Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 53981 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. 5398 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW A COMMUNITY PARK ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE BETWEEN SANTA CLARA WAY AND CONCORD STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 2. CASE NAME: LARWIN PARK CASE NO.: CUP 02-23/HDP 02- 1 1 WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, “Developer”/”Owner” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lot 68, Carlsbad Tract 74-04, per Map thereof No. 10128, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on June 25, 1981; also portions of Lot “J” in Rancho Agua Hedionda, per Partition Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on November 26, 1886 as File No. 170873; all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of April, 2003, 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. 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 Exhibits “NOI” dated March 6, 2003, “ND” dated April 2, 2003, and “PII” dated February 20, 2003, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinw: 1. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration CUP 02-23/HDP 02-11 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 11 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PC RES0 NO. 5398 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 15 2c 21 22 22 24 2: 2t 2: 21 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of April, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and White NOES: Commissioner Whitton ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None & Chairperson COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HMMIL!%R Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5398 -3- NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: LARWINPARK CASE NO: CUP 02-23/HDP 02-1 I PROJECT LOCATION: North side of Carlsbad Village Drive between Santa Clara Way and Concord Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A new 3.5-acre passive park and the continued operation of a dog park. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above-described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EN Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are 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 20 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackbum Planning Department at (760) 602-462 1. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD MARCH 6,2003 TO MARCH 26,2003 PUBLISH DATE MARCH 6,2003 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003 - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Larwin Park CASE NO: CUP 02-23/HDP 021 1 PROJECT LOCATION: North side of Carlsbad Village Drive between Santa Clara Way and Concord Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: a 3.5-acre passive park DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above- described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EM Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: 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. The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 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. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: April 2,2003, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5398 ATTEST: \ Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.car1sbad.ca.us @ (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CUP 02-23EIDP 02-1 1 DATE: February 20,2003 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Larwin Park LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Elaine Blackburn. 760-602-4621 PROJECT LOCATION: North side of Carlsbad Village Drive between Santa Clara Way and Concord Street PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad: 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: OS (&en &ace) ZONING: 0-S (&en Space) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): n/a PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed project consists of the development of a new small (3.5-acre) passive park and the continued use of an existing small (13,200 sf) dog park, each with associated off-street parking. The dog park and the proposed new passive park are each part of the same larger (22.3-acre) parcel. The existing dog park has been in operation since early 2001 without issue. The dog park use was approved in December 2000 when the Planning Commission adopted a Negative Declaration and approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 00-07) for the project. Thus, the dog park use was previously reviewed under CEQA. The development of the new 3.5-acre passive park area also requires CEQA review and a Conditional Use Permit. Because the two use areas are part of the same larger property, the City proposes to create a new CUP which would include both the dog park and the new passive park uses. (The new CUP would supercede the previously-approved dog park CUP. The project site is a 22.3-acre site located in the northeast quadrant of the City. The 22.3-acre parcel is bounded on the north, through a narrow corridor, by Buena Vista Creek. The site is bordered on the east and west by existing residential development, and on the south by Carlsbad Village Drive and more residential development. The majority of the property consists of naturally sloping topography and contains sensitive native habitat and ruderal vegetation. That portion of the property will remain in its natural condition. The site also contains two terraced flat pad areas which do not contain sensitive vegetation. One of these flat pad areas is immediately adjacent to Carlsbad Village Drive and contains the existing dog park. The other flat pad area is in the southeast comer of the site at the rear of the existing residential development. The 22.3-acre site was part of a Master Plan development approved in the early 1970's which created the surrounding residential developments and designated the 22.3-acre portion for future park development. 1 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 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils 0 Noise 0 Agricultural Resources Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 popu1ation and Housing 0 Air Quality Biological Resources 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Public Services 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Utilities & Service systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 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 frnd 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 “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 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 Negative Declaration 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. &”27-B3 Date n 3-20-03 Planning Director’s Signature Date 3 Rev. 07/03/02 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 ‘Wo Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EM-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 0 An EIR be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part 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. 5 Rev. Q7iQ3fQ2 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El OEl OEl 0 IXI OIXI IXIO 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL, RESOURCES - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or US. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or US. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact Ixl 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 No Impact 0 IXI IXI 0 IXI IXI 0 0 IXI [XI 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 5 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. 11. ... 111. iv. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 OH 0 OIXI 0 0 0 0 OIXI OIXI OIXI OIXI 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? W. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 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 Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff! Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Potentially Significant Impact o El o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 IXI IXI IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI IXI 0 0 0 IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 OH 0 om 0 OH 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? p) The exceedance.of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 0 OH 0 0 om c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation 0 0 OIX] plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 0 0 OH 0 OH resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally 0 important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 IXIO b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise 0 0 oIx1 levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 El0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above 0 HO levels existing without the project? 11 Rev. 07103102 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 0 0 IXI e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 0 0 IXI f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? W. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 0 0 0 IXI a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 0 0 0 IXI IXI b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Xm. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of whch could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI Ixl Ixl IXI IXJ 0 0 0 0 i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION 0 IXI 0 0 a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFC - Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project fIom existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation [ncorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 (XI IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 0 OIXI OIXI OIxl Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ixl IXI IXI XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: 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. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact - The project site is not within the Coastal Zone and contains no protected scenic vistas. The area surrounding the park to the east, south, and west is already developed with residential uses. The view to the north of the park site is a view of the interior of the park sitelopen space. The new park will be a passive park, containing only picnic facilities, children's play equipment, and a restroom building whch will not impede views in any direction. The restroom building will be less than 16' in height at the peak of the roof. Therefore, the project will not have any substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact - The project site contains no buildings (historic or otherwise) and is not located along a State scenic highway. The larger 22.3-acre parcel, of which the park is a 3.5-acre portion, contains trees and native vegetation. However, none of those trees and native vegetation will be disturbed. The 3.5-acre passive park will be on a flat pad area containing no scenic resources. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact - The project will consist of picnic facilities, children's playground equipment, and a small restroom building (945 sf). The restroom building will be no more than 16' in height and will be constructed of split-face masonry. Thus, the project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the area. d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated - Substantial lighting of the proposed park could have potentially significant impacts. Therefore, a mitigation measure has been included which ensures that only low-level pedestrian lighting needed for public safety be provided. The plans for the proposed park show only bollard lighting along the paved walkway and low-level lighting on the restroom building. This will mitigate any impact to a less than significant level. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact - The site is not currently farmed and does not contain any farmland mapped or designated as unique or of statewide importance. The project will not convert any farmland to non-agricultural use. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact - The site is not currently zoned for agricultural use and is not the subject of a Williamson Act contract. The site is zoned 0-S (Open Space) and has been designated for park use since the early 1970's. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact - The site of the proposed project is an open space area surrounding by urban development. The site has been designated for development as a park since the early 1970's. III. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 15 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact - The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP andlor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? 0 Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact - The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact - The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. 16 Rev. 07/03/02 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact - As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact - The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes ftom the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated - A Biological Resources Report was prepared for the project site by P&D Environmental in January 2003. That report identified the presence of native vegetation types, non-native vegetation types, and disturbed habitats within the report study area (the larger 22.3-acre site). The report also identified one special status habitat (Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub) and two special status species (the coastal California gnatcatcher and the southern California rufous-crowned sparrow) in the study area. The report concluded that the proposed project has been designed to avoid all direct impacts to native vegetation. That conclusion was partly based upon the proposed park and the proposed trail being placed outside of native habitats. Consequently, requirements to those effects have been made mitigation measures for the project. In addition a mitigation measure has been added which prohibits any construction activities during the California gnatcatcher breeding season (February 1 through September 15). b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact - The Biological Resources Report prepared identified no impacts to riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive resources identified in such regulations or plans. e) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact - The Biological Resources Report prepared identified no impacts to protected wetlands. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact - The Biological Resources Report prepared for the project site states that the study area (the 22.3-acre larger site) does not contain lands that are considered important in terms of regional connectivity. The report concludes that, although the study area provides important habitat for a variety of wildlife (including the California gnatcatcher), the proposed park would not significantly reduce the quantity or quality of the habitat and would not result in significant impacts to wildlife movement patterns. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated - The proposed project, specifically the expansion of the parking area for the existing dog park, will require the removal of ten eucalyptus trees. The trees themselves are not subject to protection under a tree preservation policy or ordinance. However, the time of their removal could result in potentially significant impacts to nesting birds. Therefore, mitigation measures have been added which would require that, prior to removal of the trees, a qualified biologist conduct a nest survey to ensure that no active nests 17 Rev. 07/03/02 are present and that trees which provide nesting habitat for buds be removed outside of the breeding season. These measures will reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. r) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact - The proposed project will not conflict with any adopted resource preservation plan. The City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan identifies the project site as a developed urban area. g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? No Impact - The Biological Resources Report prepared identified no impacts to any tributary. CULTURAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact - The project site does not contain any identified historical resources. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? No Impact - The project site does not contain any identified significant (or other) archeological resources sites. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact - The project site does not contain any identified paleontological resources and contains no identified unique geologic features. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact - The project site is not known to contain any human remains and is not known to have been used as a burial site. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS-Would the project: No Impact - The project site has been the subject of three geotechnical investigations. The first two were prepared in 1984 and 1991. An Updated Geotechnical Investigation was prepared in October 2002 by Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc. for the proposed project. That report concluded that the project site was suitable for the proposed project and no potential problems or potentially significant impacts were identified. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS-Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact - The proposed passive park use would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and would not be expected to be hazardous to the public. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact - The proposed passive park use would not involve the routine use or storage of hazardous materials and would not be expected to be hazardous to the public. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact - The proposed project would not require the use or storage of substantial amounts of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. In addition, the project site is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. 18 Rev. Q7lQ3IO2 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? No Impact - The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites. e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? people residing or working in the project area? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for No Impact - The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and is not within two miles of a public airport and the proposed passive park use would not result in a safety hazard. The project site is already surrounded by existing residential development. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact - The project involves the development of a small passive park on an open space property surrounded by urban development. The development of the proposed project on this site would not impair or interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. It would also not expose people or structures to significant risk. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less Than Potentially Significant Impact (a, d, e, f,) - A Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan was prepared for the project by GW Consultants. That report indicates that, since the project area is less than 5 acres in size, under current regulations a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is not required. However, under San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) Order 2001-01, the project is required to eliminate or reduce to the maximum extent practicable pollutants leaving the site in stormwater. The project does not propose any significant modification to existing drainage area boundaries. A small diversion of drainage into the existing storm drain in Vancouver Street is proposed to reduce erosion due to drainage currently flowing westerly into the natural canyon. To eliminate or reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during both construction and post-construction or operating phases. A Preliminary Hydrology Report was prepared for the proposed project by GVP Consultants in September 2002. To control erosion of the canyon and to avoid impacts of constructing a storm drain to the bottom of the canyon, the proposed project has been designed to divert 1.6 acres of the area to be graded into the existing storm drain and would increase the 100-year runoff by 2.7 cfs. The report states that the existing storm drain has sufficient capacity to accommodate the minor increase in flow and drains into an existing detention basin which would further mitigate the effects of the increase. No Impact (b, c, g, h, i, j, k, 1, m, n, 0, p)- The proposed project would not directly draw any groundwater. The project will be served by existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site. The proposed project does not involve the development of any housing. Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? The proposed project would not place any structures within the 100-year flood hazard area. According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area, or area subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. The project site is not located immediately adjacent to any body of water. Drainage from the site is subject to the City's drainage and storm water pollution control standards (NPDES and best management practices, which ensure that any sediment and pollutants discharged from the development of the site will be reduced to the maximum extent possible. Also, the City's drainage and storm water pollution control standards ensure that development does not reduce water quality of any marine, fresh, or wetland waters or groundwater. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact - The project site is part of an area developed in the early 1970’s (part of it under a Master Plan). At that time the project site was designated for future park development. Therefore, the project will not divide an established community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact - The project site has a General Plan designation of “OS” (Open Space) and is zoned “0-S” (Open Space). The proposed use is an allowed use (subject to the approval of a CUP) in the Open Space designation and in 0-S zoning. Thus, the project is consistent with the City’s land use plan, zoning, and all other applicable regulations and plans. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact - The project site is an open space area designated for park use. The City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan shows the project area as a developed area. X. MINERAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a) 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? No Impact - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact - The site does not contain any mineral resources and is not delineated on any land use plan or other plan as such. XI. NOISE-Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact - The operation of the proposed passive park use would not be expected to generate noise levels which would exceed the City’s allowed noise levels of 60 dbA CNEL. During construction some noise will be generated by grading equipment and construction. However, such activities would be governed by existing City regulations limiting the days and hours of such operations. In addition, the project involves only limited grading and thus will not require the large grading equipment necessary for development of larger projects. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? No Impact - The proposed passive park use would not be expected to create vibration or groundbourne noise. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above Less Than Significant Impact - The proposed park use would not be expected to create a substantial permanent noise increase. The park will be passive containing only picnic areas, playground equipment, and a restroom. There may be some temporary noise increase during gradinglconstruction. However, that noise will be of very short 20 Rev. 07/03/02 duration. In addition, all such activities will be subject to the standard City regulations governing the days and hours of such activities. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact - The project site is located approximately miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport. However, the site is not located within an area impacted by excessive noise levels generated by the airport. The site is not located near any other public or private airport. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people to excessive noise levels generated fi-om an airport. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact - The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and the proposed park use would not result in exposure to excessive noise levels. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING-Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact - The proposed project involves the development of a small passive park to serve the existing surrounding neighborhood. The project site is located in a fully developed urban area. The small size and passive nature (picnic areas and playground area) would be unlikely to be used by people living any substantial distance from the project site. The project does not necessitate any extension of new roads or other infrastructure. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact - The proposed project would not displace any existing housing. The project site is an open space area designated since the 1970’s for a park. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact - The proposed project would not displace any people. The project site is an open space area designated since the 1970’s for a park. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? V. Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact - The proposed project site is in an urban area adequately served by Fire and Police protection. The proposed passive park would not be expected to create a potentially significant increase in demand for such services. The proposed park would generate no increase in demand for schools, parks, or other public facilities since it would serve existing surrounding development. 21 Rev. 07/03/02 XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact - The project involves the development of a passive park that would be used by the surrounding residents and others. Because the proposed park is small and totally passive, it is unlikely that it would attract users fiom the area much beyond the surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, the project would not accelerate the deterioration of existing facilities, but would provide an additional recreational opportunity. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact - The proposed project is the development of a passive park to serve existing recreational needs. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less Than Significant Impact - The project will generate 114 additional Average Daily Trips (ADT). This traffic will utilize the following roadways: Carlsbad Village Drive and Vancouver Street. Existing traffic on this arterial is 7,699 ADT (2001) and the 2001 peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection impacted by the project is A. The design capacity of the arterial road effected by the proposed project is 40,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent an insignificant amount of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact - SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Build-out average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Rancho Santa Fe Road El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road SR 78 1-5 Existing ADT* 15-32 21-50 10-52 120 183-198 - LOS Buildout ADT* “A-C” 28-43 “A-C” 32-65 “F’ 144 “D’ 2 19-249 “A-B” 29-77 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (eg, SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the build-out ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the build-out projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short- term and at build-out. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact - The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact - All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact - The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. 9 Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact - The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. The proposed project would include the provision of 16 new parking spaces for the passive park use. The project would also provide 11 new spaces for the existing dog park area (which provides 9 spaces already) for a total of 20 spaces for the dog park. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact - The project site is in an urbanized area served by public transportation (bus). The project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS-Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact - The proposed park development will be required to comply with all applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 2 anticipated that the project site would be developed with a park use. Wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate the build-out of the zone. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilitiedsupplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. The proposed project has been reviewed by the local solid waste disposal provider (Coast Waste). Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed park use on the site without exceeding landfill capacities. In addition, the proposed park development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 23 Rev. 07/03/02 EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 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. 1. Final Master Environmental Imact ReDort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Negative Declaration for Dog Park (CUP 00-07). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. December 2000. 24 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Prior to the removal of eucalyptus trees, a qualified biologist will conduct a nest survey to ensure that no active nests are present. Trees that provide nesting habitat for birds shall be removed outside of the breeding season (February 1 through September 15). The proposed trail connection shall be placed outside of native habitats to reduce impacts associated with anthropogenic encroachment. This trail placement shall be shown on the project plans. The proposed park area shall not extend beyond the existing fence that is currently in place at the top of the slope to ensure the preservation of coastal sage scrub. This placement shall be shown on the project plans. Construction activities shall be prohibited during the California gnatcatcher breeding season (February 1 through September 15). Additional water runoff created by development of the park shall not be “sheet drained” into the canyon, but shall be collected or directed to an existing storm drain system. Only low-level pedestrian lighting shall be used in this park. Prior to construction the grading limits for this project shall be delineated. A biologist shall review the grading limits to verify that no impacts to habitat will occur. In the event that such delineation would encroach into sensitive resources, the grading limits shall be revised in the field to eliminate any impacts. 25 Rev. 07/03/02 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. &4 3 20Q3 Date ' / , 26 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 1 PROJECT NAME: Lawin Park FILE NUMBERS: CUP 02-23/HDP 02-1 1 APPROVAL DATE: April 2,2003 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 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). encroachment. This trail placement shall be shown on the , project plans. fence that is currently in place at the top of the slope to ensure the preservation of coastal sage scrub. This placement shall be 4. The proposed park area shall not extend beyond the existing Project Planning Dept. Yes shown on the project plans. I I 1 I 5. Construction activities shall be prohibited during the California I Project I Planning Dept. I No I gnatcatcher-breeding season (February 1 through September 15). 6.Additional water runoff created by development of the park shall Project Public Works No not be “sheet drained into the canyon, but shall be collected or Dept. .directed to an existing storm drain system. 7. Only low-level pedestrian lighting shall be used in this park. Project Planning Dept. Yes 8. Prior to construction the grading limits for this project shall be Project Planning Dept. No delineated. A biologist shall review the grading limits to verify that no impacts to habitat will occur. In the event that such delineation would encroach into sensitive resources, the grading limits shall be revised in the field to eliminate any Explanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. 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, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P.