The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-01-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 55471 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. 5547 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE CHANGE IN GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OVER 2.74 ACRES FROM CONTINUATION SCHOOL TO OPEN SPACE AND THE REPLACEMENT AND REFURBISHMENT OF THE EXISTING BALL FIELD LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEM AT CHASE FIELD, WEST CORNER OF HARDING STREET AND CHESTNUT AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTH- CASE NO.: GPA 03- 12/CUP 00- 16(A) WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Block 61 of the Amended Map of the Town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map No, 775, filed in the Office of the County Recorder in the County of San Diego on March 12,1915 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of January, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 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 RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration, Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated December 26, 2003, and “PII” dated December 22,2003, 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 11 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of January 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HmMmER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5547 -2- - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: CHASE mELD LIGHTING UPGRADES GPA 03-12/CUP 00-16(A) Southwest corner of Harding Street and Chestnut Avenue, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a General Plan Amendment to change 2.74 acres from Continuation School (HC) to Open Space (OS) and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the replacement and refurbishment of the existing ball field lighting and electrical system at Chase Field. 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 Planning Commission. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed 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 Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvalladoption 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 Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD December 26,2003 to January 15,2004 PUBLISH DATE December 26,2003 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.c&~&@p.us @ - City of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Chase Field Lighting Upgrades CASE NO: GPA 03-12/CUP 00-16(A) PROJECT LOCATION: of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. The southwest corner of Harding Street and Chestnut Avenue in the City PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a General Plan Amendment to change 2.74 acres from Continuation School (HC) to Open Space (OS) and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the replacement and refurbishment of the existing ball field lighting and electrical system at Chase Field. 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, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. 0 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. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). 0 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: ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.car1sbad.ca.w ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART IT (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE N0:GPA 03-12/CUP 00-16(A) DATE: December 22,2003 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Chase Field Lighting Upgrades 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Michael Grim (760) 6024623 4. PROJECT LOCATION: The southwest comer of Harding Street and Chestnut Avenue. in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego 5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 405 Oak Av. Carlsbad CA 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Continuation School (HC) 7. ZONING: Open Space (0-3 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED @e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): none 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Request for a General Plan Amendment to change 2.74 acres from Continuation School (HC) to Ouen Space (OS) and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the replacement and refurbishment of the existing ball field lighting and electrical system at the existing baseball field comulex commonly known as Chase Field. The 2.74-acre site is currently designated Continuation School (HC) in the City’s General Plan and zoned Ouen Space (0-SI. North of the uroiect site is the future Northwest Quadrant Community Park. West and south of the site are single-family residences and east of the site is a mix of single- and multifamily residential uses. Currently occupying the site are three baseball fields and associated lighting and seating areas, a concessions stand, restrooms, batting cages and two small uicnic areas. 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. [7 Aesthetics Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Geology/Soils Noise 0 HazardslHazardous Materials u Population and Housing HydrologyniVater Quality 0 Public Services 0 Biological Resources c] Land Use and Planning [7 Recreation 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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 impoyd upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. 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 information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EIA-Part 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. OJlO3fO2 0 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, whch would otherwise be determined significant. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 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 hghway? Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 OH 0 OB 0 0 om c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 om 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 0 OB 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 0 OH b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 17 0 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? Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17 IXI 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: 0 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 0 0 [XI 17 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 IXI 0 c) 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 0 0 0 0 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Ixl IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 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? 0 17 IXI 0 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? 0 0 Ixl 0 c) 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? cl 0 Ixl 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation No Impact [XI IXI [XI IXI No Impact IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI Incorporated 0 0 0 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 0 0 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 0 0 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? 0 0 0 Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 0 0 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 0 0 o b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to 3 15064.5? 0 0 0 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 0 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 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 0 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 UIXI 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 (1 997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supportingthe 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 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than S~gnificant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No impact IXI [XI [XI [XI [XI IXI Ixi Kl IXI IXI IXI 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 Gy 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 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? 9 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 I7 0 17 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I7 NO Impact IXI Ixl El IXI IXI IXI El Ixl IXI IXI Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 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 0 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 0 17 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 dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. k) 1) o 0 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)? o 0 n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, flesh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LAND USE 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 pqose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 CI 0 0 0 c) 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? LessThan No Significant Impact Impact 0151 om 0151 om om om OB om om 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated cl 17 17 IXI 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: 0 0 Ixl 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 0 0 Ixl b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 cl IXI 0 0 0 IXI d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 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 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? X. 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 Ixl 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? 11 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ2 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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: 0 0 0 i) Fire protection? 0 0 ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? 0 0 0 63 iv) Parks? 0 v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION cl cl OIXI 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? 0 0 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, whch might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) 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)? 0 0 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 0 OIXI 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? 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 0 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) f) Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? 0 0 0 g) 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: 0 Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 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? 0 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 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? 0 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LessThan No Significant impact impact 0 ‘XI 0H o[xl 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, whch will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 OBI 0 0 OBI 0 0 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 The City of Carlsbad Public Works - General Services Department is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of Chase Field from Continuation School (HC) to Open Space (OS) and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the replacement and refurbishment of the existing ball field lighting and electrical system at Chase Field. The project site is located at the southwest comer of Harding Street and Chestnut Avenue. The 2.74-acre site is currently designated Continuation School (HC) in the City’s General Plan and zoned Open Space (0-S). North of the project site is the fkture Northwest Quadrant Community Park. West and south of the site are single-family residences and east of the site is a mix of single- and multifamily residential uses. Currently occupying the site are three baseball fields and associated lighting and seating areas, a concessions stand, restrooms, batting cages and two small picnic areas. The proposed General Plan Amendment would bring the General Plan land use designation into consistency with the Zoning designation of Open Space and the existing recreational uses. The proposed improvements would remove the 14 existing light poles and associated electrical system and replace them with eight new light poles and new electrical system The existing poles are approximately 55 to 65 feet tall and contain 1000 watt floodlights directed laterally to illuminate the playing fields. They are constructed of wood that has deteriorated and is in need of replacement. In addition, there is currently very little shielding of the lighting to address light spillage into the adjacent residential areas. The proposed light poles would reach 60 to 70 feet tall, allowing a more direct downward illumination of the ball fields, thus allowing fewer light poles. The proposed lighting system also provides shielding to preclude light spillage, as shown in the illumination diagram on Exhibit “D”, dated January 17, 2004, and as required by the construction specifications. AESTHETICS: No Impact. No scenic vistas or scenic resources, including rock outcroppings, or historic buildings, exist on or near the developed park site. The proposed upgrades to the ball field lighting would provide more direct illumination of the playing fields and less spillage of light into the adjacent residential areas. In addition, the proposed lighting would include shielding to fkrther block light spillage. Due to these project features, it is anticipated that light levels will be less than currently experienced in the neighboring areas. No significant adverse impacts to aesthetics are anticipated with the Chase Field Lighting Upgrades. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: No Impact. The project site is currently occupied by ball fields and associated buildings and landscaping, with no existing or previous agricultural activities taking place. There are no nearby farmlands or lands under Williamson Act contract, therefore no impact to such will occur. 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 (PM,,). 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 15 Rev. 07/03/02 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 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 0 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 way 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 16 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. As stated above, the project site is fully developed with ball fields and associated buildings and landscaping. No native vegetation or habitats exist on or near the property. In addition, no sensitive or endangered species reside or use the property. The City’s Habitat Management Plan does not identify the project site for preservation. Therefore, no adverse impacts to biological resources will occur. CULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. There are no recorded archeological sites located within or nearby the developed ball field site. In addition, no historic buildings or structures exist on the project site. Therefore, no adverse impacts to cultural resources will occur. GEOLOGY AND SOILS No Impact. Since the proposed lighting and electrical upgrades project would involve only minor trenching for electrical conduit and vaults and digging for lighting pole placement, no grading or earthwork would occur on the project site. No unique geological features exist on the flat and level ball field site. Therefore, no adverse impacts to geology or soil would occur. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS No Impact. The Chase Field site is not designated as a hazardous materials site nor is it located within an airport land use plan or in proximity to an airstrip. No uses other than the recreational uses and associated concessions are proposed therefore no significant sources of hazardous emissions or materials are anticipated. The project site is surrounded by public streets and is accessible to emergency services. Given the above, the project would not produce any significant adverse impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY No Impact. The proposed project does not involve any grading or earthwork and no revisions or improvements to the existing water service are proposed with the lighting and electrical upgrades. No wells or deep excavation are proposed therefore no impacts to groundwater supplies, recharge, or quality will occur. The project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain nor is it subject to flooding, seiches, tsunamis, or mudslides. As will other City sites, Chase Field must comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Therefore, the Chase Field Lighting Upgrades project will not cause any significant adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality. LAND USE AND PLANNING No Impact. The project site is currently developed with ball fields and associated buildings and landscaping and is surrounded by existing public roads. Implementation of the lighting and electrical upgrade project would not divide an established community nor, as discussed above, impact any native habitat or resource conservation area. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment from Continuation School to Open Space to provide consistency with the existing Open Space zoning and the existing recreational uses. Given the above, the proposed Chase Field Lighting Upgrades project will not produce any significant adverse impacts to land use or planning. 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 residents of the State will occur. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to mineral resources will occur. NOISE No Impact. The proposed Chase Field Lighting Upgrades project does not involve any expansion of the existing ball field complex nor does it involve the installation of any new public address systems or other noise generating devices. The noise generated by the Interstate 5 freeway reaches approximately 65 to 70 &A CNEL which is an acceptable range for recreational uses. Therefore, the proposed project does not produce any significant adverse noise impacts. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 POPULATION AND HOUSING No Impact. The proposed project does not involve the construction, displacement, or removal of housing and does not produce any increases in population. No housing exists on site nor uses the property for access. The proposed lighting and electrical upgrade project is not subject to the City’s Inclusionary Housing program. Therefore, the proposed project will not cause any significant adverse impacts to population and housing. PUBLIC SERVICES No Impact. The proposed lighting and electrical upgrade project will not result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities in that it complies with all requirements and standards of the Growth Management program and does not generate any additional facility impacts. All public facilities needed to serve the project are already in place and operational. Therefore, the Chase Field Lighting Upgrades project will not cause any significant adverse impacts to public services. RECREATION No Impact. The project does not propose to remove any existing recreational opportunities within the Chase Field ball field complex. The proposed lighting and electrical upgrades to Chase Field would improve the field level illumination, thus providing a more effective recreational opportunity. No extension in the hours of operation nor expansion of the park are proposed. Therefore, the project would not cause any significant adverse impacts to recreation. 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 proposed lighting and electrical upgrades project will generate no additional trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways Chestnut Avenue, Harding Street. 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 Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing ADT* Los Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43 El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C” 32-65 Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77 SR 78 120 “F’ 144 1-5 183-198 “D” 219-249 *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. Note that the buildout 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 buildout 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 18 Rev. 07/03/02 highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short- term and at buildout. 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 parking 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. (Note whether the project is near public transportation. If not, then state that the project is not served by or not located in an area conducive to public transportation.) (Note bike racks are not necessary for a single- family residential project. Otherwise, condition the project to install bike racks and note here that the project has been so conditioned.) UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - No Impact. All utility and service systems necessary for the operation of Chase Field are already in place. No adjustments to the water or irrigation system are proposed with the upgrades and no increase in water or power demand will occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the Chase Field Lighting Upgrade project 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 ImDact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 19 Rev. 07/03/02