be prepared by licensed engineer qualified in hydrology an hydraulics; such approved plans shall assure tha there would be no increase in peak discharg velocities from the right-of-way or velocitie shall not exceed six feet per second. If predicte runoff velocities exceed six feet per second the runoff control may be accomplished by a variety o measures, including, but not limited to, onsit catchment basins, detention basins, siltatio traps, and energy dissipators, and shall not b concentrated in one area. All permanent runoff-control and erosion-contro devices shall be developed and installed prior t or concurrent with any onsite grading activities. 4-4 When earth changes are required and natura vegetation is removed, the area and duration o exposure shall be kept at a minimum. 4-5 Soil erosion control practices shall be use1 against l~onsite~l soil erosion. These includ keeping soil covered with temporary or permanen. vegetation or with mulch materials, special gradinc -1 0- * 0 procedures, diversion structures to divert surfac runoff from exposed soils, and grade stabilizatic structures to control surface water. 4-6 "Sediment control" practices shall be employed as perimeter protection to prevent offsite drainagc Methods such as diversion ditches, sediment traps vegetative filters, and sediment basins shall 1: explored. VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATIK MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES 'I THE PROJECT. 7 -1 1-