Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 60391 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6039 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE 4 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A COMMUNITY PARK ON A VACANT SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN AT THE g NORTHWEST CORNER OF POINSETTIA LANE AND ALICANTE ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 7 ZONE 10. CASE NAME: ALGA NORTE COMMUNITY PARK 8 CASE NO.: CUP 04-08 9 WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, "Developer/Owner," has filed a verified 10 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 11 Lot 5 of Carlsbad Tract No. 99-03 - La Costa Greens, according to Map No. 14543, filed in the Office of the County 13 Recorder of the County of San Diego on February 12, 2003, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California 14 ("the Property"); and 1fi WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said 17 project; and 18 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of March, 2006, hold a 19 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 20 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 21 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 22 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors 24 relating to the Negative Declaration. 25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning ° Commission as follows: 27 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration, Exhibit "ND," 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 according to Exhibits "NOI" dated February 10, 2006, and "PII" dated February 2, 2006, 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 EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, and Whitton ABSENT: Commissioner Segall ABSTAIN: MARTELL B. MONcOMERJiyhairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING CONIMISSION ATTEST: DONNEU Assistant Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6039 -2- City of Carlsbad CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Planning Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION Alga Norte Community Park CUP 04-08 North of Poinsettia Lane, west of Alicante Road, City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego, State of California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of a 32.11 acre community park on a vacant site within the La Costa Greens portion of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan area. 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: [X] The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. d] 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). O 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: March 1. 2006, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6039 ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 6O2-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us City of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Alga Norte Community Park CUP 04-08 North of Poinsettia Lane, west of Alicante Road, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of a 32.11 acre community park on a vacant site within the La Costa Greens portion of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan area. 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) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions^ please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD February 10. 2006 through March 1. 2006 PUBLISH DATE February 10, 2006 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • wwvJaaii»a8l^tJea*.ca.us J ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CUP 04-08 DATE: February 2. 2006 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Alga Norte Community Park 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Michael Grim 760-602-4623 4. PROJECT LOCATION: North of Poinsettia Lane, west of Alicante Road. Citv of Carlsbad 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad Recreation Department 760-434-2824 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space (OS) 7. ZONING: Open Space (Q-S) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): none 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of a 32.11 acre community park on a vacant site within the Villages of La Costa Master Plan area. The 34.4 gross acre site is located on the northeast corner of Poinsettia Lane and Alicante Road, and within the La Costa Greens portion of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. North and west of the park site are natural open space areas. East of the site, across Alicante Road is natural open space and to the south, across Poinsettia Lane, is the La Costa Resort and Spa Golf Course. The site has been cleared of vegetation in association with the Villages of La Costa Master Plan development. The major components of the park would include baseball fields, basketball courts, tot lots, aquatic complex, passive recreations areas, and various administration, operations and maintenance, concessions, and restroom buildings. The Alga Norte Park Master Plan was approved by the City Council on January 14, 2003 and the proposed park development is consistent with the approved Master Plan. An environmental analysis of the potential impacts associated with the Alga Norte Community Park was conducted by the certified Program Environmental Impact Report for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (MP 98-01/EIR 98-07). With the exception of grading, sewer demand, and traffic generation, the proposed community park conforms with the project described in the Program EIR and, therefore, is within the scope of the Final Program EIR and no additional environmental documentation is necessary. As such, this environmental assessment only evaluates the potential impacts associated with geology and soils (site grading), utilities and service systems (sewer), and transportation (vehicular traffic generation). Rev. 01/11/06 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. | | Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources I | Geology/Soils Noise Hazards/Hazardous Materials J Population and Housing J Hydrology/Water Quality | | Public Services Land Use and Planning | | Recreation Mineral Resources I | Mandatory Findings of Significance I (Transportation/Circulation | | Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 01/11/06 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) D D 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 jare imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. Planning Director's Signature Date I f Date 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 II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all 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. Rev. 01/11/06 • 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 II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. 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: 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n n n b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Rev. 01/11/06 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? III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact~ ~ ~D D D 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? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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? 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? D D D D D D D D Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact D No Impact D El V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the I I significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- I I cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? 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? VI. 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: 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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including I I liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? D El El Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) 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? d) 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporatedn Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n D e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? n n n n EI n m n EI El Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact D D b) 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)? c) 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? d) 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? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) 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? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) 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? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? n n n EI n EI EI El n EI Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 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? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 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? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact D D D D n n 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? 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? n n 10 Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D IE1 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? 11 Rev. 01/11/06 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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)? of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 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? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? 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: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) 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? c) 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level I I D D D D D D D D 12 Rev. 01/ll/OS Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated n n Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n n n n n 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, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 13 Rev. 01/11/06 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a 32.11 acre community park. An environmental analysis of the potential impacts associated with the Alga Norte Community Park was conducted by the certified Program Environmental Impact Report for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (MP 98-01/EIR 98-07). With the exception of grading, sewer demand, and traffic generation, the proposed community park conforms with the project described in the Program EIR and, therefore, is within the scope of the Final Program EIR and no additional environmental documentation is necessary for potential impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, and recreation. As such, this environmental assessment only evaluates the potential impacts associated with geology and soils (site grading), utilities and service systems (sewer), and transportation (vehicular traffic generation). No site-specific grading was evaluated in the Program EIR, therefore potential impacts to geology and soils must be evaluated. The sewer demand for the park was estimated at 20 EDU in the Program EIR, however primarily due to the aquatic complex, the projected sewer demand is now 104 EDU. Traffic generation also exceeds that reviewed by the Program EIR, mostly due to the aquatic complex. The total projected traffic generation is 3,150 ADT; the generation reviewed by the Program EIR was 1,720 ADT. As described below, the proposed grading, sewer demand, and traffic generation do not create any significant adverse environmental impacts. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: The project site is located within a north-south trending valley and has been cultivated for agricultural purposes in the past. According to the project-specific geotechnical evaluation, conducted by Ninyo & Moore and dated September 29, 2002, the site is dominated by alluvium, thus the grading operation may involve overexcavation and removal and/or recompaction of these alluviums. Groundwater was encountered on the site, however due to its depth, it is not expected to a constraint in construction. No active faults cross the project site and there is a low potential for ground rupture due to faulting. By removing and recompacting the upper 12 or more feet of alluvium in areas designated for a structural load, the potential for liquefaction is low. The proposed park development would involve grading volumes of 143,500 cubic yards (cy) cut, 221,500 cy fill, and 92,350 cy of import. All grading operations must follow the City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements, including but not limited to, erosion control and slope stability. Therefore, no substantial soil erosion or geologic instability is expected to occur. Given the above, no significant adverse environmental impacts to geology or soils are anticipated with the Alga Norte Community Park project. 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 3,150 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 216 peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways Alicante Road and Poinsettia Lane. Buildout traffic on Alicante Road is 9,000 ADT and 18,000 ADT on Poinsettia Lane (SANDAG 2020 Forecast). The design capacities of the arterial roads effected by the proposed project are 10,000 and 40,000 vehicles per day, respectively. The project traffic would represent 35% and 31% of the buildout traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: 14 Rev. 01/11/06 Existing APT* LOS Buildout APT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 "A-P" 35-56 El Camino Real 27-49 "A-C" 33-62 Palomar Airport Road 10-57 "A-P" 30-73 SR78 124-142 "F" 156-180 1-5 199-216 "D" 260-272 *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 APT 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 highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short- term and at buildout. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Pepartments. No impact assessed. f) 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. g) 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.) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: The project site is served by a 12 inch sewer main in Alicante Road and a 12 inch force main in Poinsettia Lane. The proposed sewer demand of 104 EPU was reviewed by the City of Carlsbad Public Works division with regard to service systems and treatment capacity. According to this analysis and the Sewer Master Plan Update Final Report, dated March 2003, the existing sewer system and wastewater treatment capacity at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility are adequate to accommodate the project sewer demand. Therefore, no significant 15 Rev. 01/11/06 adverse environmental impacts due to sewer demand are anticipated to occur as a result of the Alga Norte Community Park. 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. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (EIR 98-07), T&B Planning Consultants. July 2001. 3. Alga Norte Community Park Traffic Letter Report. LOS Engineering, Inc. July 2004. 4. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report for Alga Norte Community Park, Carlsbad, California, Ninyo & Moore. September 2002. 5. Sewer Master Plan Update Final Report. City of Carlsbad, Dudek & Associates, March 2003. 16 Rev. 01/11/06