HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-05; City Council; 16208; Park At Carlsbad Research Center/Parks InventoryCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
AB# /6JoB TITLE:
DESIGNATION OF A CITY PARK SITE WITHIN THE
MTG. d-5--6( CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER - SP 180(F), AND
UPDATING THE GENERAL PLAN PARKS INVENTORY FOR
DEPT. PLN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT - GPA 00-08
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
CITY ATTY. ’
CITY MGm
That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NJ d 58s; amending the Carlsbad
Research Center Specific Plan, SP 180(F); and ADOPT Resolution No. Joe/ - 160 , APPROV-
ING the Negative Declaration processed with SP 180(F), and General Plan Amendment GPA 00-08.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The proposed development of the new Public Works Center (entitled via conditional use permit (CUP
01-02) which the Planning Commission approved on May 2, 2001) has generated the need to
perform various tasks related to parks in the NE Quadrant and in Zone 5. These tasks are
summarized below:
l As a consequence of the proposed Public Works Center, the existing ballfield area will be
converted into parking consistent with the long-standing plan to develop Governmental
Facilities on the entire site. Since the ballfield is on the parks inventory in the General Plan
for the NE Quadrant, an amendment to the Parks and Recreation Element of the General
Plan is necessary (GPA 00-08) to adjust the parks inventory. As part of this adjustment, the
Skateboard Park will be added to the inventory as well as a “floating” IO-acre ballfield/park
site within zone 14. These actions will ensure parks compliance per Growth Management in
the NE Quadrant.
l Staff is proposing to mitigate the removal of the existing ballfield by providing an interim
facility in Zone 5. On April 18, 2001, the Planning Commission approved CUP 01-01, which
approved the replacement ballfield on a portion of a future city park site on the corner of
Faraday Avenue and Camino Hills. The replacement field is part of a larger parcel that is the
future Zone 5 Park site. CUP 01-01 also required a Specific Plan Amendment (SP 180-F) to
specifically designate the subject lot (Lot 96 of the Carlsbad Research Center) as a city park
site, since a park use is not currently allowed by the specific plan. The Planning
Commission’s approval of CUP 01-01 included a recommendation to the City Council that the
specific plan amendment be approved, along with the Negative Declaration.
It is recommended that the City Council approve both the General Plan Amendment, GPA 00-08,
and the Specific Plan Amendment, SP 180(F) and related Negative Declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
GPA 00-08 involves adjustments to the parks inventory and has no impacts to the environment. The
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply, per Section 15061 (b)(3), since no
development is involved; and it can be seen with certainty that the project (parks inventory changes)
will have no impact on the environment.
The Specific Plan Amendment, SP 180(F) has been addressed by a Negative Declaration that
received Planning Commission recommendation for Council approval. Staff recommends that the
Council consider and approve the Negative Declaration prepared by the Planning Director on March
22, 2001 for CUP 01-01 and SP 180(F), which collectively entitle the interim replacement ballfield at
the southeast corner of Faraday Avenue and Camino Hills Drive.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. lQ,ao8-
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no fiscal impacts to the City.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Ordinance No. NS. - 5)s’
2. City Council Resolution No. sob/ - 166
3. Location Map
4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4941, 4943, 4944
5. Staff Report - CUP 01-Ol/SP 180(F), dated April 18, 2001
6. Staff Report - GPA 00-08, dated April 18, 2001
7. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, April 18, 2001.
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
ORDINANCE NO. NS485
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CARLSBAD
RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 180-E) TO
DESIGNATE A PARK SITE ON THE SE CORNER OF CAMINO
HILLS DRIVE AND FARADAY AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 5 AND AMEND SIGNAGE
REQUIREMENTS
CASE NAME: ZONE 5 PARK INTERIM BALLFIELD
CASE NO.: SP 180(F)
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, has reviewed and
considered a Specific Plan Amendment to revise the list of permitted uses within Area 1 to
specifically designate Lot 96 of the Carlsbad Research Center (APN: 212-130-21) as a city park
site; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2001, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and after procedures
in accordance with the requirements of law, the City Council of Carlsbad has determined that
the public interest indicates that said specific plan amendment be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
ordain as follow:
SECTION 1: That the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan Amendment, SP
180(F), dated April 18, 2001, on file in the Planning Department, and incorporated by reference
herein, is approved. The Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan Amendment shall constitute
the zoning for this property and all development of the property shall conform to the Plan. The
amendment to the specific plan is the designation of Lot 96 as the site of a city park intended to
serve workers of the industrial office parks in the area. It requires the addition of the following
item #I 2 to the list of Permitted Uses for Area 1, as found on page 12, to read as follows:
“Lot 96 at the southeast corner of Camino Hills Drive and Faraday Avenue (APN:
212-130-21) is designated as a city park site subject to the approval of a conditional use permit”
3 I
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
SECTION 2: The amendment to the specific plan is the repeal of text in the
General Development Standards, Landscape Section regarding signage. This Section shall
read as follows:
“All primary entryways to the industrial park shall receive special landscape
treatment. Such treatment shall include a distinctive landscape design consisting of
groundcover and hedgerows combined with contour berming.”
SECTION 3: That the findings and conditions of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 4943 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the 5th day of June 2001, and thereafter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 31)n1-166
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN UPDATE TO THE
PARKS INVENTORY OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (GPA 00-08) AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO DESIGNATE A PARK SITE ON
LOT 96 (SP 180-F) IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: SAFETY CENTER BALLFIELD/NORTHEAST
QUADRANT PARKS INVENTORY-ZONE 5
PARK INTERIM BALLFIELD
CASE NO.: GPA 00-08
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2001, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly
noticed hearing to consider a proposed General Plan Amendment and Negative Declaration to
update the parks inventory of the NE Quadrant within the Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan, and designate a lot (Lot 96) within the Carlsbad Research Center to allow for a
city park use; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on 5th day of
June , 2001, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
recommendation and heard all persons interested in, or opposed to, GPA 00-08; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the Zone 5 Park Interim Ballfield
project, and it was determined that a Negative Declaration could be issued for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the recommendations of the Planning Commission for the approval
of a Negative Declaration, Specific Plan Amendment (SP 180-F) and General Plan
Amendment (GPA 00-08) is approved and the findings and conditions of the Planning
Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4941, 4943 and 4944, on file
with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the
City Council.
3. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The provisions of Chapter 1 .I6 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial
Review” shall apply:
. . . . 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
il
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been
made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in
the appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following the date
on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the
decision becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in an
amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such
record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is
extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the
record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney
of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the
record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of
Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA. 92008.”
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 5th day of June , 2001, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Nygaard, and Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Counci er Finnila.
CLAUD&!!@!/$ f&/or
ATTEST: ,v.’ -, ‘.. ,__.- ,*.,’
,py.q(~ & ( ,T,,4i,, +p-j? .;;;,), T;F >T-pf xc
\
LO&NE M. &I, CD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
EXHIBIT 3
ZONE 5 PARK-
INTERIM BALLFIELD
SP 180(F) 7
.
’ Ele’rn.
Crhrr.4 v
+r
““I
-a .
F Lake
Calavera
SITE
SAFETYCENTERBA
E. QUADRANT PARKS
GPA 00-08
@
WOKlll
,LLFIELD/
INVENT0
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
EXHIBIT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4941
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW
THE OPERATION OF AN INTERIM BALLFIELD AT THE
FUTURE ZONE 5 PARK SITE LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CAMINO HILLS DRIVE AND
FARADAY AVENUE AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE
SPECIFIC PLAN TO DELETE LANGUAGE ON SIGNS IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: ZONE 5 PARR INTERIM BALLFIELD
CASE NO.: CUP 01 -Ol/SP 180(F)
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Developer”/“Owner,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lot 96 of Carlsbad Tract 85-24, Unit 5 per Map 12815 as
recorded in the Offke of the County Recorder, San Diego, on
May 16,199l. APN: 212-130-21
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of April, 2001, 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:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated March 22, 2001, and “PII” dated March 14,
2001, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
c/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
?O
!l
!2
!3
!4
!5
!6
!7
!8
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration ZONE 5 PARK
INTERIM BALLFIELD the environmental impacts therein identified for this
project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVING
of 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 18th day of April 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman
ABSTAIN:
A a
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4941 -2- /6
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Southeast comer of Camino Hills Drive and Faraday Avenue on
Lot 96 within the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan
Project Description: Interim Ballfield proposed for a future park site
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4608.
DATED: MARCH 22,200l
CASE NO: CUP Ol-Ol/SP 180(F)
CASE NAME: ZONE 5 PARR INTERIM BALLFIELD
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 22,ZOOl
MICHAEL J. HOLmILL%R
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP 0 1 -Ol/SP 180(F)
DATE: March 12.2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: ZONE 5 PARR - INTERIM BALLFIELD
2. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD -; PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad.
92008. Mark Stevaert: 434-2855
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBhUITED: Januarv 18.2001
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Interim Ballfield on the future Zone 5 Park site located on Lot 96 of
the Carlsbad Research Center/APN: 212- 130-2l/SE comer of Camino Hills Drive and Faraday
Avenue. The site has alreadv been graded for industrial office development so the environmental
review focuses on the Dark use and comnliance with the CRC Suecific Plan.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Ix1 Land Use and Planning lxl Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
q Population and Housing q Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
q Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
III Water q Hazards q Cultural Resources
q Air Quality q Noise Ix1 Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96 /a
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
lxl
III
cl
cl
III
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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A(n) is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature Date
Planning Dire&i% SiEture Date
13
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting. evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect 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 significant.
Based on an “EL4-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but 4 potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence
that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
l An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the 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.
Rev. 03/28/96 /a--
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a)
b)
4
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
cl
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-I - 5.5-6)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a)
b)
d
4
d
f)
is)
h)
9
* - expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (# 1 :Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#I :Pgs 5.1-I -
5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q q q
cl
q q
q q q
q
cl
q
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
q
u q
q q q
cl
q
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
lzl-
q
Ix)
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
q
q q
q q q
q
q
>I
SO
Impact
q
lxl
q
lxl
lz.l
Ix]
Ix)
Ix1
[x1, Ix1 El
Ix)
Ix) lxl
l.24 IXI Ix1
IXI
lxl
IXI
i6 5 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
e)
0
ia
h)
i)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2;11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a>
b)
c>
4
e)
f)
g>
proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffk impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, f=h, insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
6
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
lmpacr
Rev. 03128196
q
q
q
q
q
q
IXI
q
q
q
El
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El
Ix]
lxl
lxl
lxl
lzl
q
Ix1
lxl
Ix1
q
lxl
Ia
l.xl
Ix)
lxl
Ix1
IXI
lxl
/?
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
cl
4
e)
VIII.
4
b)
cl
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l :Pgs 5.4-1
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-I - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-s)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
a)
b)
d
4
e)
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -
5.12.8-7)
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q q
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El cl q q q
NO
Impact
lxl
Ix)
El
lxl
Ix1
Ix)
El
Ix1
lzl
Ix1
El
El
lzl
El
IXI
lxl
lxl
(x1
Rev. 03128196 7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a)
b)
cl
d>
3
f)
g)
XIII.
a)
b)
cl
XIV.
a)
b)
cl
d)
e)
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Communications systems? ( )
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#I :Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.1 l-l - 5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-I -5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-l - 5.11-S)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-I - 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-I - 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
1 - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
b)
XVI.
a)
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-l -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-I - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated q
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significanl
Impact
q
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
Cl
NO
Impact
ISI
1x1
IXI
ISI
lxl
IXI
IXI
lxl
lzl
El
(XI
lxl
lxl
lxl
(x1
El
lxl
(XI
/P
Rev. 03f28196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than NO
b)
cl
XVII.
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? q q q El
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, q q q lzl
either directly or indirectly?
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)@). In this case a discussion should identiq the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
W 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.
cl 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.
20 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
LAND USE AND PLANNING
The proposed interim ballfield is consistent with the zoning ordinance which allows assemblages
of people in any zone but residential with a conditional use permit; and also allows public
facilities in any zone with a conditional use permit. Since the future park site is located in the
Carlsbad Research Center (CRC) Specific Plan which designates industrial/office uses for the
site, a specific plan amendment (SP 180-F) is concurrently being processed with the park CUP to
designate the subject lot as a park site. Given the proposed specific plan amendment, the project
would be consistent with all applicable land use designations and regulations. Since the site is a
pre-graded industrial lot, no agricultural resources are affected.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project will not affect the city’s housing stock since the project involves an interim ballfield
and does not involve any residential components.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
No geologic problems exist onsite since the lot is a portion of a larger industrial subdivision that
underwent environmental review and geotechnical studies as part of its final map and mass
grading approval. No unique geologic features are associated with the site or the immediate
area.
WATER
Since the project is proposed for a pre-graded site, there will be no impacts to surface, subsurface
or flood water flows across of through the site. The site is ready for industrial building
development, so the ground preparation necessary for ballfieldpark use will not create any
characteristics of the area’s ground water or surface water flow.
AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2)
measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation
Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including a 10 Rev. 03128196
mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted.
CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan wiil result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control.
Parking: With regards to the proposed parking plan for the interim ballfield, a 20-space parking
lot is proposed by the Parks and Recreation staff. They have a standard of 23 parking spaces for
a standard-sized baseball field. Since this is a slightly modified/reduced baseball field, Parks
staff feels that the proposed 20 spaces is adequate. In addition, since a conditional use permit is
involved, monitoring of the project will occur and any significant shortfalls with the project
(including parking) can be addressed and resolved in the CUP context.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No biological resources occur on this site because it is a pre-graded lot located within a larger
industrial office subdivision. All biological resources impacts were assessed and mitigated as
necessary with the approval of Carlsbad Tract 85-24 which created the industrial lots.
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
The development of a park on the site, interim or otherwise, would not involve mineral
extraction or the use in any use of mineral resources.
HAZARDS
The use of the site as a park will not introduce hazardous substances or material onto the site; nor
will it increase the risk of explosion since only park uses are proposed. Additionally, the use of
the site as a park will not expose the park users to any potential known health hazards.
NOISE
There are no significant noise generating uses in the area so as to negatively impact park users. &A 11 Rev. 03128196
Noise from the park will be insignificant since the nearest residential units are across the Carnino
Hills street system and the site is immediately surrounded by existing industrial office buildings.
PUBLIC SERVICES
The use of the site as a park will not preclude the full scope of city services being available for
the site or the surrounding area in general. In addition, the use in and of itself, will not generate
an extraordinary demand for any particular city service or facility.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
The project will require any new or modified utility or service systems. No natural gas or power
requirements are involved. The site is not proposed for lighting so those needs do not exist. The
northeast comer of the site is already developed with a storm flow catch basin so no new water
drainage improvements are necessary. No communication systems are involved and a portable
restroom is proposed which will be serviced in a standard manner eliminating the need for a
septic system or modified sewer system.
AESTHETICS
The site is not located on or adjacent to any scenic resources. The development of the site as a
park will not create an adverse environmental or aesthetic impact. Since the project does not
propose lighting, there will be no creation of light or glare impacts.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Since a pre-graded site is involved, all environmental resources have already been assessed and
mitigated as necessary with the approval of Carlsbad Tract 85-24 including cultural resources.
RECREATIONAL
The provision of a park at the subject site will add to the recreational opportunities in the
immediate area. Recognizing that the need for an interim ballfield on this future park site is
triggered by the removal of the ballfield at the Safety Center, the Safety Center’s long term plans
did not involve the retention of that field. This project is intended to provide the replacement
ballfield for the future removal of the Safety Center field, therefore there will be no significant
impacts to recreational opportunities.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Imnact Report (Source #l) for the City of Carlsbad General
Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
12 Rev. 03/28/% 23
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
13 Rev. 03/28/96 44
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
14 Rev. 03/28/96 25
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4943
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT SP 180(F) ON
PROPERTY GENERALLYLOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF CAMINO HILLS AND FARADAY AVENUE
WITHIN THE CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC
PLAN IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: ZONE 5 PARR INTERIM BALLFIELD
CASE NO.: SP 180(F)
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Developer”/“Owner,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lot 96 of Carlsbad Tract 85-24, Unit 5 per Map 12815 as
recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, San Diego, on
May 16,199l. APN: 212-130-21
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Specific Plan
amendment as shown on Exhibit “X” dated April 18, 2001, on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, ZONE 5 PARK INTERIM BALLFIELD - SP (180(F)) as provided by
Government Code Section 65.453 and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of April 2001, 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Specific Plan amendment; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2001, the City Council approved SP 180 (E), as
described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4885 and City Council
Ordinance No. NS-570.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
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.
A)
W
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SP
180(F) based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The proposed development as described by the Specific Plan (SP 180(F)) is consistent
with the provisions of the General Plan.
The proposed plan amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience or welfare of the City.
The area surrounding the development is or can be-planned and zoned in coordination
and substantial compatibility with the development.
Appropriate measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental impact as
noted in the adopted environmental impact report or negative declaration for the project.
The proposed designation of the subject site (APN: 212-130-21/Let 96 of CT 85-24
Unit 5) as a park site will provide the workers of the city’s industrial offrce parks
with an active recreational area; as well as mitigate the future removal of the Safety
Center Ballfield associated with the new Public Works Center.
The proposed revised landscaping design standards will ensure compliance with the
updated sign standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
That it was the City’s intent to repeal all of the specific plan sign regulations and
replace them with the City’s sign ordinance. Therefore, the findings contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4885 pertain to this portion of SP 180(F).
Conditions:
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Specific Plan document(s) necessary to make them internally
consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur
substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different
from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of CUP 01-01 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4942 for those other
approvals.
PC RESO NO. 4943 -2- 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of April 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compaq L’Heureux,
Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman
ABSTAIN:
QQ
CAlUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
’ PC RESO NO. 4943 -3- aa
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4944
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO PARKS INVENTORY
OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE CITY IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 2,5 AND 14.
CASE NAME: SAFETY CENTER BALLFIELDNORTH-
CASE NO:
EAST QUADRANT PARKS INVENTORY
GPA 00-08
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad/Public Works Division, “Developer,” has
filed a verified application tith the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by the City of
Carlsbad, “Owner,” described as
A portion of Lot “B” of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda according to
Map No. 823, filed November 16,1896, in the ofice of the San
Diego County Recorder
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request to remove the Safety Center
Ballfield from the parks inventory contained in the General Plan’s Park and Recreation
Element. The removal of the Ballfield is accompanied by the addition of the Skateboard
Park and ballfields in Zone 14, to the Northeast Quadrant parks inventory; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
Amendment as shown on attached Exhibit(s) “A” - “D” dated April 18, 2001, on file in the
Carlsbad Planning Department SAFETY CENTER BALLFIELD/NORTHEAST
QUADRANT PARKS INVENTORY - GPA 00-08 as provided in Government Code Section
65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of April 2001, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
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
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
4 That the above recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of SAFETY CENTER BALLFIELD/
NORTHEAST QUADRANT PARKS INVENTORY - GPA 00-08, based on
the following findings:
Findings:
1.
2.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
The proposed amendment to the Parks and Recreation Element is consistent with
the Element’s Park Development Objective C.12 to periodically evaluate the existing
park inventory, in that it updates the inventory for the city’s NE quadrant by
removing the existing Safety Center ballfield and inserting the skateboard park
facility and a new Zone 14 park site.
That the Planning Director has determined that it can be seen with certainty that there is
no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment in that
this update of the Parks inventory does not involve any development proposals.
PC RESO NO. 4944 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of April 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cornpas, L'Heureux, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Heineman
ABSTAIN:
5 . SEGALL, airperson
Ca3BAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOYZMIYLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4944 -3-
EXHIBIT “A‘’ - w
PARK DISTRICT MAP
LEGEND
MAP 1
EXHIBIT lLB'' v-v
CITYWIDE PARKS AND RECREATION MAP
0 cK)clco
(0 OAK I1 HOLIDAY C.LK 12 CARSBAD TUWSC~TS Wcon SCMOOL
13 SWYICOWLLX I4 U-IA ELi sc!4ooL
SCnOOL 15 WLLEY JI) mw
16 CHASE FELD 17 COYUUnTY PIRK
4 NORTH
MAP 2 1
Page IS
??
- EXHIBIT '*C"
NORTHEAST QUADRANT PARKS AND RECREATION MAP
BALL FIELDS
PARK DISTRICT 2
*SKATE PARK
LEGEND
4 NORTH
MAP 4
Page 17
3q
EXHIBIT -D'
c 9
f
3
3
II
I
1
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
I
'I.
d
I co-NW
- 3 B The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: April 18,2001
Application complete date: February 18,2001
Project Planner: Eric Munoz
Project Engineer: Frank Jimeno
SUBJECT: CUP Ol-Ol/SP 18O(F) - ZONE 5 PARK INTERIM BALLFIELD - Request
for a Conditional Use Permit and Specific Plan Amendment to allow the Parks
and Recreation staff to construct and operate an interim ballfield on a portion of
the future Zone 5 Industrial Park within the Carlsbad Research Center Specific
Plan, and to clarify signage requirements in the Specific Plan.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4942
APPROVING Conditional Use Permit CUP 01-01 and ADOPT Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 4941 and 4943 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
and Specific Plan Amendment SP 18O(F), respectively, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
_. ~ 11. INTRODUCTION
The City’s Parks and Recreation staff is proposing the development of an interim ballfield on a
portion of the future Zone 5 Industrial Park generally located at the southeast comer of Camino
Hills Drive and Faraday Avenue. The need to provide this interim ballfield is due to the planned
development of the city’s new Public Works Center proposed for the existing Safety Center site,
which will involve the removal of the ballfieldmixed use turf area currently onsite. This
ballfieldturf area is technically a park as noted in the NE Quadrant parks inventory in the Parks
and Recreation Element of the General Plan. The issue of removing this park and the
corresponding need to adjust the parks inventory compliant with the General Plan and Growth
Management is the subject of GPA 00-08 which is being processed concurrently.
The Public Works Center is being processed and will be scheduled for Planning Commission
consideration in May 2001. That project will undergo environmental review, and the removal of
the existing ballfield will need to be mitigated by the establishment of a replacement facility.
This Interim Ballfield request of CUP 01-01 is intended to provide the entitlements for that
replacement facility in advance of the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Public Works
Center project.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The City purchased this land for park purposes in 1998. The proposed project is depicted on
Exhibit “A”, dated April 18, 2001. The design proposed is intended to serve as a replacement
field due to the Safety Center’s ballfield removal until the future development and improvement
of the Zone 5 Industrial Park.
- I > 3 CUP Ol-Ol/SP 180(F) -ZONE 5 PARK INTERIM BALLFIELD
April 18,2001
It shows the interim improvements proposed by Park staff and includes a mixed-use turf area
with a baseball diamond and related facilities, a 20-space parking lot, perimeter landscaping, a
portable restroom and some perimeter fencing. No lighting is proposed with this interim
ballfield. The lack of lighting highlights the fact that this park is primarily intended for the
daytime use by employees of the adjacent industrial office developments, and the general public.
The Parks and Recreation Commission considered and recommended approval of this interim
ballfield project on January 22,2001.
Since the project site is located within the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan (SP 180), this
project will require an amendment to that Plan because the construction and operation of a park
is not listed as an allowed or conditionally allowed land use. The specific plan amendment
associated with this project (SP 180-F) proposes to allow a park use on this specific site subject
to the approval of a conditional use permit.
This Specific Plan amendment also includes an amendment to the General Development
Standards, Landscape Section regarding entryway signs. The specific plan was recently before
the Planning Commission and City Council to repeal the parking and sign sections of the plan.
During the reformatting of the specific plan to reflect the amendments, it was discovered that
there was a reference to signs in the landscape section that was overlooked and should have been
deleted.
IV. ANALYSIS
The project is subject to the following regulations:
1. City’s General Plan
2. Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan
3. Zoning Ordinance - Title 21
4. Conditional Use Permit Findings
City’s General Plan
The proposed park use is consistent with the General Plan, including Parks and Recreation
Element Park Development Goal A-1 and Park Development Objective B-10 for two reasons: 1)
it provides a recreational use for the adjacent working population and provides a quality of life
amenity. The city’s ownership of this parcel is a direct result of collecting a fee within the
industrial areas specifically earmarked for the purchase and development of a park in the
industrial office area; and, (2) the proposal for this interim ballfield is part of an overall strategy
designed to mitigate the impact of removal of an existing recreational facility by the future
Public Works Center by providing a replacement for the Safety Center ballfield. A related part
of this approval is General Plan Amendment GPA 00-08 which is being processed concurrently
with this project. The approach is also summarized in a Parks and Recreation staff memo dated
December 19,2000 and attached as Attachment 5 to this report.
Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan
._._
The site is regulated by the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan which allows €or the
development of industrial or office buildings with specified locations for commercial uses. The 3 7
3 -> CUP 01 -Ol/SP 180(F) - ZUNE 5 PARK INTERIM BALLFIELD
April 18,2001
proposed interim use is for part of a larger site that will eventually be a permanent park that is
specifically intended to serve the workmg population of the specific plan area and adjacent
industrial office developments. The subject site is in the Carlsbad Research Center (SP lSO),
however, the rest of the future park site is not in SP 180. The proposed interim use of this park is
consistent with the long-tern use planned for the area, but technically is not a use allowed by the
specific plan at this time. Therefore, this project proposes to amend the specific plan to allow the
development of a park use on the subject site.
This Specific Plan amendment also includes an amendment to the General Development
Standards, Landscape Section regarding entryway signs. During the reformatting of the specific
plan to reflect the recent amendments to the City’s Sign Ordinance applicable to industrial zones,
it was discovered that there was a reference to signs in the landscape section that was overlooked
and should have been deleted. The text, to be deleted in strike-out, reads as follows:
“All primary entryways to the industrial park shall receive special landscape tmd-sg~
treatment. Such treatment shall include a distinctive landscape design consisting of groundcover
and hedgerows combined with contour berming. 5 .. .. ..
The allowance for entrv monument signs will be addressed in an uocoming Zone Code
Amendment to the sign ordinance.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4943 and the attached ordinance implement the Droposed
specific plan changes.
Zoning Ordinance - Title 21
The City’s zoning ordinance allows the development of parks in Open Space zones with the
approval of a conditional use permit. The subject site, however, does not have Open Space
zoning. Therefore, other sections of the code apply that require the approval of a conditional use
permit to allow the development and operation of a park. These other sections include: 1)
21.42.010 (2) (J) which requires conditional use permits for public and quasi-public facilities in
any zone citywide, and; 2) 21.42.010.(5) (E) which requires conditional use permits for uses
involving an assemblage of people in any zone except residential zones citywide.
Conditional Use Permit Findings
All conditional use permits require that four findings be made. These findings are made in the
CUP resolution of approval for this project, Planning Commission Resolution No. 4942. A
descriptive overview of those findings is provided below.
The requested use is desirable for the development of the community in that it will provide an
38 interim park for recreational use by the workers in the city’s industrial office areas around
J CUP 01 -Ol/SP 180(F) - Z 5 PARK INTERIM BALLFIELD
April 18,2001
Pane 4
Palomar Airport. Also, given the future removal of the Safety Center ,a field as part of the
Public Works Center development, ths interim ballfield will provide a replacement field for the
various youth groups that reserve the Safety Center field for sports such as soccer and baseball.
The site is adequate for the improvements proposed as shown on the project exhibit. While the
exhibit depicts a hlly improved multi-use field with a baseball diamond, bleachers and backstop,
the improvements may be phased in or adjusted depending on final costs, budget and other
considerations. Therefore, this conditional use permit is structured and conditioned such that
lesser improvements than those shown on Exhibit “A” could be constructed and still be in
compliance with this permit.
All of the features necessary to adjust this use to existing and/or future permitted uses will be
provided, recognizing that this use is intended as an interim use until the city completes the
planning and entitling of the future Zone 5 Industrial Park. Project features include landscaping,
perimeter fencing, a portable restroom and a 20-space parking lot. The future Zone 5 Park will
reconfigure the interim improvements on the site into the larger Park plan providing permanent
parking, restrooms, and other park amenities.
The Camino Hills Drive and Faraday Avenue street systems are adequate to serve the site. The
proposed use will not be generating the type of traffic normally associated with an industrial
office development. Thus, it will be adequately served by the adjacent public street systems
which are designed for traffic capacity at city buildout in this area.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment and has prepared a Negative Declaration dated March 22, 2001. Environmental
review regarding the repeal of the overlooked sign regulations was conducted previously and
there are no changed conditions or circumstances warranting additional environmental review at
this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4. Location Map
5.
6.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 494 1 (Negative Dec)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4942 (CUP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4943 (SP)
Memo re: NE Quadrant Parks Issue, dated December 19,2000
Exhibit “A”, dated April 18,2001
EM:cs:mh
39
J December 19,2000
ha
_-. rrnp
TO: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER 12
VIA: RECREATION DIRECT
From: Park Development Coordinator
b -I
~ !.y..:*!; p. . PT!(-:!z $4
QtV Di #\ e C+Xd
NORTHEAST QUADRANT PARK ISSUES
.Public Works Center Ballfield Removal
.Zone 5 Interim Ballfield
~Larwin Park
0N.E. Quadrant Land Acquisition
This report discusses the inter-connective nature of issues related to the topics above and makes
recommendations for a comprehensive solution to those issues.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
I. Construct a ball field on the lower pad of the Zone 5 Park to replace the field being
eliminated in Phase II of the Public Works Center. Construct concurrent with Public
Works Center.
2. Immediately pursue development of Larwin Park to satisfy the Growth Management
Plan. Process a mid year CIP adjustment to begin the park development process this
year.
3. Continue to pursue acquisition of additional park acreage in the NE Quadrant for ball
fields.
BACKGROUND
PUBLIC WORKS CENTER
The Public Works Center will remove 2 acres of ballfields. This is partially offset by the recent
addition of 1 acre of Skate Park. The Public Works Department is processing a General Plan
Amendment (GPA) to eliminate the ballfield and add the Skate Park. They have successfully gone
through the Parks and Recreation Commission and are now anticipating a hearing at the Planning
Commission in April 2001.
Two issues have arisen related to this process:
1. We are currently in a park deficit in the NE Quadrant. The elimination of one acre of park at the
Public Works Center will accentuate the problem and will need to be addressed in the GPA report.
2. The Growth Management Plan has a provision that no City facilities shall be removed without
being replaced. The Planning Department has preliminarily interpreted that provision to mean that Lllb
3 Pg. 2 of 3, NE QUAD PARK ISSu&
the ballfield being eliminated at the Public Works Center must be replaced. Staff is recommending
that this occur at the Zone 5 Park lower 3 acre pad site on an interim basis.
ZONE 5 PARK BALLFIELD
To show compliance with the requirement described above, it is recommended that a CUP for
Zone 5 Ballfield be processed after the first of the year and that the project be submitted in the 01-
02 CIP.
The actual implementation of the project is recommended to be dove-tailed into the Public Works
Center Project. The Public Works Center consultant could prepare the plans and the project could
be bid as part of the Public Works Center project. This would minimize impacts on staff workload
and provide for better bid prices than doing a small stand alone project.
Because there essentially no funds left in the Zone 5 Business Park account (after purchasing the
land several years ago), funding for the ballfield project will need to come from an alternative
source (possibly the General Fund). It is recommended that a budget of approximately $300,000
be established for this project.
-
Currently, staff from the Recreation Department, City Manager’s Office, and Community
Development are working on a goal of community outreach in the industrial zones to gather input
into what might ultimately serve that segment of the communities recreational needs. In addition,
we are testing the water for interest in private participation. Because of the uncertainty of future
development plans for this site, staff is recommending that the replacement field be considered
temporary, keeping the construction simple and development costs to a minimum.
LARWIN PARK
As previously mentioned, the NE Quadrant is currently experiencing a park deficit that needs
immediate attention. We are currently 10 acres in arrears, not counting the current new housing
projects coming on line. Last year, the marginally developable Larwin Park was moved out in the
CIP in favor of what, at the time, promised to be the acquisition of 10-15 acres of developable park
acreage in the Robertson Ranch (the joint use flood control basidpark). After closer analysis of
the site revealed potential development constraints, land appraisals came in higher than staff felt
the land warranted, and the timing of access to the site via Cannon and College became
uncertain, we are recommending moving Larwin back up in the CIP to address the Growth
Management shortfall.
Staff is recommending that a new plan for Larwin Park be developed. Although no park planning
has occurred on the “new plan”, it is anticipated that the recently approved temporary Dog Park
would be incorporated into “upper” Larwin Park and that improvements to ”lower” Larwin Park be
kept to a minimum (walkways, lawn, picnic areas, and possibly a tot lot). Trails could be used to
connect upper and lower Larwin and to connect to the City Wide Trail System. The ultimate plan
would of course be subject to the usual input (public outreach, Commissions, and Council). Cost
for this type of development would be significantly lower than the $2,090,000 currently
appropriated in the CIP.
Pg. 3 of 3; NE QUAD PARK IS5 2s
Public Works staff is also recommending that a “Mid-Year” CIP adjustment be made to appropriate
funds for Lawin Park for this fiscal year. We are recommending that $50,000 for preliminary
design and miscellaneous project management be appropriated out of the $2,090,000 (PFF) funds
currently scheduled in FY 2010-2020. This will show a commitment to meeting the Growth
Management shortfall and allow staff to start on this project at the first of the year.
NE QUADRANT LAND AQUISITION
The 2000-2001 CIP appropriated $2, 625,000 for acquisition of park land for ballfields in the NE
Quadrant. As previously mentioned, the anticipated acquisition of a flood control basin on
Robertson Ranch that could have served dual use as ballfields is appearing less likely due to land
constraints and appraised land costs. While staff has not completely abandoned the possibility
that the Robertsons (or subsequent owners) might negotiate a favorable deal on the property, staff
is planning to proceed with further investigation of alternative sites in the NE Quadrant. Because
the availability of developable land continues to become harder to find (and more expensive), staff
will continue to move forward toward this goal. -
Staff is seeking confirmation to proceed with the recommendations above.
Mark Steyaert
C: City Manager Public Works Director
Public Works Manager, Cook
Senior Civil Engineer, Hammann Planning Director Assistant Planning Director
Principal Planner, Rideout
Senior Planner, Munoz
Senior Management Analyst, Beverly Finance Director
Senior Accountant, Stover
> EXHIBIT 6 T k e City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ItemNo. @
P.C. AGENDA OF: April 18,2001
Application complete date: January 6,2001
Project Planner: Eric Munoz
Project Manager: Dick Cook
SUBJECT: GPA 00-08 - SAFETY CENTER BALLFIELD/NORTHEAST QUADRANT
PARKS INVENTORY - Request for a General Plan Amendment to amend the
Parks and Recreation Element to modify the parks inventory in the City’s
Northeast quadrant to maintain compliance with the Growth Management
Ordinance.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4944
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, of General Plan Amendment GPA 00-08, based on the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
This General Plan Amendment proposes to modify the parks inventory of the Parks and
Recreation Element to facilitate the general plan consistency aspect of pending Public Works
projects. Specifically, the parks inventory of the NE Quadrant is being modified to delete the
Safety Center ballfield and to add the Skateboard Park and a Zone 14 Park designation.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The City’s Public Works Division is designing and entitling the new Public Works Center at the
existing Safety Center at Orion Way. That project will build out the Safety Center which
currently features a grass turf field area in the oval, center part of the site with a baseball
diamond and facilities. The concept for the planned buildout of the Safety Center site involved
city structures and facilities throughout the site, including the open field area. In 1994, as part of
the City’s General Plan Update, the Safety Center ballfield was added to the parks inventory for
the NE Quadrant by Parks and Recreation staff. In 1998, the City constructed a Skateboard Park
at the Safety Center which needs to be added to the parks inventory. The proposed Public Works
Center (CUP 01-02) will necessitate removal of the Safety Center ballfield. In addition, future
park needs in the NE Quadrant require the identification of a new park site to meet the Growth
Management standard for parks at buildout.
The purpose of this general plan amendment, therefore, is to modifl the NE parks inventory as
follows: 1) remove the Safety Center ballfield; (2) add the Skateboard Park; and, (3) add a Zone
14 Park/Ballfield “floating” designation (no location specified at this time within Zone 14).
GPA 00-08 - SAFETY CE i! ER BALLFIELD/
NORTHEAST QUADRANT PARKS INVENTORY
April 18,2001
Page 2
The general plan amendment is also summarized by Parks and Recreation staff in Attachment 3
to this report, and is graphically represented on Exhibits “A”-“D”, dated April 18, 2001. These
exhibits and the summary comprised the information package that was considered by the Parks
and Recreation Commission on April 17, 2001. The Commission recommended approval of the
proposed amendments.
IV. ANALYSIS
It is occasionally necessary to change the Parks inventory for various reasons such as changing
circumstances, new needs and/or desires from the community. Any such changes must ensure
that Growth Management standards are always met. The Citywide Parks standard is 3 acres per
1,000 population per park district area. This GPA is required to update the Parks inventory for
the NE Quadrant to reflect existing and proposed changes to parks facilities within the quadrant
and to ensure Growth Management compliance at buildout.
The attached memo regarding NE Quadrant Park Issues from Parks and Recreation staff dated
December 19, 2000 (Attachment 4) summarizes the general plan amendment and outlines how
implementing it will provide compliance while addressing specific future city projects and
related park development issues.
This general plan amendment establishes changes to the parks inventory whereby Growth
Management compliance will be maintained to account for future Public Works projects. This
general plan amendment will allow those projects to be consistent with the General Plan, it’s
Parks and Recreation Element, as well as the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan, to address
the short-term loss of the Safety Center ballfield. The Zone 5 Park Interim Ballfield CUP is
being processed concurrently. For the long-term, the ultimate Zone 5 Park will meet the needs of
recreational users in the city’s industrial area.
The GPA also establishes a park site in Zone 14. This park site’s specific location is not
determined at this time. The designation is a “floating” designation whereby the location is not
specified but the ultimate location must be within the Zone 14 boundaries. This approach allows
the Parks situation in the NE Quadrant to maintain Growth Management compliance.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
No development is proposed with this general plan amendment. This only adjusts the parks
inventory contained in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. It will not impact
the environment in any way. Therefore, the basic rule of CEQA (California Environmental
Quality Act) applies to this general plan amendment whereby it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Any
future development that implements the Parks inventory shall undergo full CEQA review at that
time.
I
GPA 00-08 - SAFETY CE d ER BALLFIELD/
NORTHEAST QUADRANT PARKS INVENTORY
April 18,2001
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2. Location Map
3.
4.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4944 (GPA)
General Plan Amendment Summary by Parks and Recreation staff
Memo re: NE Quadrant Park Issues dated December 19,2000
45-
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS CENTER
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
It is proposed to amend the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan to include the
elimination of the Safety Center Ball Fields (2.00 acres), the addition of the Safety Center Skate
Park Special Used Area of 0.70 acres and the addition of the Zone 14 Special Recreation Area
of 10.00 acres.
BACKGROUND
In the mid 1980’s the City of Carlsbad acquired the 26 acre Safety Center site from the County
of San Diego. The site is located at the current easterly terminus of Faraday Avenue at Orion
Street. In late 1986, Phase 1 of the Safety Center was completed to include the Safety Center
and Fleet Maintenance complex. The site contained land available for future administrative,
shop spaces and a general city warehouse. The site master plan was to house what are now
the Public Works functions of the City.
Over 2 acres of the site encircled by Orion Street were temporarily converted to ball fields to
support recreational activities until such time as the phase II project could be completed.
In 1994 the Safety Center Ball fields were included in an inventory of special use areas
identified and included in the revised General Plan. This action had the effect of adopting these
facilities into the plan.
The City is currently proceeding with development of the Public Works Center which requires
use of the full site as originally contemplated. The ball fields will be converted to parking to
support full development of the Safety Center site.
The ball fields are currently utilized to support various sports activities. These activities would be transferred to the new fields at Poinsettia Park in the interim and be permanently replaced
with development of the proposed 10.00 acre Zone 14 Park currently in the early stages of
design development.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The General Plan Amendment is comprised of revision to Parks and Recreation District Maps
1,2 and 4 deleting references to the Safety Center Ball Fields and addition of the Skate Park
Special Use Area (SUA) and revision to Table 5 Uses In Recreation Areas, Northeast Quadrant
existing SUA delete Safety Center Ball fields 2.00 acres replace with Skate park 0.70 acres.
Add item 4 to Special Recreation Area (SRA) the Zone 14 Park 10.00 acres. Changes are
illustrated on the attached Maps and Table.
December 19,2OOO
TO: ASSISTANT CD-Y MAN
VIA: RECREATION DIRECT
From: Park Development Coordinator
NORTHEAST QUADRANT PARK ISSUES
‘_ * . . #. ‘.., /. _ ‘--.:. , / ,. -.~-~_.,I-,.__,-‘-
l Public Works Center Ballfield Removal
*Zone 5 Interim Ballfield
l Larwin Park
l N.E. Quadrant Land Acquisition
This report discusses the inter-connective nature of issues related to the topics above and makes
recommendations for a comprehensive solution to those issues.
-‘.’ SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Construct a ball field on the lower pad of the Zone 5 Park to replace the field being
eliminated in Phase II of the Public Works Center. Construct concurrent with Public
Works Center.
2. Immediately pursue development of Larwin Park to satisfy the Growth Management
Plan. Process a mid year CIP adjustment to begin the park development process this
year.
3. Continue to pursue acquisition of additional park acreage in the NE Quadrant for ball
fields.
PUBLIC WORKS CENTER
The Public Works Center will remove 2 acres of ballfields. This is partially offset by the recent
addition of 1 acre of Skate Park. The Public Works Department is processing a General Plan
Amendment (GPA) to eliminate the ballfield and add the Skate Park. They have successfully gone
through the Parks and Recreation Commission and are now anticipating a hearing at the Planning
Commission in April 2001.
Two issues have arisen related to this process:
1. We are currently in a park deficit in the NE Quadrant. The elimination of one acre of park at the
Public Works Center will accentuate the problem and will need to be addressed in the GPA report.
2. The Growth Management Plan has a provision that no City facilities shall be removed without
being replaced. The Planning Department has preliminarily interpreted that provision to mean that
47
I e , Pg. 2 of 3, NE QUAD PARK ISSUES
the ballfield being eliminated at the Public Works Center must be replaced. Staff is recommending
that this occur at the Zone 5 Park lower 3 acre pad site on an interim basis.
ZONE 5 PARK BALLFIELD
To show compliance with the requirement described above, it is recommended that a CUP for
Zone 5 Ballfield be processed after the first of the year and that the project be submitted in the Ol-
02 CIP.
The actual implementation of the project is recommended to be dove-tailed into the Public Works
Center Project. The Public Works Center consultant could prepare the plans and the project could
be bid as part of the Public Works Center project. This would minimize impacts on staffworkload
and provide for better bid prices than doing a small stand alone project.
Because there essentially no funds left in the Zone 5 Business Park account (after purchasing the
land several years ago), funding for the ballfield project will need to come from an alternative -. source (possibly the General Fund). It is recommended that a budget of approximately $300,000
be established for this project.
Currently, staff from the Recreation Department, City Manager’s Office, and Community
Development are working on a goal of community outreach in the industrial zones to gather input
into what might ultimately serve that segment of the communities recreational needs. In addition,
we are testing the water for interest in private participation. Because of the uncertainty of future
development plans for this site, staff is recommending that the replacement field be considered
temporary, keeping the construction simple and development costs to a minimum.
LARWIN PARK
As previously mentioned, the NE Quadrant is currently experiencing a park deficit that needs
immediate attention. We are currently 10 acres in arrears, not counting the current new housing
projects coming on line. Last year, the marginally developable Larwin Park was moved out in the
CIP in favor of what, at the time, promised to be the acquisition of IO-15 acres of developable park
acreage in the Robertson Ranch (the joint use flood control basin/park). After closer analysis of
the site revealed potential development constraints, land appraisals came in higher than staff felt
the land warranted, and the timing of access to the site via Cannon and College became
uncertain, we are recommending moving Larwin back up in the CIP to address the Growth
Management shortfall.
Staff is recommending that a new plan for Larwin Park be developed. Although no park planning
has occurred on the “new plan”, it is anticipated that the recently approved temporary Dog Park
would be incorporated into “upper” Larwin Park and that improvements to “lower” Larwin Park be
kept to a minimum (walkways, lawn, picnic areas, and possibly a tot lot). Trails could be used to
connect upper and lower Larwin and to connect to the City Wide Trail System. The ultimate plan
would of course be subject to the usual input (public outreach, Commissions, and Council). Cost
for this type of development would be significantly lower than the $2,090,000 currently
appropriated in the CIP.
I Pg. 3 of 3; NE QUAD PARK ISSUES
Public -Works staff is also recommending that a “Mid-Year” CIP adjustment be made to appropriate
funds for Larwin Park for this fiscal year. We are recommending that $50,000 for preliminary
design and miscellaneous project management be appropriated out of the $2,090,000 (PFF) funds
currently scheduled in FY 2010-2020. This will show a commitment to meeting the Growth
Management shortfall and allow staff to start on this project at the first of the year.
NE QUADRANT LAND AQUlSITlON
The 2000-2001 CIP appropriated $2, 625,000 for acquisition of park land for ballfields in the NE
Quadrant. As previously mentioned, the anticipated acquisition of a flood control basin on
Robertson Ranch that could have served dual use as ballfields is appearing less likely due to land
constraints and appraised land costs. While staff has not completely abandoned the possibility
that the Robertsons (or subsequent owners) might negotiate a favorable deal on the property, staff
is planning to proceed with further investigation of alternative sites in the NE Quadrant. Because
the availability of developable land continues to become harder to find (and more expensive), staff
-. will continue to move forward toward this goal.
Staff is seeking confirmation to proceed with the recommendations above.
Mark Steyaert
c: City Manager
Public Works Director
Public Works Manager, Cook
Senior Civil Engineer, Hammann
Planning Director
Assistant Planning Director
Principal Planner, Rideout
Senior Planner, Munoz
Senior Management Analyst, Beverly
Finance Director
Senior Accountant, Stover
Planning Commission Minutes EXW 7 April 18,200lDRAFT Page 1
4. GPA 00-08 - SAFETY CENTER BALLFIELD/NORTHEAST QUADRANT PARKS INVENTORY - Request for a General Plan Amendment to amend the Parks and
Recreation Element to modify the parks inventory in the City’s Northeast
quadrant to maintain compliance with the Growth Management Ordinance.
5. CUP Ol/Ol/SP 180(F) - ZONE 5 PARK INTERIM BALLFIELD - Request for a
Conditional Use Permit and Specific Plan Amendment to allow the Parks and
Recreation staff to construct and operate an interim ballfield on a portion of the
future Zone 5 Industrial Park within the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan,
and to clarify signage requirements in the Specific Plan.
Mr. Munoz stated there are two projects he would like to present to the Commission, the first one
being a General Plan Amendment, and the second one is a Conditional Use Permit and a Specific Plan Amendment. He first wanted to explain a third project which the Commission has
not seen yet, which they will see on May 2nd, which is the Public Works Center Conditional Use Permit. He stated this project will build out the long term plan for the Safety Center which is to
provide Governmental Facilities on that site, specifically, a Public Works administration building
and a maintenance building and yard space which will be provided at this location. He further explained that the existing Safety Center ballfield, which is currently on the Parks and Recreation
parks inventory for the Northeast Quadrant will be removed and converted into parking. He stated that this project as it comes before the Planning Commission will have a mitigation measure
centered around the removal of that ballfield, since it is a recreational opportunity on the site,
which is also a park site on the Parks and Recreation inventory for that area. He explained that
what the Commission is seeing today will basically facilitate the approval of a subsequent project
which is the Public Works Center Conditional Use Permit. He stated in summary, that this project will require an alteration of the inventory to the Parks inventory and it will also require an interim
ballfield to be located within the City. He stated that tonight the Commission is seeing an
adjustment to the Parks inventory, which is the General Plan Amendment and the Commission is
also going to be considering the location and the proposal for the interim ballfield to replace the
Safety Center ballfield. Mr. Munoz stated that the General Plan Amendment, GPA 00-08,
presents the following three modifications: 1) removes the Safety Center ballfield from the
inventory of Parks in the Northeast Quadrant, 2) it adds the recently built Skate Board Park,
which this Commission extended as a permit recently and 3) it also adds 10 acres of a floating
designation for ballfields in Zone 14. He stated that these three modifications constitute the General Plan Amendment which is part of a detailed strategy to allow the Public Works Center to
continue to proceed in the future. Mr. Munoz stated that the interim park use permit is a Conditional Use Permit--where all the four required findings for a Conditional Use Permit can be
made for this site for the development of a City park. The interim ballfield replacing the Safety Center ballfield requires a Specific Plan Amendment because the proposed lot within the
Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan, does not technically allow a park use. Mr. Munoz stated that the improvements shown on the exhibits for the interim park represent the maximum level of
improvements that may be required for that facility, which are turfed area and a modified baseball
field with a diamond, infield area, bleachers, backstop etc. He explained that the Planning
Commission’s approval may implement this full scope of improvements or something less than
those improvements, if the timing and the details of the long-term Zone 5 Park warrant the
decision of the Council.
Chairperson Segall asked if the time frame to remove the ballfield from the Safety Center area
would be within the next six to nine months and how long it would take for the construction of the
new park to begin in Zone 5?
Mr. Munoz introduced Dick Cook, from the Public Works Department, who is involved in both the
construction of this park as well as the Public Works Center.
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 2
Mr. Cook stated the Public Works contract would be structured so when the CUP is approved, the first order of work would be grading and removing of the ballfield. He stated that simultaneously
the interim ballfield would commence, taking approximately 60 days to build the interim facilities
with a plant-establishment period of at least 90 days, contingent upon the Parks Department
allotted time frame for the turf to be established. He assured the Commission that it would happen within the first six months of the Public Works Center project, anticipating the startup
construction to be January 2002.
Chairperson Segall asked if the time frame could be from a six month period from January to June and then it would take five to six months for the new park to be opened?
Mr. Cook said they would start construction in January of the interim facility, simultaneously with
the other, it being almost like two projects that are geographically separated, having a ballfield in place within sixty days with a plant establishment period to allow the turf to mature with June as a
realistic estimate.
Chairperson Segall asked how the users of the facility now will be notified so they would not show up and there be no ballfield?
Mr. Wayne introduced Mark Steyaert to answer Chairperson Segall’s question.
Mr. Steyaert, with the Recreation Department, stated they did send out letters to all the sports
groups that reserve the Safety Center ballfield, informing them of the process, plus the
Recreation Department goes through a scheduling procedure every year with all the sports
groups, negotiating the use of the fields. He furthered explained that they were told at that time this would be coming in the future.
Chairperson Segall asked if the Recreation Department has received any responses from anyone
objecting to it or having concerns?
Mr. Steyaert responded “no.”
Commissioner Trigas asked if the Planning Commission approves Item No. 4, removing the
Safety Center ballfield, does that mean that Items No. 4 and 5 have to go together? She asked further for clarification, if they could not remove the Safety Center ballfield unless they have an
interim field put in place?
Mr. Munoz answered yes as the basic answer. He further clarified that the project of removing the Safety Center ballfield would be presented May 2nd, but that when it comes and the Planning
Commission sees the mitigation measure to provide an interim ballfield within a six-month period of the loss of the Safety Center ballfield, you can remember back to today when the Commission
approved this interim ballfield, which is the mitigation for that Safety Center ballfield. Mr. Munoz stated there is a Condition that will show up on the Public Works Center CUP, which the Planning
Commission will see also on May 2nd which states that the Public Works Center cannot be
approved unless both Items No. 4 and 5 (for this April 18th Planning Commission meeting) are
approved because the Parks inventory will need to be changed in order to commence with the
Public Works Project, which is this General Plan Amendment. Mr. Munoz restated that these
Items No. 4 and 5 have to be approved to allow the Safety Center ballfield to proceed.
Commissioner Trigas confirmed that Mr. Munoz is referring to Item No. 4 and that Item No. 4
must be approved in order to proceed.
Mr. Munoz confirmed that, yes, he was referring to Item No. 4 which does need to be approved in order to proceed with the Public Works Center and have the replacement ballfield (Item No. 5)
entitled, which is not only for the Conditional Use Permit, but the Specific Plan, which designates that lot as a City Park site. He concluded that Items No. 4 and 5 as well as the future item the
Planning Commission will see May 2nd are, in fact, a three-part package.
Planning Commission Minutes April 18,200l Page 3
Commissioner Trigas asked that when they looked at item No. 5 as far as the location of the
interim facility, was there an effort to say that, yes, this is a site that would be conducive to have
youth leagues, since we are displacing youth leagues at the Safety Center, etc.
Mr. Wayne stated that the Parks inventory is part of the Park and Recreation Element of the
General Plan. He explained that when a facility is taken off, the Element needs to be amended to
record this in its inventory section, which is what the Planning Commission is doing. He further
explained the reason the Public Works project is tied to the development of the interim park is not
a General Plan issue nor a Growth Management issue, but it is a CEQA issue. He stated that
when the City has a recreational facility and then eliminates it, the CEQA checklist says, “That is
a potential significant impact.” Mr. Wayne explained that what the City is trying to do is to counterbalance that or mitigate that potentially significant impact ahead of time by providing a
replacement interim recreational facility, whether it is a ballfield or just a turfed area, but at least a
recreational facility. He said that in a sense Items No. 4 and 5 are tied together from the CEQA
standpoint but as far as the City inventory is concerned, it is simply a City inventory matter. He stated that if it is a Growth Management issue, that it is a separate issue.
Commissioner Baker asked if the interim park will be put into inventory, and will the General Plan
have to be amended again?
Mr. Wayne stated the City would be doing that right now, if they were going to put that in as a
permanent site. He explained that when they put the Zone 5 Park in, the City will again amend the inventory to add the whole Zone 5 Park at that time. He stated the Zone 5 Park is partially in
the Coastal Zone, so there is a long entitlement process that goes outside the City to get a Zone
5 Park approved. If in fact something happens to that, the City would not want to have Items No.
4 and 5 as part of the inventory, only to lose it again.
Commissioner Baker asked if the City would not necessarily put the interim ballfield back in the inventory, since the City will be taking it out of inventory?
Mr. Wayne replied “no.” He restated that it is just an inventory and as an inventory all the City
does is record places and acreage. He confirmed Commissioner Baker’s concern that if the City
is removing inventory you do not necessarily have to replace it. He stated that this is a Growth
Management issue which is based upon number of acres per thousand people, so if it turns out that it becomes a Growth Management issue and the City has to find something, then the City will
amend that inventory. Mr. Wayne stated that he thought it was an oversight to put the temporary facility that is located at the Safety Center into a permanent inventory. Mr. Wayne stated the City
knew all along they were going to expand the Safety Center with Public Works and the City
inadvertently added the interim field to the inventory. He stated that whether or not it is needed is
really a Growth Management issue and items can go on and off the inventory.
Commissioner Baker asked if the City has any idea how long they expect this interim ballfield to be in place before Zone 5 Park is ready to be built?
Mr. Munoz stated the Zone 5 Park planning process is only in the early stages.
Mark Steyaert concurred with Mr. Munoz. He stated the City has recently started the preliminary
process for planning the Zone 5 Park. It may be put on hold for a while seeing all the other
projects that are currently in progress. Mr. Steyaert stated that the City does not actually know the
timing as yet for the Zone 5 Park.
Commissioner Baker stated that her question was leading to the cost involved with putting a
temporary field in and asked Mr. Steyaert how long the City is going to have a temporary field
there before it would have to be removed for something else?
Planning Commission Minutes April 18,200l Page 4
Mr. Steyaert replied that the City does not know the answer to that question, that it could be a
year or ten years. He stated that currently the Zone 5 Park is not scheduled in the Capital
Improvement Program until build-out, so the City does not have any money to develop that
permanent park. He stated that the City may find some partners out in the Zone 5 area that want to participate in developing that park sooner, but there has not been any definite plan as yet.
Commissioner Baker asked that since Zone 5 is currently raw land, why can’t the new ballfield be ready before the old one is taken out?
Mr. Steyaert replied that it could be, but it is really a matter of several things: 1) to make sure the
Public Works Center is going forward, 2) that it is very expensive to do a little project like that, as
it is hard to find contractors who are interested in going through the very involved public works process of bonding etc. to build a small project such as this. He stated that is the reason the City
decided to include it in with the Public Works Center, which is a larger project and the City would
get better prices, entailing less staff time.
Mr. Wayne added that it is a complicated question Commissioner Baker is asking. He stated that
the Zone 5 Park is a huge piece of property that includes property that is in the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan as well as property that is currently in the Coastal Zone and zoned
for residential land uses. He explained that to build the whole Zone 5 Park, the City could not do
that. Mr. Wayne stated that he thought Commissioner Baker was referring to the interim improvements (of which Commissioner Baker confirmed). He stated that in order for the City to
put a park on that site, they would probably have to amend the Specific Plan which is before the Planning Commission today, but for the City just to go out and simply turf the field and not provide
any other facilities, it would be just a matter of planting grass.
Commission Baker stated she is asking about building an interim ballfield in Zone 5, and that she still does not understand.
Mr. Wayne replied that it cannot be done; that the City would still have to go through the CUP
process as well as the Specific Plan Amendment process.
Commissioner Baker clarified her question was regarding the timing so the interim ballfield is
completed before the one at the Safety Center is removed so there is no loss of field.
Mr. Wayne stated that the City may have the contractor who is building the Public Works Center
build the Zone 5 Park. If the timing is compressed and it makes absolutely no sense to put in an interim ballfield in that place because of the whole park plan, then what the City will do, so that
the Public Works Center can go forward, is essentially build it as a turfed area based upon City
crews doing it, so there will not be the larger expenditure of funds.
Commissioner Baker stated that she understood there would be about ninety days of no field.
Dick Cook replied that he had previously stated it could be up to six months of possibly no field available.
Commissioner Baker restated her question whether the interim ballfield in Item 5 could be started earlier so it is finished at the same time the Safety Center ballfield, Item No. 4, is taken out of
production.
Dick Cook referred to Mark Steyaert’s statements that the City has looked at the issue of going
out for a separate contract, knowing that the best option is to not have any downtime with the
park, but by the time the City were to get their entitlements, go through the design process, through the bid process etc., if this was to be done as a separate project, the project would end
up almost tracking the City’s Public Works Center project. He stated that because of the size of
the City’s Public Works Center project the City can save money because the larger the project the more economical it is to build, but the practical part is if the City were to go out with a separate
53
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 5
contract for the park itself the City would not gain any significant time over just putting it into the
Public Works Center processing.
Commissioner Baker asked if it has to be a separate contract?
Mr. Cook replied no. He further explained that the City decided to go with the Public Works Center contract because there isn’t a benefit processing it separately time wise. He stated the
other issue is if City forces could do this project and the answer is probably yes, then the City would eliminate going out to contract. He explained that the City staff does not typically build
parks, but the City has the ability to do that.
Commissioner Trigas asked if it is a possibility that this cannot be a paper park, i.e., be an
approved designated park site but the City does not do anything with it? She asked if the City has
to make it either an interim or permanent park, not just saying it is designated and in five years or
whatever, the City will decide?
Mr. Munoz confirmed that this will be a park site.
Commissioner Trigas asked if it was going to be an interim or permanent park right away?
Mr. Munoz stated he would consider the Commissioner’s approval tonight as an interim ballfield
and there may or may not be a permanent Zone 5 park on this site.
Commissioner Trigas clarified that in the future it would, if decided later down the road, only be
changed to a permanent site and if that is so, has the City processed surveys, questions of those
who are currently using the Safety Center site, whether they can easily move over to the
proposed site, whether it is something that is going to service the same group that has been using the Safety Center ballfield.
Mr. Munoz commented that this works for a replacement site for two reasons: 1) it is still within
the Zone 5 location, 2) the existing Safety Center ballfield is used by two primarily different
groups which are various youth leagues which did have a letter sent to them by the City staff who
make the reservations for the Safety Center ballfield stating this ballfield will be removed and
there will be a replacement and giving them contact information; but they know that there will
probably be up to a one-season lag where they cannot use that facility.
Commissioner Trigas asked if they know that it will be at this one specific site or that they just
know there will be another site?
Mr. Steyaert stated he believed it was in the letter sent to them that the site is a mile away, two
miles at the most from the Safety Center ballfield and it is very centrally located, actually easier to access than the Safety Center ballfield site.
Mr. Munoz continued that the other primary group is the industrial workers who have used the
Safety Center ballfield since it was established, but not on a formalized reservation basis. They are there on an every-day lunchtime basis. The existing Safety Center ballfield serves basically
those two different groups.
Commissioner Trigas commented that this information changed her whole perspective and makes it real positive for her. She stated that it answers a major question for her, i.e., the City did
not just pull a site out of a grab bag, but that this is servicing the people who need to be serviced.
Chairperson Segall asked for clarification that within six months after the Safety Center ballfield is
removed, there will be another park? ,
Planning Commission Minutes April 18,200l Page 6
Mr. Munoz answered affirmatively, that is the one-sentence summary of what the City is trying to do and the timing specifically the first day that the Safety Center ballfield is unusable, that within
six months something else is usable.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Munoz to point out in the resolution where that is located.
Mr. Munoz stated that that Mitigation will be presented on May 2nd when you see the Public
Works CUP, where the condition is laid out. As Mr. Wayne was saying, because of CEQA and
environmental review purposes, the mitigation program requires no more than a six month lag.
Chairperson Segall asked if the Planning Commission is approving something today, but the
other half is coming to them in two weeks?
Mr. Munoz replied no. He stated that what the Planning Commission is approving today is a
stand-alone item and is going to turn out to be the required mitigation for a future project. He further stated that this can stand alone on its own, but when the Public Works Center comes
along with a mitigation requirement, the Planning Commission will already have given the entitlement for the mitigation site.
Chairperson Segall confirmed that the Planning Commission will need to be aware that when it
comes to them in two weeks, that the six month period is in there etc.
Mr. Munoz agreed and pointed out further in response to Commissioner Trigas’ question, that the
letter that did go out to the user groups did specify this very location at the intersection of Camino
Hills and Faraday as the interim site, so it was very specific.
Chairperson Segall asked in regards to the Zone 5 Park, that it could have anywhere from grass
to bleachers, fences, an infield and anything in between? In other words, it could be just grass or
anything.
Mr. Munoz agreed assuming Chairperson Segall is referring to the specific area where the interim
park is located. He continued to state that the interim could be either what you are seeing on the
exhibits down to just grass.
Chairperson asked if the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to decide which of the
two?
Mr. Munoz answered no. Condition 9 on page 3 of Resolution 4942 is going to be the source of an errata sheet item that he stated he would introduce after he reads the condition which would
answer this question: “Approval of this project will allow the interim ballfield to be developed up to
the maximum intensity shown on the project exhibit (Exhibit ‘A’ dated April 18, 2001). However, if determined by the Public Works Director, in consultation with the Parks and Recreation Director,
that interim ballfield improvements less than the improvements shown on Exhibit ‘A’ are
warranted, then those lesser improvements may be implemented from this approval.” Mr. Munoz stated that the decision primarily sits with the Public Works Director in consultation with the Parks
and Recreation Director and actually the whole reason for this condition is at the heart of some of the issues that have been raised as far as expending the money for too short of a period given
the long-term improvements. Mr. Munoz went on to introduce the errata sheet as a proposal to add on to Condition No. 9 of which he just read to end it with the following wording:
“Furthermore, the proposed parking area shall not be formally improved with grading and paving
as shown on Exhibit ‘A’ unless a coastal development permit has been obtained.” He stated the reason being is in keeping with the ability to go down to a turfed area with the rest of the
improvements, likewise, the parking area was conceived as a potentially informal area, which
some notes should have been put on the plans to specify this, but technically it is in the Coastal
Zone and cannot be improved unless it has a Coastal Development Permit. Mr. Munoz further
stated that this condition would allow the maximum range of options to be implemented once all the fiscal, budgetary and political decisions are finalized by City Council.
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 7
Chairperson Segall asked if were any further questions. Seeing none, he opened the public
testimony and asked if there was any one in the audience who wished to speak on Item No. 4.
Mr. John Bertoldi, 2253 Masters Road, Carlsbad, CA 92008, located in the Evans Point Home Owners Association, which is just north of the planned interim ballfield. Mr. Bertoldi stated their
concern is with the parking and the problems they have experienced with the overload of the
industrial building parking when they have their monthly marketing meetings etc, with the overflow
parking on Milton. He pointed out residences that back up to Milton and the walls are about 3-4
feet high, getting higher as you go down. He stated their Home Owners Association is requesting
a “No Parking” area. He pointed out the first residence that faces Milton and requested the “No
Parking” zone and pointed out a redwood fence that goes back about 100 feet and they would
like to have a “No Parking” zone in that area. He stated the reason is to afford the privacy to the
houses on the north side of the street. The other area that is a concern for the HOA is that this is a very difficult area to come out of; a hill that comes up, cars that are coming up are hard to see
and their experience is when people do park there and use that open area to walk around, walk
their dogs etc, they park pretty close to the intersection. It is awfully hard sometimes when
people come out there with the vegetation and the wall on either side of the street, it is difficult to
see the on-coming cars there. He further pointed out that that street is quite heavily trafficked
today. He stated that about a year ago they requested that a stop sign be placed. The Traffic
Commission replied that there wasn’t sufficient traffic for a stop sign to be placed there, but that
was a year ago. He further stated that their request is for the City to consider putting a “No
Parking” area in this area.
Jane Mobaldi pointed out that a matter of establishing “No Parking” zones is typically within the
jurisdiction of the Traffic Commission’s recommendation and that could be processed through the Traffic Engineer. The Planning Commission would not have the authority to establish a “No
Parking” zone. However, you could Condition the CUP to have the City ensure that there is
adequate parking for whatever use is intended.
Chairperson Segall asked if the Planning Commission could also request a traffic study in terms
of the traffic at the intersection that he was requesting a stop sign?
Ms. Mobaldi stated that she thought that request could be made either by Mr. Bertoldi or by any
citizen, however, if you are going to take action on this item tonight, that would preclude taking action immediately.
Mr. Bertoldi stated that their Home Owners Association would like to have this made a part of the
consideration when the City builds the interim ballfield or the park itself, that that be considered.
Pru Sweeny, who lives in the Evans Point Home Owners Association and is President of the
Home Owners Association, wanted to add that there is no parking allowed on Camino Hills at all, so she would like to hear more about where the City plans to have the people who are going to
be using the park during the day park, because they are going to be coming from some place
else. She asked if the City stated that there could not be a parking lot there? She pointed out that
no one could park on either side of Camino Hills, so the City has an additional problem besides
on Milton. She thought it was a major problem as far as the park goes. She stated that she is not against the interim park and that she has seen the plans of the park that the City is hoping to get
help with, which she expressed would be great. She commented that she is not too eager to see the City put out all the money as Commissioner Baker has stated because if the City goes with the new plan for the park at the end, part of it would have to be taken out. She said that she was
also looking at the money situation as well, but that she had a real concern about the cars.
Chairperson Segall agreed that they were all concerned about the money, but that the
Commission can only address Land Use issues and not the budget.
56
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 8
Chairperson Segall asked if were any further questions. Seeing none, he closed the public testimony and asked the staff to respond to the questions that were raised on parking and stop
signs.
Mr. Munoz, in response to the parking, stated that staff was well aware of the fact that there is “No Parking” signs on the street of Camino Hills and the parking shown on the site can take one
of two forms as discussed earlier: 1) formalized grading and pavement, or 2) informal, and
parking in the manner used at the Safety Center in that northern dirt area. He pointed out that it is
a Conditional Use Permit and that all Conditional Use Permits have certain mechanics tied to
them which make the Conditional Use Permit a unique permit, different from other permits the
City can issue and that centers around the monitoring aspect, the ability to bring the permit back
to the Planning Director, to staff and ultimately to the Planning Commission if there truly are
documented problems. Mr. Munoz further stated that if problems do get out of hand, whether it is
access, the use on the field, parking or anything with regards to the operation of the site, there is
a mechanical process to resolve that. He pointed out that this park was designed by the Park staff
because the Parks and Recreation staff does parks development, and Planning’s role is just to
review the project for the Conditional Use Permit. He pointed out that as far as the standards
apply for a Parks project, those are reviewed and implemented by the Park staff and Park staff did use existing park sites and usage patterns to determine the parking requirement for this site.
Mr. Steyaert pointed out that the City does have historical data on ballfield parking requirements
and that is what they based the parking lot on that is shown. He stated that it was intended to be (rather than as shown, as a permanent asphalt parking lot) an unimproved dirt area for people to
park on as Eric stated they do at the Safety Center currently. He confirmed that this is what the City is proposing to do with this park.
Chairperson Segall questioned that if this is a baseball field and we have nine players on each
team, a total of 18 people, and then a few other people and referees, it will undoubtedly surpass the twenty that would be able to park there, assuming that everyone drove. Chairperson Segall
asked where are people going to park, other than the dirt lot?
Mr. Steyaert stated a couple of opportunities for parking were further on Camino Hills there is
parking as he pointed out, and in a residential area.
Chairperson Segall asked if noise would be a factor when people are leaving, causing any
problems going into those homes?
Mr. Steyaert stated they did not anticipate there being any problems, but that if there were, that
kind of issue would be brought back to the Planning Commission, through the CUP.
Mr. Cook pointed out the shaded area for parking designated, but in actuality that is just a big dirt lot and they can really park anywhere they want. He didn’t think there was really a restriction to
just twenty spots. He stated if they were to do an improved lot that had just twenty spots, that would be one thing, but that it is just a dirt field.
Chairperson Segall asked then how many could park in there?
Mr. Cook responded that there is ten acres in that area and that it is all City property, that it goes
back in a large plot of land.
Chairperson Segall pointed out then that the spots for twenty would be developed, not as asphalt,
but cleared etc and the rest would be dirt.
Mr. Cook said that they could enlarge that area, as it is just a simple matter of just smoothing it
out so that vehicles could park on there. He thinks it is very doable and they just need to have a little direction.
5-7
Planning Commission Minutes April 18,200l Page 9
Mr. Wayne stated that the area being talked about, the City wouldn’t have to do anything to and that a hundred cars could be parked there easily before having to get into any grading. He
pointed out that what the City doesn’t want to do is get into the grading and invoke the Coastal Permit. He continued that the Specific Plan for Carlsbad Research Center eliminates parking from
two streets, Faraday and College and not from this street. He further stated that the City is
looking into the “No Parking” issue on Camino Hills because it is that section of Camino Hills that
goes from Faraday to the end of where you see the ball diamond that is within Carlsbad
Research Center and that is the area that Ms. Sweeny was mentioning has the “No Parking” signs on it. He stated the City is looking at it to see how they were placed there and whether or
not there is a justification and they may be in the CC&Rs and as such, he stated they are not sure how the got into the CC&Rs, so they are going to do a little bit more research to see, if in fact
those “No Parking” signs can be taken down, because the road is quite wide and would
accommodate parking.
Mr. Munoz stated he wanted to mention that the General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan
Amendment would go on to City Council and the Conditional Use Permit is final at Planning Commission.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any comments. Seeing none, asked for a motion, first addressing Item No. 4, the Safety Center ballfield, then go to Item No. 5 and before getting to
Item No. 5 he asked to talk about putting anything in relative to the “No Parking” on Milton.
DISCUSSION
None.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4944, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment GPA 00-08, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
6-O-O
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Baker,
Nielsen, Trigas None
None
Chairperson Segall asked for a brief discussion before a motion on Item No. 5. He pointed out
that there seems to be some concern on about no parking on Milton. He asked if there was any
amendment that anyone wanted to introduce.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that the Planning Commission can condition the CUP to have the City ensure
that there is adequate parking for this ballfield and that it does not interfere with residential
neighborhoods and then they can determine the best way to do that, track it and do whatever is
appropriate.
Chairperson Segall confirmed that the Planning Commission could express a concern that it
would be desirable not to have people park in a residential neighborhoods for this park.
Ms. Mobaldi concurred that the Planning Commission could express a concern, but that they
could even go further and say that the Planning Commission is conditioning this interim ballfield on the City providing adequate parking and looking into ways to do that in addition to the twenty
spaces or keeping track of whether or not the twenty spaces is adequate etc, without going specifically into traffic control measures such as putting up “No Parking” zones.
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 10
Commissioner Trigas asked if it would be sufficient just to say condition the CUP for adequate parking with examination of the current plans for twenty spaces or something to that affect?
Commissioner Trigas further pointed out that where it says, “the site can accommodate...” she
asked if the Planning Commission would want to add? She asked if it would go in the conditions
rather than the findings?
Ms. Mobaldi replied that it would be more appropriate to put it in the conditions so that if that
condition is not met or there is a problem, then staff can come back and report to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Compas pointed out that there is a huge field where people can park, and if there
is a problem, the CUP can be brought back to the Planning Commission, therefore, he doesn’t see where it is needed to go into any extremes on this.
Commissioner Nielsen agreed with Commissioner Compas. As the Project Engineer stated they
could level out as much as they really wanted and he was sure they would do that.
Chairperson Segall restated that if there becomes a problem with parking, then those individuals could come back under the CUP and invoke that process.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any comments. Seeing none, asked for a motion
addressing Item No. 5.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4942 approving Conditional Use Permit
CUP 01-01 and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4941 and 4943 recommending approval of the Negative Declaration and Specific
Plan Amendment SP 180(F), respectively, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein and Amended in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4942, Condition No. 9, that we should add to the end of the existing condition, the following: “Furthermore, the
proposed parking area shall not be formally improved with grading and
paving as shown on Exhibit ‘A’ unless a coastal development permit has
been obtained,” as show in our errata sheet.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Nielsen asked where the funding was on the Interim Park, is that going to be included with the Safety Center? He pointed out that the Planning Commission heard of figure of
$300,000.
Mr. Cook replied that there is funding that has been appropriated for design. He further explained
that the ultimate interim Zone 5 improvements are going through the CIP for this coming year, so
they needed the design money up front to start that process once they get their entitlements and
then the funds for the actual construction will be approved through this CIP process they are currently undergoing.
Commissioner Nielsen stated he was confused as he thought they were going to start on this project the first part of next year. So the funds, the $300,000 will be appropriated at that time and
that will be put in with the Public Safety Center?
Mr. Cook stated it is a separate account, but yes, it will be appropriated as part of the CIP
process which is currently going and is scheduled for approval some time in June.
Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2001 Page 11
Mr. Wayne stated that the CIP will be before the Planning Commission at the next meeting. It contains this project and the Planning Commission’s task is the General Planning Consistency
Determination and it then goes on to the City Council and he thinks it is targeted for the first or
second meeting in June.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the City Council will actually appropriate the money at that time?
Mr. Cook replied yes, as part of the CIP. He further explained that the City is conditioned in the
next CUP that comes through for the Public Works Center to construct this within six months, pointing out that you can’t have one without the other.
Commissioner Nielsen asked how they would know that this would be put in place in six months
and you may tear it out again? He further asked if it is known when the Master Plan for the Park will come in?
Mr. Steyaert stated there is no schedule for that and it won’t be within six months or a year that
the City would be coming back and tearing this project out in any case. He said the City is not even in the process of developing a Master Plan for that Park yet and that process takes almost a
year in itself for it would have to go through Conditional Use Permits, and, as Mr. Wayne stated, a Coastal Development Permit etc., even if the City were going forward with it. He said that is why
the City needs the interim field now.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the City is saying five years or ten years.
Mr. Steyaert replied that it could be five years, 20 years or never.
Mr. Cook pointed out that the City is tracking the processing of the ultimate improvements and if it
turns out where this job is completed sooner than anticipated, then the City’s contingency is to not
install full improvements, but that it would be just a grass field in the interim. In other words, the
City is not looking at throwing $300,000 at something that is going to be there temporarily, so that
is why this flexibility is built into this CUP.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if that was when the Public Works Director would get together with
Parks and Recreation and make that decision as to the improvements to the park.
Mr. Cook replied affirmatively.
VOTE: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
6-O-O
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Baker,
Nielsen, Trigas
None None
Chairperson Segall closed that part of the public hearing. He asked Mr. Munoz to explain to Mr. Bertoldi and Ms. Sweeny what the CUP means or that process so if they have problems so they
understand it.
CO
, City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 18, 2001, to consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit and
Specific Plan Amendment to allow the Parks and Recreation staff to construct and operate an
interim ballfield on a portion of the future Zone 5 Industrial Park within the Carlsbad Research
Center Specific Plan and more particularly described as:
Lot 96 of Carlsbad Tract 85-24, Unit 5 per Map 12815 as recorded
in the Office of the County Recorder, San Diego, on May 16, 1991.
APN: 212-I 30-21
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after April 12, 2001. If you have any
questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608.
If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CUP Ol-Ol/SP 180(F)
CASE NAME: ZONE 5 PARK - INTERIM BALLFIELD
PUBLISH: APRIL 5,200l
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
c-z , r
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92006-7314 . (760) 6024600 l FAX (760) 602-6559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ZONE 5 PARK -
INTERIM BALLFIELD
CUP 0%OIISP 180(F)
- LaKe
Calavera I
SAFETY CENTER BALLFIELD
N.E. QUADRANT PARKS INVENTORY
GPA 00-08
. ALEXANDER ISABEL
5265 MILTON RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BERTOLDI FAMILY TRUST 04-30-98
2253 MASTERS RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CAMINO HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSN GREEN MICHAEL G&ELIZABETH A
C/O THE BROPHY CO 2269 MASTERS RD
2945 HARDING ST #108 CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CASHIN ROBERT D&GINA A HOFFMAN STEPHEN
2281 MASTERS RD C/O THE IRIS GROUP
CARLSBAD CA 92008 1675 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BERTUSSI GIOVANNI D JR&ANNE T CITY OF CARLSBAD
2265 MASTERS RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HOFFMAN STEPHEN
C/O THE IRIS GROUP, INC
1675 FARADAY AVE
CARLdAD CA 92008
BLACKMORE LOT 99 INVESTMENT
PoBox181o
RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92087
BLACKMORE SIGNAL HILL
P 0 BOX 424
RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067
COHN MAURICE B&DAVIS-COHN KRISTE KUSUNOSE KAZUMA
2261 MASTERS RD 2245 MASTERS RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
DEIHL FAMILY TRUST 08-28-79 LALL REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 11-06-!
915 CAMINITO DEL MAR #250 5273 MILTON RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92014 CARLSBAD CA 92008
BLADEN JAMES B&BARBARA A DOHERTY FRANCIS E&DONNA L
2273 MASTERS RD 2277 MASTERS RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
LJRLLC
P 0 BOX 675521
RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067
C R C PROJECT TWO L P
C/O HAMANN CONSTRUCTION
475 W BRADLEY AVE
EL CAJON CA 92020
ELLlOlT CHRISTINA K PARK GREGORY R&SHARON A
2244 MASTERS RD 5262 MILTON RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
CABOT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES L P
C/O CABOT INDUSTRIAL TRUST
TWO CENTER PLAZA #200
BOSTON, MA 02108
EVANS PAUL F
5281 MILTON RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PIERCE JAMES W JR&ELIZABETH V
2257 MASTERS RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CALDERON JOSEPH L&EVANGELINA T EVANS POINT HOMEOWNERS ASSN PIERSON WILLIAM B
5261 MILTON RD C/O MARCIA GOODMAN 2285 MASTERS RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008 10721 TREENA ST #200 CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGO CA 92131
CAMERON FAMILY TRUST 06-01-88
2281 LINDSAY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FARADAY BUSINESS PLAZA L L C
C/O SPECTRUM PROPERTY MANAGEME
8799 BALBOA AVE #260
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
POlTER RICHARD H&WILLIAMS CARI L
2289 MASTERS RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
. REAL ESTATE 3 L L C
1947 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE #104
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SHEA HOMES LTD PARTNERSHIP
10721 TREENA ST #200
SAN DIEGO CA 92131
SRIPHET MANA&LOH LI CHIN
P 0 BOX 6271
KOKOMO IN 46994
STROEBEL ELIZABETH G
5264 MILTON RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
THOMPSON PAUL B&CONSTANCE M
7805 VIA OPTUNTIA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VOGEL JOEL l&MARY
5289 MILTON RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WALLER FAMILY TRUST 10-30-00
5277 MILTON RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILSON DANIEL C
2249 MASTERS RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILTSHIRE BRENT R&S JANE
5285 MILTON RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ZIEGLER MARVIN S&BE-l-f-Y N 1990 TRUI
2279 LINDSAY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
A notice has been mailed to
all property owners/occupants
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5I:,:--
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST CITY OF ENCINITAS
801 PINE AVE 505 S VULCAN AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE B
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE CA COASTAL COMMISSION
2730 LOKER AVE WEST STE 103
CARLSBAD CA 92008 7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
ERIC MUNOZ
5/16/2001
Address Labels
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECREATION ADMIN
MARK STEYAERT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Laser 5160@