HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 49061
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. 4906
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW IMPROVEMENTS
AT, AND ESTABLISH A CUP FOR, CHASE FIELD, AN
EXISTING CITY PARR, IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1,
CASE NAME: CHASE FIELD
CASE NO.: CUF’OO-16
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,” located at the southwest comer of Chestnut Avenue and Harding
Street (“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of January 2001 and
on the 7th day of February 2001 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
-4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
“ND” dated November 21, 2000, and “PII” dated November 16, 2000, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
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
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration, and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
B. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
D. Based on the EIA Part II, and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of February 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
(\-
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4906 -2-
city of
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Southwest comer of Chestnut Avenue and Harding Street.
Project Description: New construction and installation of improvements at the existing
City park known as Chase Field. The project involves the removal
of an existing 850 square foot, one-story, restroom/concessions
/storage building and the construction of a new 2,692 square foot,
two-story building for similar uses; installation of 2 batting cages,
and other miscellaneous, minor site improvements such as fencing,
paving, landscaping.
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
file 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 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Jason Martin in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4619.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
NOVEMBER 21,200O
CUP 00-16
CHASE FIELD
NOVEMBER 2 1,200O
MICHAEL .I. HO%MILI%R
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602.8559 - www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - Part II
(Initial Study Checklist)
CASE NAME
CASE NO.
Chase Field
CUP 00-16
LEAD AGENCY City of Carlsbad
DEPARTMENT Planning Deparhnent
CONTACT Jason Martin
TITLE Associate Planner
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
E-MAIL
APPLICANT City of Carlsbad
Parks and Recreation Dept.
ADDRESS
CONTACT
TITLE
Doug Duncanson
Public Works Manager
TELEPHONE
E-MAIL
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS 1, None
REQUIRED (i.e. permits, financing approval, or 2.
participation agreements) 3.
1635 Faraday Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
(760) 602-4619
jmart@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
1166 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 602-2855
ddunc@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
For the purposes of the review required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 00.07 involves a request by the City of Carlsbad Parks and Recreation
Department to 1) demolish an existing restroom/concessions/storage building and construct a new
building, and 3) install 2 baseball batting cages. For the purpose of the City’s CUP review, however, the
project involves not only the new building and batting cages, but the overall park facility. The City’s
CUP review involves the overall park facility since the original park was established a number of years
ago, prior to the requirement for a CUP, and therefore currently has no CUP. The review contained in
this CEQA document is limited to the expansion of an exiting use.
The project is located on the grounds of an existing City park known as Chase Field. Chase Field is an
exclusive, baseball facility comprised of 3 baseball fields, ball field lighting, an 850 square foot
restroom/concessions/storage building, bleacher seating and picnic areas, and other ancillary installations.
Chase Field is approximately 2.74 acres in size, flat, and situated within an established residential
neighborhood known as the “Barrio”, generally located in the northwest quadrant of the City. The site is
bordered by streets on all four sides: Chestnut Avenue in the northwest, Harding Street in the northeast,
Palm Avenue in the southeast, and Jefferson Street in the southwest. Facility parking is provided on
streets which bound the park. Surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the site are residential in the south,
east and west and other park facilities (Brierly Field) in the north.
1 Rev. 05/03/00
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314. (760) 602.4600 l FAX (760) 602.6559 l ww.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
The primary component of the project involves the replacement of the existing, 850 square foot, single-
story building with a 2,692 square foot, 2-story building. The new building is located on, and slightly
beyond, the existing building footprint, at the approximate midpoint along the site’s street frontage on
Harding Street. Use of the new building will continue to be for restrooms, concessions, and storage.
New uses involve a game announcer area, and meeting space (i.e. for the Youth Group Board of Director
and other civic groups).
A secondary component of the project involves the installation of 2 batting cage facilities. The 2 batting
cages are identical and consist of a rectangular shaped area measuring 16 feet by 60 feet, which is fully
enclosed with chain link fencing material. The height of the fencing is 12 feet. Initially ball pitching
would be manual. Ultimately, however, a mechanical ball pitching machine may be installed in the
cage(s). The batting cages are located adjacent to the outfield of one of the ball fields, along Chestnut
Avenue.
2 Rev. 05103100
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 q Geology/Soils 0 Noise
0 Agricultural Resources
0 Air Quality
q Biological Resources
0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 Population and Housing
0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Public Services
0 Land Use and Planning q Recreation
0 Cultural Resources III Mandatory Findings of
Significance q Transportation/Circulation
0 Mineral Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
Rev. 05/03/00
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI
q
Iii
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially signilicant 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.
Planne S’gnature Date
Date
Rev. 5/3/00
.-
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 &t 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
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Potentially Potentially LessThan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
I. AESTHETICS-Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(#2:Pgs 5.11-l - 5.114) q q 0[51
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic q 0 q IXI
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 5.1 l-l q 0 q ixl
-5.11-S)
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in q q q IXI
the area? (#Z:Pgs 5.11-l 5.11-5)
II. AGRICULTRAL 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 q q
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? (#2:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) q q
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in q q
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
(#2:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
q !xl
q El
q El
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) q q nIxI
Rev. 513100
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
Cl
4
e)
IV.
=I
b)
C)
4
e)
n
Violate any air quality standard or 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
ozone precursors)? (#2:Pgs 5.3-l 5.3-12)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
co”ce”tratio”s? (#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 or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or 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 or other sensitive natural community identified
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 federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing,
hydrological interruption, or other means? (#2:Pgs 5.4.
1 - 5.4-24)
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or 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 or 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
cl
0
q
q
q
q
q
./
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
E3
El
lzl
IXI
El
El
[XI
E4
lx
IXI
8 Rev. 513100
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
V.
=I
b)
C)
4
VI.
4
b)
C)
4
CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defmed in §15064.5? (#2:
Pgs 5.8-1 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 or 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 struchues to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving: (#2:Pgs 5.1-I 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-I - 5.1-
15)
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (#2:Pgs 5.1-1 5.1.15)
iv. Landslides? (#2:&s 5.1-l 5.1-15)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(#2:Pgs 5.1-1 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 5.1-1 5.1-15)
Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 -
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property? (#2:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1.
15)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Ullless Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
Rev. 5/3/00
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
e) 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? (#2:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would
the “roiect: r-~,~~~~ 4
h)
C)
d)
e)
d
h)
VIII.
4
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-l
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 e”viro”“le”t? (#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
in the project area? (#2:Pgs 5.10.1-l 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 fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urban&d areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(#2:Pgs 5.10.1-l 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)
10
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant
U”kSS Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than Signiticant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
Rev. 5/3/00
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
Cl
4
e)
fl
8)
h)
0
3
IX.
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
course 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 stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources 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? (M:Pgs
5.2-l - 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-il)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
LANDUSE AND PLANNING Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Ullless Mitigation Incorporated
cl
0
cl
0
cl
0
0
cl
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
cl
0
El
0
q
0
0
NO
Impact
q cl UEI
0 cl q EI
11 Rev. 513100
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
9
X.
4
b)
XI.
4
b)
C)
d)
e)
0
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-l 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
groundboume vibration or groundboume 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
Significanl
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
-.
Potentially Significant
UllkSS
Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
0
cl
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
12 Rev. 5/3/00
XII.
4
b)
Cl
XIII.
4
XIV.
4
b)
xv.
=I
POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)? (#2:Pgs 5.5-l 5.5-6)
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (#2:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere’?
(#2:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
PUBLIC SERVICES
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 govemment 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:
9 Fire protection? (#2:Pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6)
ii) Police protection? (#2:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
iii) Schools? (#2:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
iv) Parks?(#2:Pgs 5.12.1-l 5.12.8-7)
“1 Other public facilities? (#Z:Pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.8-7)
RECREATION
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated? (#2:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment? (#2:Pgs 5.12.8-1 5.12.8-7)
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
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 - 5.722)
cl
cl
0
0
0
III
0
0
0
cl
cl
0
0
0
cl
cl
q
0
0
0
cl
El
13 Rev. 5/3/00
b)
Cl
4
e)
t)
g)
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#2:Pgs 5.7-l
- 5.7.22)
Result in inadequate emergency access? (#2:Pgs 5.7-l
5.7.22)
Result in insufficient parking capacity? (#2:Pgs 5.7-l
5.7.22)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (#2:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS Would the
=I
b)
Cl
4
e)
t-l
project:
Exceed wastewater treahnent requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
(#2:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 &5.13-l 5.13-9)
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which would cause
significant environmental effects’? (#2:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
Require or result in the constnxtion of new storm
water drainage facilities a* expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (#2:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed? (#2:Pgs 5.12.3.
1 - 5.12.3-7)
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to senx the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments? (#2:Pg 5.2-S)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs? (#2:Pgs 5.12.4-l 5.12.4-3)
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
-0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
14 Rev. 5/3/00
9)
XVII.
4
b)
Cl
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (#2:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
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
prehistory?
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 thz 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
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. 5l3fOO
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
NONE
EARLIER A&iLYSIS 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 Impact 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. 5/3/00