Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 55231 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. 5523 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE CHANGE IN GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OVER 10.51 ACRES FROM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO OPEN SPACE AND OVER 0.16 ACRES FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY TO OPEN SPACE AND THE CHANGE TN ZONING OVER 0.16 ACRES FROM MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO OPEN SPACE AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP A COMMUNITY PARK OVER 7.36 ACRES AND THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES AND PARALLEL PARKING BAYS ON CHESTNUT AVENUE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF HARDING STREET, BETWEEN PINE AVENUE AND CHESTNUT AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: NORTHWEST QUADRANT COMMUNITY PARK AND SENIOR CENTER CASE NO.: GPA 03-09/ZC 03-06/CUP 03-18 WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Tract 110 of Carlsbad Lands, according to Map No. 1661, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on February 27, 1915; and Portions of Blocks 45,46, and 59 and Lots 5 through 10 of Town of Carlsbad Amended, according to Map No. 775, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on February 15,1893, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of December 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 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 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS a Negative Declaration, Exhibit ‘“I),” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated November 20, 2003, and “PIP’ dated November 10, 2003, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EL4 Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. ... ... ... ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5523 -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 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of December 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and White NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Whitton and Dominguez ABSTAIN: None @- 1 1 JuLI€hudR , Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: 3 Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5523 -3- - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: NORTHWEST QUADRANT PARK GPA 03-09/ZC 03-06/CUP 03-1 8 West of Harding Street between Pine Avenue and Chestnut Avenue in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A General Plan Amendment to change the designation of 10.51 acres from Elementary School (E) to Open Space and to change the designation of 0.16 acres from Residential Medium High Density (RMH) to Open Space; a Zone Change to change 0.16 acres from Multiple Family Residential (R-3) to Open Space (0-S); and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of a Community Park over 7.36 acres on a vacant, graded site previously occupied by an elementary school. 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 (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration 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 20 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvaVadoption 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 Blackburn in the Planning Department at (760) 602-462 1. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD NOVEMBER 20,2003 TO DECEMBER 10,2003 PUBLISH DATE NOVEMBER 20,2003 @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.cj,&g@?p&@.us Citofd . - 0 D-0, - NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Northwest Quadrant Community Park CASE NO: GPA 03-09/ZC 03-06/CUP 03-18 PROJECT LOCATION: West of Harding Street between Pine Avenue and Chestnut Avenue in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A General Plan Amendment to change the designation of 10.51 acres from Elementary School (E) to Open Space and to change the designation of 0.16 acres from Residential Medium High Density (RMH) to Open Space; a Zone Change to change 0.16 acres from Multiple Family Residential (R-3) to Open Space (0-S); and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of a Community Park over 7.36 acres on a vacant, graded site previously occupied by an elementary school. 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) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact I) 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. (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: Februarv 10,2004, pursuant to City Council Resolution Number 2004-043 ATTEST: Planning Director @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: GPA 03-09/ZC 03-06/CUP 03-18 DATE: November 10.2003 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Northwest Ouadrant Community Park 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Scott Bradstreet (760) 434-2856 4. PROJECT LOCATION: West of Harding Street. between Pine Avenue and Chestnut Avenue, City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego 5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad Recreation Department. 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad CA 92008 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Elementary School and Residential Medium High Density 7. ZONING: Open Space and Multiple Family Residential 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): none 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: A General Plan Amendment to change the designation of 10.51 acres from Elementary School (E) to Open Space and to change the designation of 0.16 acres from Residential Medium High Density (RMH) to Open Space; a Zone Change to change 0.16 acres from Multiple Family Residential (R-3) to Open Space (04); and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of a Community Park over 7.36 acres on a vacant, graded site previously occupied by an elementary school. The park would include a 20,000 square foot Community Center building, a 66,000 square foot multipurpose field, tot lot and picnic areas, shade structures and informal stage, ornamental garden, parking areas and landscaping. The project also involves the installation of traffic calming devices and parallel parking bays in the excess right-of-way on Chestnut Avenue. The park site is located in a urbanized are of the City and is surrounded by residential development. 1 Rev. 07/03/02 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 Apcultural Resources Air Quality 0 Biological Resources u Cultural Resources c] Noise HazardsKazardous Materials u Popu1ation and Housing 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Public Services 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Utilities & Service Systems L] Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) [XI 0 0 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact@)’’ 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. - 7-33 Date Date 3 Rev. 07/03/02 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 dormation source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than.significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EIA-Part 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 a An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part 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. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 ON o 17 ON I7 0 OH a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and hstoric buildings within a State scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? c) 0 ON d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. AGRICULTURAL 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: 0 om 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? 0 o 0 UIXI b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 5 Rev. Q7lQ3lO2 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? 111. 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 : Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for whch 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? 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 I7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significanl Impact 0 0 IXI IXI 17 0 0 0 No Impact IXI Ixl 0 0 IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Unless Impact Incorporated 0 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? 0 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? n ow ow Y o 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? n U Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: 0 0 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? n U OH 0 0 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? OH 0 IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 0 i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 0 0 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. 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 (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? 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? IV. 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? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 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 whch 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? Potentially Significant lmpact 0 0 I7 o 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Sign i ficani Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation LessThnn No Significant lmpact Impact Incorporated 0 El h) 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? 0 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 j) 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 darn?. 0 k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 OH 0 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 0 o m) 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)? 0 o 0 n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 ow 0 0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? 0 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? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 o 0 c) 0 0 OH om 0 ow X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 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? 0 OIXI 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? X. NOISE - Would the project result in: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or worlung in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 No Impact Ix1 IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI [XI IXI [XI Ixl 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? XIV. RECREATION Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 17 o 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? o 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? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) 0 Cause an increase in traffic, whch is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehcle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? o 0 b) 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? c) 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 om om 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 turn- 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 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 pennitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 El o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Unless Impact Incorporated 0’ 17 ISI 0 0 o n OB UIXI n U 0 0 n OB 13 Rev. 07/03/02 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 0 0 ow 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? 17 nIxI b) 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 OH c) 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 fiom 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 A General Plan Amendment to change the designation of 10.51 acres from Elementary School (E) to Open Space and to change the designation of 0.16 acres from Residential Medium High Density (RMH) to Open Space; a Zone Change to change 0.16 acres from Multiple Family Residential (R-3) to Open Space (0-S); and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of a Community Park over 7.36 acres on a vacant, graded site previously occupied by an elementary school. The park would include a 20,000-square foot Community Center building, a 66,000-square foot multipurpose field, tot lot and picnic areas, shade structures and informal stage, ornamental garden, parking areas and landscaping. The project also involves the installation of traffic calming devices and parallel parking bays in the excess right-of-way on Chestnut Avenue. The park site is located in an urbanized area of the City and is surrounded by residential development. AESTHETICS No Impact. The project site is a relatively flat, previously developed pad; no scenic vistas or scenic resources exist on the site. The proposed development would involve fewer buildings and structures than associated with the previous elementary school and the proposed community center has been designed to be compatible and in scale with the adjacent and neighboring buildings. The proposed ball fields will have lighting; however the lighting will be low sodium and will be shielded to prevent unnecessary light spillage onto adjacent properties. Additionally, standard park operations direct that all lights will be turned off at 1O:OO p.m. No impact assessed. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area and was previously an elementary school. No agricultural operations have occurred on site and no prime farmland or Williamson Act lands exists on or near the proposed park site. No adverse impacts to agricultural resources will occur as a result of the proposed community park project. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) . Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 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 (PMIo). 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 (SNAG). 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 and/or 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 15 125(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 UQS. 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: 15 Rev. 07/03/02 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? 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 \yay conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. a) 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. (Add the following text addressing short-term emissions, if there is grading associated with the project.) 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. b) 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 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) 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. d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from 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. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No Impact. As stated above the project site was previously completely developed as an elementary school and no native vegetation or habitats exist on or near the property. There a several mature trees on the site, some of which would remain with the park development. In addition, no sensitive or endangered species reside or use the property. The City’s Habitat Management Plan does not identify the site for preservation and no local policies or ordinances exist regarding the removal of mature non-native trees. Therefore, no adverse impacts to biological resources will occur. 16 Rev. 07/03/02 CULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. have no impact on cultural resources. No recorded archeological sites are located within or near the project site. Therefore, the project will GEOLOGY AND SOILS No Impact. The project proposes minor earthwork comprising 3,400 cubic yards of cut, 3,500 cubic yards of fill and up to 1,000 cubic yards of import. Ths represents approximately 450 cubic yards per acre. All grading must follow the City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards. According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazard Analysis and Mapping Study, no unusual geotechnical or seismic conditions exist on the project site. The park site is lot located within a Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone and is not subject to liquefaction or landslides. Therefore no adverse impacts due to geology or soils will occur. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS No Impact. The proposed community park development would not cause any significant impacts with regard to hazards or hazardous materials. The site for the park is not designated as a hazardous materials site nor is it located within an airport land use plan or proximity to an airstrip. No uses other than the passive and active play areas are proposed therefore no significant sources of hazardous emissions or materials are anticipated. The project is require to maintain an all-weather access road throughout construction and provide for emergency fire pretension water on site prior to the storage of any hazardous construction materials. Therefore, the Northwest Quadrant Community Park development would not produce any significant adverse impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY No Impact. No adverse hydrologic conditions or impacts are anticipated with the proposed community park development. No wells or deep excavation are proposed therefore no impacts to groundwater supplies, recharge, or quality will occur. The site grading closely follows the existing topography thus continuing to direct surface drainage towards the existing surface drainage systems on the surrounding local streets. The project site is not within the 100-year floodplain nor is it subject to flooding, seiches, tsunamis, or mudslides. The project is designed with Best Management Practices for storm water quality, including swales and subsurface drainage features, and must comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Therefore, the proposed community park project will not cause any significant adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality. LAND USE AND PLANNING No Impact. The project site is currently vacant, with the exception of an existing baseball field and is surrounded by existing roadways; therefore redevelopment of the site will not physically divide an established community. The proposed park development is consistent with and supportive to the surrounding residential, church, and education uses in the area. No impact assessed. MINERAL RESOURCES No Impact. There are no known mineral resources within the project area and no locally important mineral resource recovery site is delineated within the City’s General Plan or other land use plan. No loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region or the residents of the State will occur. Therefore, the proposed Northwest Quadrant Community Park project will not produce any significant adverse impacts to mineral resources. NOISE No Impact. POPULATION AND HOUSING No Impact. The Northwest Quadrant Community Park project does not propose any residential development and will provide needed recreational opportunities to the existing and hture residents of the City. The amount of park 17 Rev. 07/03/02 acreage needed to serve the community is determined through the City’s Growth Management Plan and is tied to the maximum amount of residential dwelling units possible in the area; therefore, development of the park would not induce substantial growth to the area. No existing housing exists on site nor uses the property for access and no displacement of any people would occur with redevelopment of the site. Should the City Council adopt a non- residential affordable housing linkage fee prior to the issuance of building permits, the project is conditioned to pay such a fee to compensate for the fair share costs of constructing housing affordable to lower income households. Therefore, the proposed community park project will not produce any significant adverse impacts to population and housing. PUBLIC SERVICE No Impact. The proposed 7.7-acre community park will not result in the need for new or physically altered government facilities in that it complies with all requirements and standards of the City’s Growth Management Program. It is located in proximity to Fire Station #I and is served by the Carlsbad Police Department. Since no residential development is proposed, the project would not generate additional student demand for the Carlsbad Unified School District. All other public facilities are required to be in place concurrent, or prior to, construction. Therefore, the Northwest Quadrant Community Park project will not produce any significant adverse impacts to public services. RECREATION No Impact. The proposed development consists of a 7.7-acre community park with active and passive field areas and a 20,000-square foot community center. Provision of the park will increase recreational opportunities in the City, therefore no adverse environmental impacts to recreation will occur with the construction and operation of the Northwest Quadrant Community Park. 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 390 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 25 peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways: Harding Street, Pine Avenue, Madison Street, and Chestnut Avenue. 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: Existing ADT* Los Build-out ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C“ 28-43 El Camino Real 21-50 ‘‘#-C* 32-65 Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77 1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249 SR 78 120 “F’ 144 *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 (e.g., 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. 18 Rev. 07/03/02 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. a) 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. b) 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. c) 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. d) 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 parkmg requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The project is located in an urbanized area. It is anticipated that many users of this park will walk to the site or use other alternative transportation. The project will be conditioned to install bike racks. No impact assessed. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS No Impact. The proposed community park is required to provide all necessary utility and service systems necessary to serve the development concurrent or prior to construction. The proposed 4 EDUs of wastewater can be accommodated in the local system without the need for expansions. The Carlsbad Municipal Water District has indicated that there are adequate water supply and water distribution systems to serve the proposed park development. The project also complies with all applicable regulations, including that for solid waste. Therefore, the proposed Northwest Quadrant Community Park will not cause any significant adverse impacts to utilities and service systems. 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 Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Stormwater Management Plan for the Northwest Quadrant Park, Citv of Carlsbad, California. Flores Lund Consultants. June 2003. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 3. Northwest Quadrant Communitv Park Master Plan Report. Schmidt Design Group. April 2003. 4. Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazard Analvsis and MaoDing Study. Leighton and Associates and David Evans and Associates, November 1992. 20 Rev. 07/03/02