HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 51081
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. 5108
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO ALLOW A COMMUNITY PARK ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN
TERMINUS OF AMBROSIA LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 19.
CASE NAME: ZONE 19 PARK
CASE NO.: MP177(DD)/CTJP 01-22/HDP 01-07/CDP 01-31
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, ccDeveloper”/”Owner” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Those portions of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4
West and Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to official plan thereof,
said property being more particularly described in Exhibit
“A” of Quitclaim Deed recorded March 28, 1989 as File No.
89-157040 of official records of said San Diego County.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum was prepared in
conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of February 2002,
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 Mitigated 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.
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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit "ND"
dated November 28, 2001, and "PII" dated November 7, 2001, and the
Addendum to "PII" dated January 24, 2002, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, based on the following findings:
Finding:
1.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration
MP177@D)/CUP 01-22/HDP 01-07KDP 01-31 the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
APPROVING the project; and
The Mitigated 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 I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5 108 -2-
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
Commission
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of February 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Segall,
White, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez
ABSTAIN:
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMI~~ER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5 108 -3-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: At the northern terminus of Ambrosia Lane
Project Description: A public park with a community building, maintenance facility,
restrooms, a softball diamond, soccer fields, a basketball court,
picnic area, tot lot and parking areas on a 25-acre 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 file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file 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 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4621.
DATED: NOVEMBER 28,2001
CASE NO: CUP 0 1 -22/HDP 0 1 -07KDP 01 -3 1
CASE NAME: ZONE 19 PARK
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 28,2001
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us a9
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP 01-22/HDP 01-07KDP 01-31
DATE: November 7,2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Zone 19 Park
2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faraday Ave; Carlsbad. CA 92008
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A public Dark with a community building;, maintenance facilitv,
restrooms, a softball diamond, soccer fields. a basketball court, uicnic area, tot lot and uarking
areas on a 25-acre site.
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.
0 Land Use and Planning IXI TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing IXI Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 water Hazards Cultural Resources
IXI Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
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 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. An 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,
2 Rev. 03/28/96
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 fi-om “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 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but 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 Compliatice).
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.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
e 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.
e 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 Em; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 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.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
ow ow
ow ow
ow
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 0 0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0 0
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 0 0
w
IXI
IXI
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
0 0 ow 0 0 ow
5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 0 0 ow
5.1-15) 0 0 ow
0 w 00
0 0 ow 0 0 ow
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 0 0 ow
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15) 0 0 ow
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1) 0 0 0
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
0 0 0
1 1)
0 0 0
IXI
IXI
IXI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
f) 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 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
1 1)
5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
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-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
w 0
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12) 0 0
0 0
0 0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
proposal result in:
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
d) Insufficient parking capacity or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
IXI 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 0 IXI
0 0
0 0
animals, and birds? (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
ow ow ow
ow ow ow
00
ow ow ow
no ow
ow ow ow ow
ow
00
ow ow
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0
- 5.4-24) 0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
c) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
proposal?
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
1 - 5.13-9)
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
E. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:PgS 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
healthhazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
ow ow
ow ow
ow
ow
ow
ow ow
OB
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
19 0 0 ow "
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15) 0 0 ow
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:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7) 0 0 0
XII.UTIL1TIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0 ow
7 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#1 :Pgs
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
10)
10)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
ow ow
0 0 ow 0 0 ow 0 0 ow 0 0 ow
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 w
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
ow ow ow
on ow ow ow
ow
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
0 0 ow
0 0 ow 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 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?
0 0 0
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) 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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incomorated 0 0 ow
0 ow
9 Rev. 03/28/96
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:
a) 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.
c) 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.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project Description
The proposed project is a public park on a 25-acre site. Structures will include a community
building (17,768 square feet), one restroom building (625 square feet), a second restroom
building (625 square feet) with an attached storage room (approximately 400 square feet), and a
maintenance building (1,200 square feet). The community building will contain a multi-purpose
room, activity room, senior family room, meeting room (which can be curtained off into two
smaller rooms), a kitchen, and various storage and office areas for staff use. Outdoor recreational
areas include a baseball field, two soccer fields, two basketball courts, a tot lot, and a picnic area.
Environmental Setting
The project site is a 25-acre parcel located at the northern terminus of Ambrosia Lane. The site
is an irregularly-shaped mesa. The mesa top is relatively level. There are steep slopes and a
canyon drainage to the north. The northern slopes are steeper than 1 : 1. Elevations on the site
range fiom 208 feet above MSL in a canyon bottom at the northern end of the site to 326 feet
above MSL in the mesa area. Much of the mesa area was previously used to grow flowers. The
site contains unpaved roads and a buried irrigation system for the flower-growing operation.
Easements on the site include a 30-foot wide Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD)
easement along the southern portion of the site and a 15-foot wide CMWD easement along the
eastern side of the site. The slope areas include both native and non-native vegetation. Existing
drainage basins are partially draining to all sides of the site, with the majority of the site flowing
to the north. The project site is bounded by residential developments to the east and south and by
open space to the west and north.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
I. Land Use and Planning
The project site is within the Aviara (formerly Pacific Rim) Master Plan (MP 177). This
Planning Area (Planning Area 32) has an "Open Space" General Plan designation and zoning.
The site is designated for a park use. Therefore, the proposed project (a public park) is consistent
with the General Plan designation and zoning on the project site and is also consistent with the
Master Plan. The Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and Local Coastal Program Amendment
(LCPA) adopted with the Master Plan also anticipated a park on this site. Therefore, the project
will not conflict with any environmental plans or policies for the site. Surrounding uses (mostly
residential) were developed with the knowledge that this site would provide a park. The park has
been designed to reduce noise and light impacts to neighboring residential uses while protecting
the native vegetation on the site from disturbance by outdoor activities. Thus, the project will
not be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity. The project will not affect
agricultural resources or operations. The site has been previously used to grow flowers.
However, that use has already been discontinued. The project will not disrupt or divide an
established community. The site is vacant and has been designated for development of a park.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
11. Population and Housing
The project is not in an undeveloped area and does not require the extension of major
infiastructure. It is a site surrounded by development. The use will provide recreational
opportunities for the residents of the surrounding community and the City as a whole. Therefore,
the project will not induce substantial growth and will not result in the growth which exceeds
official regional or local population projections. The project also will not displace any existing
housing. The project site is an undeveloped parcel which was designated in the approved Master
Plan for development with a park.
III. Geologic Problems
A geotechnical investigation was prepared for the proposed project by Geotechnics, Incorporated
in October 2001. Follow-up information from Geotechnics was provided in a letter dated
November 9, 2001. That study and the follow-up information concluded that the proposed
project is feasible on the subject site provided the recommendations and practices contained in
the study are followed. No geotechnical conditions were found which would preclude the
proposed project. The following statements reflect the conclusions in that geotechnical study.
There are no known active faults underlying the project site. Any potential seismic hazards at
the site are associated with ground shaking from an event along nearby active faults. This hazard
is typically addressed through design in accordance with the California Building Code. The
portion of the site where improvements are planned is underlain primarily by very dense
formational materials with a relatively minor amount of surficial soil. The surficial soil will be
removed and replaced as compacted fill as part of the site's development. There does not appear
to be a shallow water table beneath the site. Following development of the site, the potential for
liquefaction and associated dynamic settlement to occur at the site is remote. The project site is
located at elevations above 100 feet MSL and there are no open water bodies near the site.
Therefore, the potential for impacts due to tsunami or seiche is remote. The site contains no
evidence of existing landslides. However, some slopes on the northern site boundary and in the
canyon area do not meet minimum safety standards. Remedial grading is recommended to
enhance stability in those areas. The project will be subject to all applicable City regulations
governing grading and erosion control. These regulations ensure that potentially significant
erosion will not result. No potentially significant changes in topography are proposed. The
project will not result in unstable soil conditions. The proposed park will place fill over some
marginally stable natural slopes to create ball fields. The fills will result in slopes that do not
meet the generally accepted criteria for engineered slope stability. To stabilize these slopes, the
project requires a combination of reconfiguration of the fill areas and construction of earthen
buttresses. (See also the discussion under section VII. Biological Resources, below.) Some
portions of the materials may include highly expansive soils. However, the study includes
recommendations to reduce the potential effects of this condition (i.e., removal of from 2 to 5
feet of soils in some pad areas). The site does not contain any unusual geologic or physical
features.
IV. Water
The proposed project is subject to all applicable City, State, and Federal regulations governing
water runoff. The project is required to comply with the latest NPDES requirements. Two
detention facilities are proposed (one north of the project and one south of the soccer fields).
A Preliminary Hydrology Study dated October 1, 2001, was prepared for the project by P&D
12 Rev. 03/28/96
Consultants. The study concluded that these basins will limit the post-development flow to equal
or less than the pre-development flow. Therefore, the proposed development will not result in
potentially significant impacts in the form of changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate/amount of surface runoff. The project site is located at elevations above 100 feet MSL.
There are no water bodies on or near the project site. Therefore, the project will not result in
exposure to water hazards such as flooding. With the installation of the detention basin, post-
development storm runoff will reduce storm flows to a level such that post-construction flows
will not increase for a 10-year 6-hour storm event. The project will not result in changes in
currents or the course or direction of water movements. The project does not involve any direct
additions or withdrawals to/from groundwater. Since there is no aquifer within the project site,
there will be no interception of an aquifer. Therefore, there will be no impacts to groundwater
quantity/quality or recharge capability. There also will be no impact to the flow of groundwater.
The project will not place an extraordinary demand for water on the public water supply.
Therefore, it will not result in any substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise
available for such supplies.
V. Air Ouality (b-d)
The project (a park) is a use type which does not generally generate potentially significant
pollution. The proposed structures will comply with all City regulations for maximum building
height and required building separation. Therefore, the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants and will not alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or cause a
change in climate. Activities at the park also will not create objectionable odors. Trash
containers will be placed conveniently on the site and will be emptied and cleaned regularly as
part of the routine maintenance of the site. Thus, the project is not expected to create potentially
significant objectionable odors. (See Section B.V. Air Quality, below, for discussion of
potentially significant air quality impacts.)
VI. TransDortatiodCirculation (b-g)
The proposed project will generate 473 average daily vehicle trips and will contribute
incrementally to traffic and congestion on existing and planned roadways in the project vicinity.
The street system for the proposed project will comply with all applicable City regulations and
standards to ensure that no safety hazards result from the design. The proposed project will
require 261 parking spaces, and 270 spaces will be provided on site. The site does not include,
and is not near any rail, waterborne, or air traffic facilities and will not impact any such activities.
(See Section B.VI. TransportatiodCirculation, below, for discussion of potentially significant
traffic/circulation impacts.)
VII. Biological Resources
The project site is located within the "Hardline" area of the City's Draft Habitat Management
Plan (HMP). As designed, the project stays within the HMP Hardline area with the exception of
a buttress fill area (discussed below), which is necessary to stabilize slopes on the site.
A general biological resource survey of the project site was conducted by P&D Environmental.
Habitats mapped on the site included coast live oak woodland, scrub-oak-dominated maritime
chaparral, southern maritime chaparral, disturbed coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland,
agriculture, ruderal, disturbed, landscaped, and developed. Sensitive plants observed on the site
include Del Mar manzanita, Nuttall's scrub oak, summer holly, wart-stemmed ceanothus, and
Palmer's goldenbush. All of these plants except Palmer's goldenbush are HMP Covered Species.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
Based upon this biological survey and mapping, the project has been designed to minimize
potentially significant impacts to the sensitive resources.
Potential jurisdictional waters exist on the northern portion of the site, where topographical
features convey water to a cement-lined brow ditch along the northern property boundary. This
area shows evidence of hydrologic activity, but does not support hydric soils or wetland indicator
vegetation. The area of hydrologic activity is disjunct from a wetland or stream. Existing storm
drains direct the flow from this area through pipes ultimately into a drainage. Review indicates
that this area could be defined as isolated, and thus not jurisdictional by the Corp. However, in
accordance with current interpretation of the Section 404 Permit, the Corps has taken jurisdiction
in similar situations. There will be an encroachment into 0.09 acres of potential jurisdictional
waters. This impact appears to be covered under a Nationwide 42 Permit and will require
Section 401 certification by the Regional Water Quality Control Board if confirmed to be
jurisdictional.
The entire project site contains a total of .549 acre of dual criteria slopes. The buttress fill
activities will impact 5% (.027 acre) of those dual-criteria slopes. Those dual criteria slopes
being impacted contain disturbed coastal sage scrub. Even though this area is outside of the
HMP Hardline area, no development of the area will occur; only grading to correct the stability
problem. The area will then be revegetated with native plant material. Therefore, the deviation
from the HMP Hardline boundary is not a potentially significant impact.
Although there are no potentially significant direct impacts to resources from the project, specific
mitigation measures were recommended as a result of the biological survey. Each of the
recommended measures has been included in the proposed Mitigation Measures list and in the
Mitigation Monitoring Report (attached).
VIII. Eneru and Mineral Resources
Development of the proposed park will not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans.
The proposed park also is not expected to use non-renewable resources in a wasteful or
inefficient manner. As with other projects, the park will be designed to be as energy-efficient as
feasible. The buildings will utilize florescent light bulbs. The sports lights (fields) will be on a
computerized system which results in their being on only when the fields are in use. The
irrigation system will also be computerized with an over-ride capability. Further, the sprinkler
system for the ball fields will utilize "valve-in-head" sprinklers, allowing each sprinkler to be
controlled independently to minimize water usage and waste. The soccer fields will utilize
artificial turf rather than grass. The development of a park on the site will not involve mineral
extraction or other activities which would result in loss of a known mineral resource.
IX. Hazards
The use of the site as a park will not introduce hazardous substances or materials onto the site;
nor will it increase the risk of explosion. The proposed use will require storage of some
janitorial supplies, fertilizers, and other similar supplies. However, the storage and use of these
materials in the quantities anticipated is typical of a park use and does not require permitting
from the County Health Department, the Air Pollution Control District, or the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. These materials have historically been exempt from permitting
requirements. The proposed project will not interfere with any emergency response or
evacuation plans and will not expose people to existing or new health hazards. The project will
not increase fire hazard in the area. The proposed community building will be located near a
14 Rev. 03/28/96
canyon containing native habitat. That building is being designed to incorporate boxed eaves
and minimal building openings in order to reduce any potential fire hazards to the structure and
its occupants.
X. Noise
Any development of the site, including development of the proposed park, will contribute to a
general increase in noise levels in the City. However, normal uses at the park would not be
expected to generate sufficient noise to expose people to severe noise levels. Further, the park
has been designed to buffer the adjacent residential uses from the park activities as much as
possible. Therefore, the project is not expected to result in potentially significant noise impacts.
XI. Public Services
All necessary public services are readily available for the site. The use itself will not generate
any extraordinary demand for any particular public services. Therefore, the project will not
result in potentially significant impacts to public services.
XII. Utilities and Services Systems
All necessary public utilities and services systems are readily available for the site. The use itself
will not generate any extraordinary demand for public utilities or services. Therefore, the project
will not result in potentially significant impacts to public utility or services systems.
XIII. Aesthetics
The project site is a mesa from which there are distant scenic views to the north and northeast of
the project. The site does not, however, contain any designated public view corridors. The
project is designed to enhance opportunities for the distant views available from the site. The
community building incorporates a terrace which looks out to the north. The eastern part of the
project will consist of generally open playing fields. The community building and other project
structures/facilities are designed to be attractive and compatible with the surrounding
development. These structures/facilities will comply with applicable development standards
(e.g., setbacks, separation requirements, etc.). Therefore, the project will not negatively affect a
scenic vista or a scenic highway and will not have a negative aesthetic effect. The project will
included lighted ball fields. Therefore, there is the potential for light or glare. However, the
light will be focused as much as possible onto the playing fields and will be shielded. In
addition, the lighting will be controlled such that the lights are on only when the fields are in use.
Therefore, the project will not result in potentially significant light or glare.
XIV. Cultural Resources
Prior to the City's acquisition of the park site, a cultural resources study and an EIR were
prepared for the Pacific Rim (Aviara) Master Plan site (which included the park site) by
WESTEC Services, Inc. Literature review, records search, field survey and testing identified two
prehistoric sites within the park property. Both sites were tested to determine site significance.
The first site was identified as significant, and mitigation of impacts was achieved through the
completion of a data recovery program. The second site was tested and identified as not
significant. Given the presence of a significant cultural resource which might contain burials,
monitoring of the grading activities is being required as a mitigation measure.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
XV. Recreational
The project will not increase the demand for parks or other recreational facilities since the project
is a park. It will affect recreational opportunities by providing a new recreational opportunity for
the community. The project will, therefore, satisfy some of the current and anticipated future
need for recreational opportunities.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
V. Air Ouality (a)
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 mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered
by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MER This
document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. TranstlortatiodCirculation (a)
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 will 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
16 Rev. 03/28/96
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
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. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
An MER may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MER to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MER was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Road and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MER was certified. Therefore, the MER remains adequate to
review later projects.
17 Rev. 03/28/96
111. 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 for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MER 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Final EIR for Pacific Rim Countrv Club and Resort (Aviara Master Plan), dated August
1986, Westec Services, Inc. (Note: The "Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort" was
later renamed "Aviara".)
18 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
To mitigate potential soils and geological impacts of the project, all gradingkonstruction
activities and operations shall comply with the recommendations of the soils and
geotechnical investigation, (Geotechnics, Incorporated dated October 2001 and follow-up
letter from Geotechnics dated November 9,2001) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The Developer shall install a physical barrier between the gradingkonstruction activities
and the sensitive biological resources (including the Del Mar Manzanita) to prevent
inadvertent impacts to off-site sensitive resources.
All runoff shall be directed away from natural resource areas.
The Developer shall provide a permanent physical barrier with signage (i.e., "No
Trespassing") around all development that approaches native habitats to reduce human
intrusion into biologically sensitive areas.
The dual criteria slopes being impacted by the buttress fill grading shall be replanted with
native vegetation.
All lighting shall be designed to reduce light spillage and shall be oriented toward the
active use areas to minimize glare to surrounding uses and to shield sensitive resources.
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer shall provide
verification to the City of Carlsbad that a qualified paleontologist has been
retained to implement the resource mitigation monitoring on the site. A qualified
paleontologist is an individual with adequate knowledge and experience with
fossilized remains and who will be present during grading to identify
paleontological resources in the field and is adequately experienced to remove the
resources for further study. Verification shall be by letter from the applicant and
paleontologist to the City and approved by the City's Planning Director.
b. The qualified paleontologist shall attend any pre-grading andor pre-construction
meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractor(s). The
requirement for paleontological monitoring shall be noted on the grading and
construction drawings.
c. The paleontologist shall be on the site full time at all times during the grading
activities. Monitoring may be increased or decreased at the discretion of the
paleontologist, in consultation with the City, and will depend on the rate of
excavation, the fossil materials excavated, and their abundance.
d. The paleontologist shall be allowed to halt, divert, or direct grading in the area of
an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, to salvage
artifacts. The City Planning Department shall be immediately notified and shall
respond to the finding within 48 hours and shall approve salvaging procedures to
be performed before initial grading activities are allowed to resume in the affected
area.
e. All fossil remains collected shall be cleaned, sorted, catalogued, and then donated
to a public, non-profit institution that houses paleontological collections.
19 Rev. 03/28/96
f. A monitoring results report summarizing the results, analysis, and conclusions of
the above program, even if negative, shall be submitted to the City's Planning
Director within three months following the termination of the paleontological
monitoring program.
g. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the gradingkonstruction
activities on the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City
Engineer in consultation.
20 Rev. 03/28/96
21 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
22 Rev. 03/28/96
JANUARY 24,2002 ADDENDUM
FOR ZONE 19 PARK
TO EIA FOR CUP 01-22/HDP/01-07CDP 01-31
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15164 addresses the circumstances
under which an addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration is required and the required
procedures for an addendum. Pursuant to that section an addendum may be prepared if only
minor technical changes or additions are necessary and those technical changes or additions do
not trigger a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15 164 also directs that an
addendum need not be circulated but can be included in or attached to the final Negative
Declaration.
City staff has chosen to attach an addendum to the Negative Declaration for this project, even
though the proposed project is not changing in any way, in an effort to fblly inform the decision-
makers and the public regarding two items. The first is the proposed building height and the
second is the anticipated trip generation of the proposed park.
BuildinP Height
First, this project requires the approval of a Minor Master Plan Amendment for the building
height of the proposed community building. Staff had initially determined that the building
height was consistent with the height limitation on the property through an interpretation of the
Municipal Code. However, upon hrther consideration staff determined that a Minor Master Plan
Amendment was required to achieve the proposed building height.
The amendment is necessary to change the maximum height allowance called out in the Aviara
Master Plan to be consistent with the height allowed in the 0-S (Open Space) zones throughout
the City. When the Master Plan was approved an impracticable building height limit of 18’ was
included in the Master Plan. The reason for this height limitation is not clear. However, it is
more restrictive than the height limit for similar uses in 0-S zones elsewhere in the City. In
addition, after the Master Plan was approved, the City changed its definition of “building height”
(i.e., the way in which height is measured). In the past, building height: a) was measured to the
mid-point of a structure and, b) was measured from a point 5’ outside of the structure. Later the
building height definition was changed to measure building height to the peak of the roof and to
measure it from all points of the structure. This change effectively and inadvertently lowered the
maximum allowed building height in some of the planning areas in the Master Plan (including
the project site). Finally, the current height restriction effectively precludes the development of a
gymnasium or other similar public building. These buildings typically must be 30’ or higher in
order to allow adequate light and air into the building while accommodating public gatherings.
One portion of the proposed community building (the multi-purpose room) would measure
32’3%” at its peak. The remainder of the community building would be at a lower height,
varying from 16’ to 21’. The average of the various roof heights for the community building
would be 17’2”. Heights of the other proposed structures on the site are under 18’.
It should be noted that the proposed building height has not changed since the original EIA Part
I1 was prepared for the project. However, that EL4 Part 11 did not specifically reference the
JANUARY 24,2002 ADDENDUM
FOR ZONE 19 PARK
Page 2
TO EIA FOR CUP 01-22/HDP/Ol-O7CDP 01-3 1
Master Plan Amendment application number (MP 177(DD)) and did not specifically discuss the
needed amendment. Therefore, staff determined that it was appropriate to prepare an Addendum
to the original EIA Part 11.
Tri~ Generation
The second item requiring explanation is the trip generation for the project. The original EIA
Part I1 stated that the proposed park would generate 473 ADT (average daily trips). That figure
was based upon the trip generation calculation for a regional park. However, the proposed park
is a city park rather than a regional park. Therefore, the anticipated trip generation figure should
be 1,000 ADT. The project was reviewed and evaluated for the correct trip generation.
However, the number in the EIA Part I1 was not corrected. The street system around the park
remains adequate to handle all traffic to be generated by the park and no mitigation requirements
result from this calculation correction.
The City will hold a public hearing on this project. No new mitigation is proposed or required as
a result of the application for Minor Master Plan Amendment or the revised trip generation figure
and thus, is not made a condition of the project. The obtaining of appropriate permits (i.e., a
Minor Master Plan Amendment) is required of the project applicant. The Amendment
application has been added to the other permits being processed and has thus been incorporated
into the project. Therefore, no recirculation of the environmental document is required. The
mitigation measures originally included in the Mitigation Monitoring Report will continue to be
adequate for the project.
-2-
PROJECT NAME: Zone 19 Park FILE NUMBERS: MP 1771DD)/CUP 01-22LEDP 01-07/CDP 01-31
APPROVAL DATE: CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.:
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure
has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City’s monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3 180 (public Resources Code
Section 21081.6).
Mitigation Measure
1. To mitigate potential soils and geological impacts of the project, all
gradinglconstruction activities and operations shall comply with the
recommendations of the soils and geotechnical investigation, (Geotechnics,
Incowrated dated October 2001 and follow-up letter Erom Geotechnics
dated November 9,2001) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. The Developer shall install a physical barrier between the
grading/construction activities and the sensitive biological resources
(including the Del Mar Manzanita to prevent inadvertent impacts to off-site
sensitive resources.
Monitoring Monitoring
Department
Project Engineering
Project Planning
Shown on
Plans
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Exdanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation =When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information
RD - Appendix P.
II Mitigation Measure
7a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer shall
provide verification to the City of Carlsbad that a qualified paleontologist
has been retained to implement the resource mitigation monitoring on the
site. A qualified paleontologist is an individual with adequate knowledge
and experience with fossilized remains and who will be present during
grading to identify paleontological resources in the field and is adequately
experienced to remove the resources for fiuther study. Verification shall be
by letter from the applicant and paleontologist andor paleontological
monitor to the City and approved by the City's Planning Director.
7b. The qualified paleontologist shall attend any pre-grading andor pre-
construction meeting to consult with the grading and excavation
contractor(s). The requirement for paleontological monitoring shall be noted
on the grading and construction drawings.
7c. The paleontologist shall be on the site full time at all times during the
grading activities. Monitoring may be increased or decreased at the
discretion of the paleontologist, in consultation with the City, and will
depend on the rate of excavation, the fossil materials excavated, and their
abundance.
7d. The paleontologist shall be allowed to halt, divert, or direct grading in
the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if
necessary, to salvage artifacts. The City Planning Department shall be
immediately notified and shall respond to the finding within 48 hours and
shall approve salvaging procedures to be performed before initial grading
activities are allowed to resume in the affected area.
7e. All fossil remains collected shall be cleaned, sorted, catalogued, and then
donated to a public, non-profit institution that houses paleontological
collections.
7f. A monitoring results report summarizing the results, analysis, and
conclusions of the above program, even if negative, shall be submitted to the
City's Planning Director within three months following the termination of the
paleontological monitoring program.
7g. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the
gradinglconstruction activities on the project shall be resolved by the
Planning Director and City Engineer in consultation.
ExDlanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
l" Project
c L
Monitoring
Department
Planning &
Engineering
Shown on
Plans
No
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information
RD - Appendix P.