Loading...
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.