HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 48651
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. 4865
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM TO
ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A TRIAL DOG PARK ON A
PORTION OF LARWIN PARK IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 2.
CASE NAME: DOG PARK
CASE NO.: CUP 00-07
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad Parks and Recreation Department,
“Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned
by City of Carlsbad, “Owner”, described as
A portion of Larwin Park located on the north side of
Carlsbad Village Drive, % mile east of the Carlsbad Village
Drive/El Camino Real intersection
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration and addendum was prepared in conjunction
with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of December 2000,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request and
subsequently continued the matter to the 6th day of December 2000; 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 and addendum,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration and addendum
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
according to Exhibit “ND” dated October 16, 2000, and “PIP’ dated September
26,2000, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration, addendum,
and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any
comments thereon prior to APPROVING of the project; and
the Negative Declaration and addendum 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
it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad, and
based on the EIA Part II, as amended, and comments thereon, there is no
substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
the Negative Declaration and addendum includes new information which
merely makes insignificant modifications to the Negative Declaration and
therefore no recirculation of the Negative Declaration is required.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of December 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Chairperson Compaq Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairper&
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PC RESO NO. 4865 -2-
city of
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Unaddressed. On a portion of Larwin Park located on the north
side of Carlsbad Village Drive approximately 1 mile east of the
Carlsbad Village Drive/El Camino Real intersection.
Project Description: Establishment and operation of a temporary dog use area on a
portion of Larwin Park. The dog use area consists of a 9,000
square fenced area; ancillary installations such as benches, a water
fountain, trash bag dispenser and trash can, and signage; and an
off-street, 12 vehicle parking area.
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, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on
tile in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on tile in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92009. 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 Jason Martin in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-46 19.~
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
OCTOBER 16,200O
CUP 00-07
DOG PARR
OCTOBER 16,200O
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad. CA 92008.7314 l (760) 602.4600 - FAX (760) 602.8559 - ww.ci.carlsbad.ca.us a3
dity of Cahsbad
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - Part II
CASE NAME Dog Park
CASE NO. CUP 00-07
LEAD AGENCY
DEPARTMENT
CONTACT
TITLE
City of Carlsbad
Planning Depattment
Jason Martin
Associate Planner
APPLICANT
CONTACT
TITLE
City of Carlsbad
Parks and Recreation Dept.
Mark Steyeart
Park Planner
(Initial Study Checklist)
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
E-MAIL
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
E-MAIL
1635 Faraday Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
(760) 602-4619
jmart@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
1166 C&bad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 602-2855
mstey@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS 1. None
- REQUIRED (i.e. permits, financing approval, or 2.
participation agreements) 3.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 00-07 involves a request by the City of Carlsbad Parks and Recreation
Department to establish a temporary dog use area within a portion of Larwin Park. The dog use area is a
trial facility, being established for a period of 2 years under a CUP. During the 2 years the facility will
be monitored by the Parks and Recreation staff, and periodic reports will be submitted to the City
Council. After two years, the facility will be re-evaluated at another public hearing, and potentially
made a permanent facility.
Larwin Park is a planned, undeveloped, community park site totaling approximately 22 acres which is
generally located in the northeast quadrant of the City, on the north side of Carlsbad Village Drive
(CVD) approximately % mile east of the CVDiEl Camino Real intersection. The park is situated on
naturally sloping topography which descends in a northerly direction at grades ranging from 10 ~ 50%
into a natural canyon. A large portion of the site is considered moderately constrained due to
topography. Several terraced, flat pad areas exist, however, which exhibit park development potential.
The amount, and nature, of park facilities are unknown at this time pending the outcome of a detailed
site and park needs analysis. Informal pedestrian trails currently bisect the site. Electrical lines bisect
the site in a north/south direction. Several 50 foot tall, electrical towers are located on the park site.
Upper Larwin Park, or that portion of the park immediately adjacent to Carlsbad Village Boulevard
which is a developable flat pad area, is the proposed location for the dog use area. Open space is
1 Rev. 05/03/00
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559
.-
immediately adjacent to the proposed dog use area in the north, east, and west. CVD is in the south.
Electrical line towers are in the open space area in the east. Beyond the open space areas, and across
CVD, are residential uses. Residential uses are located approximately 100 feet from the site in the south
(across CVD), 250 feet in the southwest (also across CVD), 400 feet in the westinorthwest, 900 feet in
the north/ northeast, and 300 feet in the east. Currently informal access to the park in provided via CVB
and from several residential streets that abut it in the west and east.
The temporary dog use area is proposed on a level portion in the upper park area, immediately adjacent
to CVD and existing electrical towers. The dog area consists of 1) a 9,000 square foot area, measuring
45 by 200 feet, enclosed with 4 foot high chain link fence; 2) an off-street parking area designed to
accommodate 12 vehicles; and 3) ancillary installations such as benches, a trash container, a trash bag
dispenser, a water fountain, and a sign outlining park rules. Access to the dog area is proposed via a
single gate adjacent to the parking area.
The site is a disturbed, graded pad area. Minimal site grading is proposed. The dog area will not be
graded but will be cleared of existing weeds and covered with wood chips for dust and erosion control
Minimal grading is proposed for the parking area and access drive aisle. Since the facility is temporary,
the parking area and drive aisle will be not be surfaced, but will be cover with decomposed granite for
dust and erosion control. Some degree of all weather surfacing in the parking area may be necessary to
meet ADA accessibility requirements. No park lighting is proposed.
2 Rev. 05/03/00
--
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.
q Aesthetics cl Geology/Soils q Noise
q Agricultural Resources 0 Hazards~azardoos Materials q Population and Housing
0 Air Quality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Public Services
0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning c] Recreation
cl Cultural Resources cl Mandatory Findings
of Significance 0 Transportation/Circulation
0 Mineral Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
Rev. 05103/00
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI
q
q
q
q
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 Neg Dee 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 Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-Ol),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Plamterkgfiature Date
Planning Direct% S&fature
q/-z-b/00
Date
Rev. S/3/00
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 significantly adverse, 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 significantly adverse.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
adverse effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant adverse 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 adverse 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 adverse effect on the
environment.
5 Rev. 5/3/00
. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid
preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse 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.
. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse
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
adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations”
for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR, (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant,
or; (4) through the EIA-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.
Rev. 5/3/00
Potentially Less Than Significant Significant
Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated
q q
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. AESTHETICS-Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(#2:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.11-5)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway? (#2:Pgs 5.1 l-
1 5.11-5)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? (#2:Pgs 5.11-l
- 5.11-5)
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area? (#2:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
II. AGRICLJLTRAL RESOURCES Would the project:
(In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared
by the California Department of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland).
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (#2:Pgs
5.6-l - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (M:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
(#2:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18)
III. AIR QUALITY - Would the project:
(Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make
the following determinations).
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (#2:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
cl
q
0
q
q q
q q
q q
q q
q q
q q
q q
NO
Impact
IXI
Rev. 5/3/00
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
Cl
4
e)
IV.
4
b)
4
4
e)
fl
Violate any air quality standard OT contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (#2:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
oxme precursors)? (#2:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (#2:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number ofpeople? (#2:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly 01
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, 01 special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service? (#2:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat OI other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations OI by
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service? (#2:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defmed by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, tiling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (#2:Pgs 5.4.
1 - 5.4-24)
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident OI migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? (#2:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy OI ordinance? (#2:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-
24)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant
Ull1G.S Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
q
q
Ix1
q
q
q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
8 Rev. 5/3/00
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
V.
4
b)
Cl
4
VI.
4
b)
C)
d)
CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (#2:
Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
(#2: Pgs 5.8-l 5.8-10)
Directly OI indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? (#2: Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (#2: Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project:
Expose people or shuctures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving: (#2:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15)
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42. (#2:Pgs 5.1-l -
5.1-15)
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? (#2:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1.
15)
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (#2:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1.15)
iv. Landslides? (#2:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(#2:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
(#2:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15)
Be located on expansive soils, as defmed in Table 18 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property? (#2:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-
15)
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant
UElkSS
Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
q
cl
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
NO Impact
Rev. 5/3/00
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources),
e)
VII.
4
b)
Cl
4
4
cl
8)
h)
VIII.
a)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal
ofwaste water? (M:Pgs 5.1-1 5.1-15)
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials? (#2:Pgs 5.10.1-I
5.10.1-5)
Create a significant hazard to the public or environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment? (#2:Pgs 5.10.1-l 5.10.1-5)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school? (#2:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment? (#2:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
For a project within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
intheprojectarea?(#2:Pgs5.10.1-1-5.10.1-5)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (#2:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland tires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(#2:Pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-5)
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would
the project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? (#2:Pgs 5.2-l 5.2-11)
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
ix
NO Impact
10 Rev. 5/3/00
.-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
b)
C)
4
e)
f-l
9)
h)
9
j)
IX.
=I
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with ground water recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local ground water table level ( i.e. the
production rate of preexisting nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)? (#2:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
COUIX of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
(#2:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site? (#2:Pgs 5.2-l -
5.2-11)
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stomwater drainage
systems 01 provide substantial additional sauces of
polluted runoff! (#2:Pgs 5.2-l 5.2-l 1)
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (#2:Pgs
5.2-l - 5.2-11)
Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
(#2:Pgs 5.2-l 5.2-11)
Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows? (#2:Pgs
5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (#2:Pgs 5.2-
1 5.2-11)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
LANDUSE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
Physically divide an established community?
POt.Tltidly Significant IIllpaCt
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
UllkSS Mitigation Incorporated
0
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
q
q
!xl
!zl
q
q
q
q
q
NO Impact
IXI
[XI
El
q
0
El
El
[XI
tzl
!z
11 Rev. 5/3/00
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources),
b)
C)
X.
4
b)
XI.
=)
b)
C)
4
e)
fl
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
MINERAL. RESOURCES Would the project:
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? (#2:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan’?
NOISE - Would the project result in:
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other
agencies? (#2:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-15)
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
gronndboume vibration or groundbourne noise levels’?
(#2:Pgs 5.9-l 5.9-15)
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
Potentially Significant VIII.%
Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
!z
cl
q
NO impact
[XI
El
Ix]
lx
El
IXI
!xl
q
Ia
IXI
12 Rev. 513100
.-
-.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or q
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)? (#2:Pgs 5.5-l 5.5-6)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing q
elsewhere? (#2:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? q
(#2:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered government facilities, a need for new
or physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? (#2:Pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6) q
ii) Police protection? (#2:Pgs 5.12.6-l 5.12.6-4) q
iii) Schools? (#2:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-S) 0
iv) Parks? (#2:Pgs 5.12.1-l 5.12.8-7) q
v) Other public facilities? (#Z:Pgs 5.12.1-l 5.12.8-7) q
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational cl
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated? (#2:Pgs
5.12.8-l -5.12X-7)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational q
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
onthe environment? (#2:Pgs 5.12.8-l 5.12.x-7)
xv. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the q
street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(#2:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q El
q El
q IXI
q Eta
q !x
q tzl
q El
q !z
q IXI
q El
q [XI
13 Rev. 5/3/00
--
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion q -- u n n
management agency for designated roads or highways
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in q q q
location that results in substantial safety risks
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or q q q
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#2:Pgs 5.7-l
- 5.7.22)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (#2:Pgs 5.7-l
5.7.22) q q q
t) Result in insufficient parking capacity? (#2:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22) q q q
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, q q q
bicycle racks)? (#2:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? q q q
(#2:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing q q q
facilities, the construction of which would cause
significant environmental effects? (#2:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing q q q
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (#2:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are q q q
new or expanded entitlements needed? (#2:Pgs 5.12.3-
1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may seme the project that it q q q
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments? (#2:Pg 5.2-8)
fJ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste q q q
disposal needs? (#2:Pgs 5.12.4-l 5.12.4-3)
IXI
[XI
El
IXI
El
14 Rev. 513100
XVII.
a)
b)
C)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (#Z:Pgs 5.12.2-l -
5.12.3-7)
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 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
prebistory?
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)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
q -0 q
q q q
q q q
q q q
tzl
IXI
[XI
IXI
XVIII. 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:
4 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.
cl 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.
15 Rev. 513100
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Air Quality
III(e). The project does possess the potential to create objectionable odors affecting people,
however, the potential is expected to be less than significant. The source of potential odor is
from the accumulation of dog solid waste. The Parks and Recreation Department will provide a
bag dispenser, and trash can, to facilitate dog owner responsibility and proper maintenance of the
dog use area. The convenience of the bags and trash can is expected to promote a very high rate
of dog owner maintenance of the dog use area. Additionally, the facility will be regularly
maintained by park staff, where any undisposed solid wastes, and the trash, will be removed
from the site. Park rules, which will include rules regarding dog owner waste maintenance, will
be posted at the site. Also important to note is that the nearest residential use, in the path of
prevailing winds, is more than 300 feet way. Any odor is expected to have dissipated prior to
impacting any residential use.
Hydrology and Water Quality
VII(a). Since an increased degree of dog wastes will be introduced into the local environment, the
project does possess the potential to degrade water, but it is expected to be less than significant. As
noted above, solid wastes will be picked up and removed from the site regularly, and therefore do not
represent a significant potential impact. Liquid wastes can not be contained and disposed of, and will
remain in the environment. Given the small scale of the facility, estimated to have a peak capacity of 12
- 20 dogs, and the site’s distance from any water way or groundwater source, no water pollution is
expected.
VII(e) See VII(a) above
VII(f) See VII(a) above
Noise
X(d) Because the project will result in the concentration of multiple dogs in one area, it does possess the
potential to create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels (i.e. from barking
dogs) in the project vicinity. That increase, however, is expected to be less than significant. The Parks
and Recreation Department will limit the hours of operation of the facility to between the hours of 800
am to dusk. Additionally posted park rules will be indicate the requirement that dog owners limit
excessive dog barking.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on tile in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Carlsbad General Plan, Updated. City of Carlsbad Planning Department. September
1994.
2. Final Master Environmental Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
3. Local Coastal Program. City of Carlsbad Planning Department. July 1996.
16 Rev. S/3/00
.-
ADDENDUM
The project description as stated in the Negative Declaration has been modified to read
as follows:
Establishment and operation of a temporary dog use are on a portion of
Larwin Park. The dog use area consists of a 13,200 square foot fenced
area; ancillary installations such as benches, a water fountain, trash bag
dispenser and trash can, and signage; and an off-street 9 vehicle parking
area, which can be expanded to a 12 vehicle parking area.