HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 49411
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. 4941
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW
THE OPERATION OF AN INTERIM BALLFIELD AT THE
FUTURE ZONE 5 PARK SITE LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CAMINO HILLS DRIVE AND
FARADAY AVENUE AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE
SPECIFIC PLAN TO DELETE LANGUAGE ON SIGNS IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: ZONE 5 PARK INTERIM BALLFIELD
CASE NO.: CUP Ol-Ol/SP 180(F)
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Developer”/“Owner,” has tiled a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lot 96 of Carlsbad Tract 85-24, Unit 5 per Map 12815 as
recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, San Diego, on
May 16,199l. APN: 212-130-21
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of April, 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:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated March 22, 2001, and “PII” dated March 14,
2001, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
t
i
E
s
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Findinps:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration ZONE 5 PARK
INTERIM BALLFIELD the environmental impacts therein identified for this
project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVING
of the project; and
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
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
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 18th day of April 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman
ABSTAIN:
Y-7 &W
CARLSBb PLAtiING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL JxOL%IILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4941 -2-
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Southeast corner of Camino Hills Drive and Faraday Avenue on
Lot 96 within the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan
Project Description: Interim Ballfield proposed for a future park site
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, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) 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 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 Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4608.
DATED: MARCH 22,200l
CASE NO: CUP Ol-OUSP 180(F)
CASE NAME: ZONE 5 PARR INTERIM BALLFIELD
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 22,200l
MICHAEL J. HOL%ILL%R
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP Ol-01&P 180(F)
DATE: March 12,200l
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
CASE NAME: ZONE 5 PARK-INTERIM BALLFIELD
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD -; PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad.
92008. Mark Stevaert: 434.2855
4.
5.
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: January 18.2001
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Interim Ballfield on the future Zone 5 Park site located on Lot 96 of
the C&bad Research CenteriAPN: 212-130-21&E comer of Camino Hills Drive and Faraday
Avenue. The site has already been waded for industrial office develoument so the environmental
review focuses on the uark use and compliance with the CRC Suecitic Plan.
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.
IXI Land Use and Planning [XI Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
q Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
q Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
q Water q Hazards q Cultural Resources
q Air Quality q Noise El Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128196
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI
El
17
q
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 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(n) 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 pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature Date
Planning Direc?&s Signature Date
Rev. 03128196
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 adversely significant, 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 significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant 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 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 effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
. If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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 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 impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the 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. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
Cl
4
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source kys): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-I - 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
IL POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
4
b)
Cl
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a)
b)
C)
4
e)
cl
8)
h)
9
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l -5.1.15)
Seiche, tsunaki, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l -
5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l
5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface mnoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
111 b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-I - 5.,2-l 1)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5,.2-l 1)
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
1 q
q
q q
El q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
H q
q
El
El q
q
cl
q
q
q
Ed
q
q
q
q
q
q
El
Cl
B
El q
0
q
q
5 Rev. 03128196
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
9)
h)
9
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l S..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l -5.2-l 1)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
Interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Altered direction or *ate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2Jl)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5.2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3.
1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
4
‘4
Cl
4
e)
0
9)
txomsal result in:
in&wed vehicle trips 01 traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) OI incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pxs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) - Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus hanouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l
5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened OI rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant Ullless
Mitigation Incorporated q
cl
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
5
q
q
q
5
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q q
NO Impact
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
5
q
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
1IlpXt
Potentially
Significant
UnleSS
Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
5
5
5
5
5
5
Locally designated narural communities (e.g. oak
forest,.coastalhabitat, etc.)? (#I :Pgs 5.4-I - 5.4-i4)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
5.4-24)
q
q
cl
Cl
4
e)
VIII.
=)
b)
C)
q
q
q
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Con&t with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 &5.13-l - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -5.12.1-S & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of fuhue value to the region and
the residents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
=)
b)
Cl
d)
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l
5.10.1-S)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Increase fxe hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, ortrees?(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
q cl q 5
q q q 5
q
q
q
q q 5
q q 5
q q 5
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
q
q
q q 5
q q 5
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-l - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 -5.12.7-S)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I
5.12X-7)
=)
b)
Cl
4
e)
B El q
XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
7 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
=)
b)
C)
4
e)
fl
8)
XIII.
4
b)
Cl
XIV.
=)
b)
Cl
4
e)
Power or natural gas? (#I:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-l -5.13-P)
Communications systems? ( )
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-l 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-l - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l -5.11-S)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 -5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
I 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-l -
5.12.X-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q q
0
El q
q
q
q
cl
q
q q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
UhSS
Mitigation
Incorporated q
q q
El
8
q
q
q
q
q
1
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
E!
q
B q
q
q
0
q
q
q q
q
q
q
No
Impact
5
5
5
1
I#
5
5
5
5
5
El
5
5
5
q q 5
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact UllkSS Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Does the project have, impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? q q q 5
(“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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, q
either directly or indirectly?
q q 5
XVII. 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.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
LAND USE AND PLANNING
The proposed interim ballfield is consistent with the zoning ordinance which allows assemblages
of people in any zone but residential with a conditional use permit; and also allows public
facilities in any zone with a conditional use permit. Since the future park site is located in the
Carlsbad Research Center (CRC) Specific Plan which designates industrial/office uses for the
site, a specific plan amendment (SP 180-F) is concurrently being processed with the park CUP to
designate the subject lot as a park site. Given the proposed specific plan amendment, the project
would be consistent with all applicable land use designations and regulations. Since the site is a
pre-graded industrial lot, no agricultural resources are affected.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project will not affect the city’s housing stock since the project involves an interim ballfield
and does not involve any residential components.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
No geologic problems exist onsite since the lot is a portion of a larger industrial subdivision that
underwent environmental review and geotechnical studies as part of its final map and mass
grading approval. No unique geologic features are associated with the site or the immediate
area.
WATER
Since the project is proposed for a pre-graded site, there will be no impacts to surface, subsurface
or flood water flows across of through the site. The site is ready for industrial building
development, so the ground preparation necessary for ballfield/park use will not create any
characteristics of the area’s ground water or surface water flow.
AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2)
measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation
Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including
10 Rev.03/28/96
mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted.
CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan wiil result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control.
parkinrr: With regards to the proposed parking plan for the interim ballfield, a 20-space parking
lot is proposed by the Parks and Recreation staff. They have a standard of 23 parking spaces for
a standard-sized baseball field. Since this is a slightly modified/reduced baseball field, Parks
staff feels that the proposed 20 spaces is adequate. In addition, since a conditional use permit is
involved, monitoring of the project will occur and any significant shortfalls with the project
(including parking) can be addressed and resolved in the CUP context.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No biological resources occur on this site because it is a pre-graded lot located within a larger
industrial office subdivision. All biological resources impacts were assessed and mitigated as
necessary with the approval of Carlsbad Tract 85-24 which created the industrial lots.
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
The development of a park on the site, interim or otherwise, would not involve mineral
extraction or the use in any use of mineral resources.
HAZARDS
The use of the site as a park will not introduce hazardous substances or material onto the site; nor
will it increase the risk of explosion since only park uses are proposed. Additionally, the use of
the site as a park will not expose the park users to any potential known health hazards.
There are no significant noise generating uses in the area so as to negatively impact park users.
11 Rev. 03128196
Noise from the park will be insignificant since the nearest residential units are across the Camino
Hills street system and the site is immediately surrounded by existing industrial office buildings,
PUBLIC SERVICFS
The use of the site as a park will not preclude the full scope of city services being available for
the site or the surrounding area in general. In addition, the use in and of itself, will not generate
an extraordinary demand for any particular city service or facility.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
The project will require any new or modified utility or service systems. No natural gas or power
requirements are involved. The site is not proposed for lighting so those needs do not exist. The
northeast comer of the site is already developed with a storm flow catch basin so no new water
drainage improvements are necessary. No communication systems are involved and a portable
restroom is proposed which will be serviced in a standard manner eliminating the need for a
septic system or modified sewer system.
AESTHETICS
The site is not located on or adjacent to any scenic resources. The development of the site as a
park will not create an adverse environmental or aesthetic impact. Since the project does not
propose lighting, there will be no creation of light or glare impacts.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Since a pre-graded site is involved, all environmental resources have already been assessed and
mitigated as necessary with the approval of Carlsbad Tract 85-24 including cultural resources.
RECREATIONAL
The provision of a park at the subject site will add to the recreational opportunities in the
immediate area. Recognizing that the need for an interim ballfield on this future park site is
triggered by the removal of the balltield at the Safety Center, the Safety Center’s long term plans
did not involve the retention of that field. This project is intended to provide the replacement
balltield for the future removal of the Safety Center field, therefore there will be no significant
impacts to recreational opportunities.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report (Source #l) for the City of Carlsbad General
Plan Update (MEIR 93-01) dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
12 Rev. 03l28196
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICAsLE)
N/A
13 Rev. 03128196
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
14 Rev. 03128196