HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-07-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 28930 e
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2893
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY TO CONSTRUCT MONROE STREET TO ITS FULL WIDTH FOR A LENGTH OF 1,100 FEET SOUTH OF MARRON ROAD. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO.: PCD/GPA 89-5
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of I
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to con
request , and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consi
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the i
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, tt
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaral
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1 anning Cor
fol 1 ows :
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
6) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, th Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative 0 according to Exhi bit "ND", dated June 23, 1989 and "PII", date 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the findings:
Findinqs:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidenc project may have a significant impact on the environment.
2. A portion of the site has been previously graded pursuant to environmental analysis, Soils reports have been prepare1 additional grading required. These soils reports do not in substantial evidence of an adverse environmental impact.
3. The project will increase the streets ability to handle project 1 eve1 s .
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsi te or located s( significantly impacted by this project.
5, The project will improve drainage facilities and eliminate th a desiltation basin.
II 0 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
6. The project will increase traffic and pedestrian safety.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of th
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th d;
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chai rman Hal 1, Commi ssi oners: Schl ehuber,
NOES : None.
ABSENT: Commissioner McFadden.
ABSTAIN: None.
Erwin, Holmes & Marcus.
ATTEST: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
MICHAEL J. HOLmILLEk' PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 2893 -2-
0 e Exhibit "ND"
. . . city. _.. . - . . - . . .m (
NEGATIVE DECLARATION - - - - " ". " _" "" - " -. - -. - -. - -
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Monroe Street 1,100 feet south of Marron Road.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Street irllprovements for the intersection of Monroe SI and Marron Road and for Monroe Street 1,100 feet south of that intersec ccmoa.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above desc
project pllrsllant to the Guide1 ines for Irnplenlentation of tile Calif(
Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ortlinarlce of the
of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Oeclaration (dcclar that the project will not have a significant impact on the errvironrnent) is h issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file i
1'1 ann i ny I)epartmerl t .
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive docrlments is on file i Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Cal i fornia 92009. Coli fro111 the public are invited. Please skrbmit coalrnents in writing to the Pla Ikpartment within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
IIA I LI): June 23, 1989
CASE NO: PCD/GPC 89-5
l.bLk&t.\\b\+/U MICtAEi. J . tu ziE1 ER
Pl ann i ng Di rector
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
PUBLISH DATE: June 23, 1989
CW:af
. .. . " " 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4059 - (6 19) 43
0 0 Exhibit "PI I"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. PCD/GPC 89-.5
DATE : JUNE 16, 1989
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: JUNE 2, 1989
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written
under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
YES MAY BE ~ NO
' 1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Unstable earth conditions
or in changes in geologic
substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering
of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering of
modification of any unique geologic or physical features?
X
X
X
X
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X
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? X
e
2. && - 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
significant 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 patters, 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?
-2-
0
yEls MAY BE
X
X
0 0
YES
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)?
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 crop?
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?
7. Lisht 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-
MAY BE - NO
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0 e
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
involve 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. Housinq - Will the proposal signif-
icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circu:lation - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular
movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
YES MAY BE
X
-4-
e 0
YES
14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, 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. Enerqy - Will the proposal have significant 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 pr.oposa1 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-
MAY BE
X
X
X
X
- NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0 0
18.
19.
20.
21.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
YES MAY BE
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 an aesthetically offensive
public view?
Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon
the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontolosical - will the proposal have significant
results.in the alteration of a significant
archeological, paleontological or
historical site, structure, object or
building?
Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed project such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site design
c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the s
e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter-
nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
It is a single phase project.
The design has been dictated by the existing portion of tl project. Alternate designs would have greater impacts.
As proposed the project will meet the traffic, drainage and sew6 needs of the City. A smaller project would compromise it
usefulness and a larger project would be over compensation.
The site has been dedicated for roadway, there are no other us6 permitted for the site.
Delaying the project until a later date will only continue t2 diminished level of service currently provided for circulatior sewer and water.
There are no alternate sites because it is an addition to E
existing project.
The no project alternative would result in a diminished servic
level for traffic circulation, sewer and water.
-6-
0 0
YES MAY BE NO
22 * Mandatory findinss of siqnificance -
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory,
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.)
X
X
c. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (IICumulatively con- siderable'# means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. Earth - As proposed, the project requires importation of approximately 7,000 cubic yards of earth. A soils report has been completed and grading shall conform to.the recommendations
of that report. SCS&T 8821211 reports 1 and 2 dated 1/26/89 and
2/23/89 respectively are on file and may be inspected at the office of the City Engineer.
-7-
e 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
2. - Air - The project itself cannot contribute air emissiol However, additional vehicular movement will be generated thro1
the area which in turn will contribute to air emissions r levels cannot be considered significant.
3. Water - The project will not have any direct effect on i existing bodies of water. A new storm drain will be installed part of the project which will alter but improve the flow of flc waters.
4. Plant life - Trees will be protected in place. New manufactu:
slopes will be hydroseed with native plant materials i
Eucalyptus trees will be planted, typical of the adjacent Hc
Grove.
5. Animal life - There are no unique, rare or endangered species animals known to the site. There is no proposal to introdl
animals through the project.
6. Noise - The additional traffic generated by the widening of Mon:
Street will increase the ambient noise level, however, f
proximity to residences and businesses is far enough removed tl
there will not be any adverse effect.
7. Liqht and alare - New street lights will be installed which W: increase safety in the area.
8, Land use - The proposed road expansion will not have an effect land use. No change to current General Plan or Zon:
designations are required .or proposed as part of the project.
9. Natural resources - The project will not have any direct efft
10. Risk of uDset - There is no risk of upset as a result of tl
11. Population - The street widening will not have an effect on 1
12. Housinq - The project will not effect existing housing nor w:
on the consumption of natural resources.
project .
location, density or growth rate of the human population.
it create a demand for additional housing.
13. Transportation - The project is to upgrade a 1,100 foot Sect: of Monroe Street to City Standards to include new pavemel landscaping, drainage and street lights. The project in and itself will not generate additional vehicular movement or crei a demand for new parking. However, the project will enhal traffic circulation and safety by decreasing traffic hazards motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.
-8-
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
14. Public Services - The additional Coad width will require
additional maintenance responsibility by the City. The relative increase in responsibility, however, could not be considered
significant.
15. Enerqv - The proposed project does not require the use of fuel or
energy.
16. Utilities - The project will not require new systems, however, will be altering water, sewer, and storm drain. The alterations
will increase capacity of the utilities and will, therefore, provide a benefit to the City.
17. Human Health - There has not been any evidence that the project
will have significant results in the creation of health or potential health hazards.
18. Aesthetics - The completion of the street widening will'be no less aesthetically appealing than the existing street. The additional landscaping will enhance the aesthetic quality of the site.
19. Recreation - The project will not have any effect on the quality
20. Archeolosical/Historical/Paleontolosical - There is no
or quantity of recreational opportunities.
archeological, historical or paleontological significance to the site.
-9-
*- I. Iv. DETEM INATION (To Be Completed e By The Planning Department) e
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
~ find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect ( the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significal
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attache 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 required. \A 31 l4.m /h&FY[lD,, pj&-
Date Signature
b /16/8Li D'atd Plannin'Q'Dir6dtor
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-10-