Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-02; City Council; 17529; Chase Field Lighting UpgradesCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL I Project application(s) AB# 17,529 TITLE: CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES MTG. 3z4 GPA 03-1 2 DEPT. Administrative Reviewed by and To be Reviewed - Approvals Final at Planning Final at Council RECOMMENDED ACTION: CUP 00-16(A) GPA 03-12 That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2004-075 and General Plan Amendment GPA 03-12 for the Chase Field Lighting Upgrades project. , APPROVING the Negative Declaration Commission X X ITEM EXPLANATION: On January 21, 2004, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of Chase Field from Continuation School (HC) to Open Space (OS). At the same hearing, the Planning Commission also approved a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow upgrades to the lighting and electrical system at Chase Field. The proposed land use designation would provide consistency between the General Plan Aesignation, the Zoning designation, and the existing and planned future use of the property. The xrrent Zoning designation for the Chase Field property is Open Space (0-S). Since the site will ikely contain ballfields and related uses for the foreseeable future, the most appropriate General 'Ian land use designation for those uses is Open Space (OS). Yo public testimony was offered at the Planning Commission hearing. The proposed land use action s consistent with the applicable regulations and policies, and staff and the Planning Commission are *ecommending approval of the Chase Field General Plan Amendment. INVIRONMENTAL: The proposed Chase Field Lighting Upgrades project was reviewed for any potential adverse mpacts to the environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The iroposal, as designed and conditioned, would not create significant adverse environmental impacts. The project is consistent with the applicable regulations, and the proposed General Plan designation irovides improved conformity with the Zoning designation and existing and planned future use of the iroperty. Given the environmental analysis, a Notice of Intent to Issue a Negative Declaration was iosted on December 26, 2003. No public comments were received during the 20-day review period. 'ISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impacts to the City are negligible in that the proposed actions merely revise the land use iesignations and regulations on the property. .. .. .. I PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,529 Facilities Zone Local Facilities Management Plan Growth Control Point Net Density Soecial Facilitv Fee GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS: 1 1 NIA NIA N/A ~ ~~ EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution No. 2004-075 2. Location Map 3. 4. 5. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5547 and 5553 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 21, 2004 Draft Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 21, 2004. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Michael Grim, (760) 602-4623, mgrim@ci.carlsbad.ca.us 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 RESOLUTION NO. 2004-075 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HARDING STREET AND CHESTNUT AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES CASE NO.: GPA 03-12 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on January 21, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider a Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 2nd day of March , 2004, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to the Negative Declaration and/or GPA 03- 12; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City Council approves City Council Resolution No. 2004-075 and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5547 and 5553, on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 3. That the application for a Negative Declaration on property generally located at the southwest corner of Harding Street and Chestnut Avenue, is approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5547. 4. That the application for a General Plan Amendment from Continuation School (HC) to Open Space (OS) on property generally located at the southwest corner of Harding Street and Chestnut Avenue, as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5553, is hereby accepted, approved in concept, and shall be formally approved with GPA Batch No. 1 comprised of GPA 01-03, GPA 01-04, GPA 02-01, GPA 03-01, GPA 03-04 and GPA 03-09. ... 3 ... 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 AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 2nd day of March 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: *hm OR INE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) Resolution No. 2004-075 page 2 $ -2- EXHIBIT 2 SITE CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES GPA 03-12 5 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 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5547 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDNG ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE CHANGE IN GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OVER 2.74 ACRES FROM CONTINUATION SCHOOL TO OPEN SPACE AND THE REPLACEMENT AND REFURBISHMENT OF THE EXISTING BALL FIELD LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEM AT CHASE FIELD, WEST CORNER OF HARDING STREET AND CHESTNUT AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTH- CASE NO.: GPA 03- 12/CUP 00- 16(A) WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Block 61 of the Amended Map of the Town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map No. 775, filed in the Office of the County Recorder in the County of San Diego on March 12,1915 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of January, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning * Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration, Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated December 26, 2003, and “PII” dated December 22, 2003, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Find i n g[s : 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of January 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. H&M&ER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5547 -2- 7 - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES CASE NO: GPA 03-12/CI.JP 00-16(A) PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest comer of Harding Street and Chestnut Avenue, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a General Plan Amendment to change 2.74 acres from Continuation School (HC) to Open Space (OS) and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the replacement and refurbishment of the existing ball field lighting and electrical system at Chase Field. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD December 26,2003 to January 15,2004 PUBLISH DATE December 26,2003 r 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.~~i&p.us @ - City of Garlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Chase Field Lighting Upgrades CASE NO: GPA 03-12/CUF’ 00-16(A) PROJECT LOCATION: of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. The southwest comer of Harding Street and Chestnut Avenue in the City PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a General Plan Amendment to change 2.74 acres from Continuation School (HC) to Open Space (OS) and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the replacement and rehrbishment of the existing ball field lighting and electrical system at Chase Field. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EL4 Part 2) did not identi@ any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. [7 The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). c] Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing fbrther is required. A copy of the initial study (EL4 Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director 9 63 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 * (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONRIENTAL IMPACT ASSESS3IENT FORA1 - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNIh’G DEPARThfENT) CASE N0:GPA 03-l2’CUP 00-16(A) DATE: December 32,2003 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Chase Field Lighting Upwades 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Michael Grim (760) 603-4633 4. PROJECT LOCATION: The southwest corner of Harding Street and Chestnut Avenue. in the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego 5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad 405 Oak Av, Carlsbad CA 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Continuation School (HC) 7. ZONING: Open Space (0-S) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): none 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Request for a General Plan Amendment to change 2.74 acres from Continuation School (HC) to ODen Space (OS) and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the replacement and refurbishment of the existing ball field lighting and electrical system at the existing baseball field complex commonly known as Chase Field. The 2.74-acre site is currently desimated Continuation School (HC) in the Citv’s General Plan and zoned Open Space (0-9. North of the proiect site is the future Northwest Ouadrant Community Park. West and south of the site are single-family residences and east of the site is a mix of single- and multifamily residential uses. Currently occupying the site are three baseball fields and associated lighting and seating areas. a concessions stand, restrooms. batting cages and two small picnic areas. 1 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTEKTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below n.ould be potentially affected by this project. involving at least one impact that is 3 "Porentialll Significant Impact." or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics u Geology/Soils u Noise 0 Agricultural Resources 0 HazardsMazardous Materials 0 Population and Housing u Air Quality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Public Services fl Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning Recreation 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) ISI 0 0 0 0 1 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 \vi11 not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impo,yd upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. , // 3 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cin conduct an Environmrnt~l Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environnirnr. The Enviroimientd Impact Assessment appears in the follo\ving pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies an!. physical. biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the Cin uith infornution to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). NeS3tn.e 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 ldce the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked. and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to nlitigatiori measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant: (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant: or (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect. or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant I mpnc t Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 17 0 OH a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? o 0 OH b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? 0 0 n[xI c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0. 0 OBI d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, whch would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: 0 0 OIXI a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 OIXI b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 5 I# Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrat ions? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or US. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Potentially Significant Impact cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentiall> Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 El 0 17 0 0 0 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory nildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the sigruficance of an archeological resource pursuant to 9 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of fonnal cemeteries? IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 I7 0 Potentially Significant Impact 17 Potential I> Significant Unless hlitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 17 0 0 D 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 I7 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 7 Rev. 07/03/02 /b Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentiall> Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? 0 0 o 0 0 17 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? c) 0 0 d) Be located on expansive soils. as defined in Table 18 - I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? 0 O e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting.the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? I\'. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: 0 0 a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 0 0 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 0 0 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? 0 0 0 e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? LessThan \o Significant Impact Impact OH OH ON ON 8 Rev. 07/03/02 /7 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Patrnti3lly S IF i ficant Impact 0 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safev hazard for people residing or working in the project area'? 0 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere nith an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 1'111. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: 0 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? o b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 0 0 c) Impacts to groundwater quality? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? 0 e) Substantially alter the exishg drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? 0 0 f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Potential I> Significant Unless hfitigation Incorporated n LJ cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Thm \o Sign1 ficsnr f mpm Impact 0151 UIXI om om 9 Rev. 07/03/02 /! Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 0 h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? 0 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 0 j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 0 m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 0 n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? El 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or nutigating an environmental effect? 0 cl 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of fbture value to the region and the residents of the State? Potentidlq Less Thm Sipnificant Sipificant Unless Impact Mi tigat ion Incorporated 17 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El El El El El IXI IXI [XI IXI 10 Rev. 07/03/02 19 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentiall!. Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated o 0 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? X. NOISE - Would the project result in: 0 0 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? o b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 c) A Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 d) A Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 0 a) Induce Substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 0 b) Displace Substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 c) Displace Substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LessThan \o Significant Impxi Impact OB 11 Rev. 01/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical lmpacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION Potentiall) Potentiall) Less Than \o Significant Significant Significant Inipxt Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 17 0 0 a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? o b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: 0 nIxI Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to, capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 0 0 DIX] Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 El UIXI Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 12 Rev. 07/03/02 dl Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity'? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Potentiall! Potentiall\. Less Thm \o Significant Significant Significant 1mp.w Impact bnless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 ON 0 0 0 0 Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient pennitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 0 Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0IxI 13 Rev. 07/03/02 22 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). pot en ti all^ Potentially Less Than \o Significant Significant Significant InipJct Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVII. R.1ANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 0 0 OH 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? 0 0 OB Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) 0 0 OB Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 23 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The City of Carlsbad Public Works - General Services Department is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of Chase Field from Continuation School (HC) to Open Space (OS) and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the replacement and refurbishment of the existing ball field lighting and electrical system at Chase Field. The project site is located at the southtvest comer of Harding Street and Chestnut Avenue. The 2.74-acre site is currently designated Continuation School (HC) in the Cie‘s General Plan and zoned Open Space (0-S). North of the project site is the future Northwtst Quadrant Conmunit?. Park. West and south of the site are single-family residences and east‘of the site is a nlix of single- and muitifanlily residential uses. Currently occupying the site are three baseball fields and associated lighting and seating areas. a concessions stand, restrooms, batting cages and two small picnic areas. The proposed General Plan Amendment would bring the General Plan land use designation into consistency with the Zoning designation of Open Space and the existing recreational uses. The proposed improvements \vould remove the 14 existing light poles and associated electrical system and replace them with eight new light poles and new electrical system. The existing poles are approximately 55 to 65 feet tall and contain IO00 watt floodlights directed laterally to illuminate the playing fields. They are constructed of wood that has deteriorated and is in need of replacement. In addition, there is currently very little shielding of the lighting to address light spillage into the adjacent residential areas. The proposed light poles would reach 60 to 70 feet tall, allowing a more direct domnward illumination of the ball fields, thus allowing fewer light poles. The proposed lighting system also provides shielding to preclude light spillage, as shown in the illumination diagram on Exhibit “D”, dated January 17, 2004, and as required by the construction specifications. AESTHETICS: No Impact. No scenic vistas or scenic resources, including rock outcroppings, or historic buildings, exist on or near the developed park site. The proposed upgrades to the ball field lighting would provide more direct illumination of the playing fields and less spillage of light into the adjacent residential areas. In addition, the proposed lighting would include shielding to hrther block light spillage. Due to these project features, it is anticipated that light levels will be less than currently experienced in the neighboring areas. No significant adverse impacts to aesthetics are anticipated with the Chase Field Lighting Upgrades. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: No Impact. The project site is currently occupied by ball fields and associated buildings and landscaping, with no existing or previous agricultural activities taking place. There are no nearby farmlands or 1ands.under Williamson Act contract, therefore no impact to such will occur. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is 1ocated.in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into.the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the 15 Rev. 07/03/02 County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan. then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency Ivould ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality Impact. Section 15 125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air qualip man3, ~~enient plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TChl plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms mith the RAQS which include the folloming: 0 0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area'? Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan'? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area \\.here a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City's General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 200 1 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. (Add the following text addressing short-term emissions, if there is grading associated with the project.) The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fiunes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 16 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. As stated above, the project site is fully developed mith ball fields and associated buildings and landscaping. No native vegetation or habitats exist on or near the property. In addition, no sensitive or endangered species reside or use the property. The City’s Habitat Management Plan does not identify the project slte for preservation. Therefore, no adverse impacts to biological resources will occur. CULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. There are no recorded archeological sites located within or nearby the developed ball field site. In addition, no historic buildings or structures exist on the project site. Therefore, no adverse impacts to cultural resources will occur. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Eo Impact. Since the proposed lighting and electrical upgrades project would involve only minor trenching for electrical conduit and vaults and digging for lighting pole placement, no grading or earthwork would occur on the project site. No unique geological features exist on the flat and level ball field site. Therefore, no adverse impacts to geology or soil would occur. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS No Impact. The Chase Field site is not designated as a hazardous materials site nor is it located within an airport land use plan or in proximity to an airstrip. No uses other than the recreational uses and associated concessions are proposed therefore no significant sources of hazardous emissions or materials are anticipated. The project site is surrounded by public streets and is accessible to emergency services. Given the above, the project would not produce any significant adverse impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY No Impact. The proposed project does not involve any grading or earthwork and no revisions or improvements to the existing water service are proposed with the lighting and electrical upgrades. No wells or deep excavation are proposed therefore no impacts to groundwater supplies, recharge, or quality will occur. The project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain nor is it subject to flooding, seiches, tsunamis, or mudslides. As will other City sites, Chase Field must comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Therefore, the Chase Field Lighting Upgrades project will not cause any significant adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality. LAND USE AND PLANNING No Impact. The project site is currently developed with ball fields and associated buildings and landscaping and is surrounded by existing public roads. Implementation of the lighting and electrical upgrade project would not divide an established community nor, as discussed above, impact any native habitat or resource conservation area. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment from Continuation School to Open Space to provide consistency with the existing Open Space zoning and the existing recreational uses. Given the above, the proposed Chase Field Lighting Upgrades project will not produce any significant adverse impacts to land use or planning. MINERAL RESOURCES No Impact. There are no known mineral resources within the project area and no locally important mineral resource recovery site is delineated within the City’s General Plan or other land use plan. No loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region or residents of the State will occur. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to mineral resources will occur. NOISE No Impact. The proposed Chase Field Lighting Upgrades project does not involve any expansion of the existing ball field complex nor does it involve the installation of any new public address systems or other noise generating devices. The noise generated by the Interstate 5 freeway reaches approximately 65 to 70 dBA CNEL which is an acceptable range for recreational uses. Therefore, the proposed project does not produce any significant adverse noise impacts. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 POPULATION A!!D HOUSING No Impact. The proposed project does not involve the construction, displacement. or removal of housing and docs not produce any increases in population. No housing exists on site nor uses the property for access. The proposed lighting and electrical upgrade project is not subject to the City‘s Inclusionary Housing program. Therefore. rhe proposed project will not cause any significant adverse impacts to population and housing. PUBLIC SERVICES NO Impact. The proposed lighting and electrical upgrade project will not result in the need for ne\\ or physically altered governmental facilities in that it complies with all requirements and standards of the Gro\\.th hlanagenient program and does not generate any additional facility impacts. All public facilities needed to serve the project are already in place and operational. Therefore, the Chase Field Lighting Upgrades project will nor cause any significant adverse impacts to public services. RECFtEATIOh Xo Impact. The project does not propose to remove any existing recreational opportunities within the Chase Field ball field complex. The proposed lighting and electrical upgrades to Chase Field would improve the field level illumination, thus providing a more effective recreational opponunity. No extension in the hours of operation nor expansion of the park are proposed. Therefore, the project would not cause any significant adverse impacts to recreation. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed lighting and electrical upgrades project will generate no additional trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways Chestnut Avenue, Harding Street. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing ADT* - LOS Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C“ 28-43 El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C” 32-65 29-77 Palomar Airport Road 10-52 ‘‘A-B” SR 78 120 “F” 144 1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and 18 Rev. 07/03/02 47 highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of sen-ice in the shnrt- term and at buildout. a) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent nith the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore. result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? KO Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and. therefore. would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent nith the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. c) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. d) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. (Note whether the project is near public transportation. If not, then state that the project is not served by or not located in an area conducive to public transportation.) (Note bike racks are not necessary for a single- family residential project. Otherwise, condition the project to install bike racks and note here that the project has been so conditioned.) UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS No Impact. All utility and service systems necessary for the operation of Chase Field are already in place. No adjustments to the water or irrigation system are proposed with the upgrades and no increase in water or power demand will occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the Chase Field Lighting Upgrade project will not cause any significant adverse mpacts to utilities and service systems. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 2. Final Master Environmental Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 1 L - L 4 .. t r I E s 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5553 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE 2.74 ACRES FROM CONTINUATION SCHOOL TO OPEN SPACE WEST CORNER OF HARDING STREET AND CHESTNUT AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH- CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES CASE NO: GPA 03-12 WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Block 61 of the Amended Map of the Town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map No. 775, filed in the Office of the County Recorder in the County of San Diego on March 12,1915 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit “GPA 03-12” dated January 21,2004, attached hereto and on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES - GPA 03-12 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 21st day of January 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; 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: 29 A) That the above recitations are true and correct. 1 2 7 - 4 5 6 7 8 9 1c 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES - GPA 03-12, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. That the proposed General Plan Amendment from Continuation School (HC) to Open Space (OS) is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan in that the Open Space designation more appropriately describes the existing and planned future land use for the Chase Field site and provides consistency with the existing Open Space (0-S) zoning designation. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of January 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HMZM~ER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5553 -2- GENERAL PLAN MAP CHANGE G.P. Map Designation Change Property From: To: A. 204-1 93-01 HC os B. C. D. Attach Additional pages if necessary GPA: 03-1 2 draft 1 final Approvals Council Approval Date: Resolution No: Effective Date: Signature: The City of Carlsbad Planning Department January 2 1,2004 EXHIBIT 4 Application complete date: December 29,2003 Project Planner: Michael Grim Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: SUBJECT: GPA 03-12/CUP 00-16(A) - CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES - Request for a General Plan Amendment to change 2.74 acres from Continuation School (HC) to Open Space (OS) and Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the replacement and refurbishment of the existing ball field lighting and electrical system at Chase Field, located at the southwest comer of Harding Street and Chestnut Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5 547, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5553 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment GPA 03-12, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5548, APPROVING Conditional Use Permit Amendment CUP 00- 16(A), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The proposal involves two actions. The first action consists of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning designations and the existing recreational uses at Chase Field. The current designation of Continuation School (HC) would be changed to Open Space (OS). The second action involves the replacement of the existing ball field lighting and electrical system at Chase Field. The structural integrity of the existing light poles has degraded and the existing electrical system needs upgrading to conform to current codes. The new poles would be taller, allowing for more direct illumination of the playing fields and would include shielding to lessen the light spillage into adjacent residential areas. 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The City of Carlsbad Public Works - General Services Department is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of Chase Field fiom Continuation School (HC) to Open Space (OS) and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the replacement and refurbishment of the existing ball field lighting and electrical system at Chase Field. The project site is located at the southwest comer of Harding Street and Chestnut Avenue. The 2.74-acre site is designated Continuation School (HC) in the City’s General Plan and zoned Open Space (0-S). North of the project site is the future Northwest Quadrant Community Park. West and south of the site are single-family residences and east of the site is a mix of single and multifamily residential uses. Currently occupying the site are three baseball fields and associated GPA 03-12/CUP 00-16(A) - CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES January 2 1,2004 Page 2 lighting and seating areas, a concessions stand, restrooms, batting cages and two small picnic areas. The proposed improvements would remove the 14 existing light poles and associated electrical system and replace them with eight new light poles and new electrical system. The existing poles are approximately 55 to 65 feet tall and contain 1000-watt floodlights directed laterally to illuminate the playing fields. They are constructed of wood that has deteriorated and is in need of replacement. In addition, there is currently very little shielding of the lighting to address light spillage into the adjacent residential areas. The proposed light poles would reach 60 to 70 feet tall, allowing a more direct downward illumination of the ball fields, thus allowing fewer light poles. The proposed lighting system also provides shielding to preclude light spillage, as shown in the illumination diagram on Exhibit “D,” dated January 17, 2004, and as required by the construction specifications. On February 7, 2001, the Planning Commission approved CUP 00-16 for Chase Field. The Conditional Use Permit had two purposes - to allow the addition of batting cages and a new concessionshestroom building on the site and to establish a Conditional Use Permit for the Chase Field site. At that time, the General Plan designation was not changed to provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning designations and the existing recreational uses. Staff is taking the opportunity currently provided by the lighting upgrade project to amend the land use designation. Therefore a General Plan Amendment accompanies the proposed amendment to the Chase Field Conditional Use Permit for the lighting and electrical upgrades. The proposed Chase Field Lighting Upgrades project is subject to the following regulations: A. General Plan; B. C. D. Open Space Zone (Chapter 21.33 of the Zoning Ordinance); Conditional Use Ordinance (Chapter 21.42 of the Zoning Ordinance); and Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan. IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables. A. General Plan The Chase Field Lighting Upgrades project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the ball field lighting replacement project are the Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, and Public Safety elements. Table 1 below indicates how the project complies with these particular elements of the General Plan. 33 GPA 03-12/CUP 00-16(A) - CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES January 2 1 , 2004 Parks and Recreation Public Safety Page 3 Implement the use of energy saving technology in all rehabilitation and new park development projects. Minimize injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from fire, flood, crime, hazardous material, or seismic disaster. TABLE 1- GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE Element Land Use Use Classification, Goal, Objective, or Program Provide an orderly balance of both public and private land uses within convenient and compatible locations. Proposed change to Open Space land use designation. Proposed Use and Improvements ~~ The proposed upgrade of the ball field lighting will increase the compatibility of the existing public use. Public parks are an allowed use in the Open Space land use designation. Upgraded lighting and electrical system will be more energy efficient. Proposed upgrades to electrical system will bring it into conformance with current codes and reduce the potential for injury. Compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes Given the above, the proposed Chase Field Lighting Upgrades project is consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan. B. Open Space Zone The project site is zoned 0-S and is therefore subject to the regulations contained in Chapter 21.33 of the Zoning Ordinance. The OS zone allows for public parks, City playgrounds and picnic areas. It also allows for accessory uses and structures required for the conduct of permitted uses, such as restrooms, fencing, and lighting. Playfields and athletic fields are allowed in the OS zone with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Section C below discusses the project’s compliance with the Conditional Use Regulations. With regard to development standards, the OS zone regulates lot area and building height. The OS regulations state that the size of the lot shall be dependent upon the existing or proposed use. No subdivision of land is proposed with the ball field lighting and electrical upgrades and the size of the lot is adequate for its use. The maximum building height allowed in the OS zone is 25 feet unless, as stated in Section 21.33.060 of the ordinance, additional height is allowed through a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission. Chapter 21.42 (Conditional Uses) states that the height and area regulations of the underlying zone (e.g., the 0- S Zone) in which the project is located shall prevail unless a specific finding is made to allow an exemption to the underlying limithequirement. The proposed height of the light poles (60 and 70 feet) exceeds the height allowed by the underlying 0-S Zone (25 feet); therefore, an exemption is required to approve the additional height. GPA 03- 12/cl.JP 00-1 6(A) - CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES January 21,2004 The proposed height of the lighting poles is necessary to reduce the amount of spillage and obtain effective lighting coverage at field level and is typical of the lighting at other parks within the City, including the future Northwest Quadrant Community Park immediately to the north of Chase Field. Staff believes that, given that the lighting poles are similar or the same as in other parks and the increased height allows for more direct illumination and less light spillage, the proposed 60 to 70-foot high lighting poles would be compatible with the surrounding uses and structures. Therefore, staff has included a finding in the attached CUP resolution to allow the requested height limit exemption. C. Conditional Use Ordinance According to Sections 21.33.040(3), (4), and (7), playfields and athletic fields, public structures, and other related cultural, entertainment, and recreational activities and facilities are permitted in the Open Space zone with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Four findings must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit. These findings, elaborated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5548, deal mostly with the project’s consistency with the General Plan, desirability for the community, and compatibility with its site and surroundings. As discussed in Section A above, the proposed Chase Field Lighting Upgrades project is consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan. The proposed lighting and electrical upgrades to Chase Field are desirable for the community in that they would decrease the number of lighting poles and amount of light spillage while maintaining or improving the field level illumination. Upgrade of the existing lighting and electrical system would also bring the system up to current code compliance and allow the continued evening use of the park. By decreasing the number of light sources and decreasing the amount of light spillage, the project would increase the compatibility with the surrounding residential uses. The upgrade of the lighting and electrical system would not cause any increase in public facilities or services, or traffic generation of the site. Given the above, the required findings for a Conditional Use Permit can be made for the proposed Chase Field Lighting Upgrades project. D. Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan Chase Field is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. There are no special development conditions in the zone plan that would apply to this lighting and electrical upgrade project. Overall compliance of the park with Growth Management was analyzed in the original Conditional Use Permit approval and the proposed lighting and electrical upgrades create no new facilities impacts. All public facilities needed to serve the use are already in place. In addition, the project is conditioned to comply with all requirements of the zone plan. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed Chase Field Lighting Upgrades project was reviewed for any potential adverse impacts to the environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed lighting and electrical system upgrade, as designed and conditioned, would not create significant adverse environmental impacts. No sensitive habitat or agricultural operations exist GPA 03-12/CUP 00-16(A) - CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES January 2 1,2004 Page 5 on the park site. The project is consistent with the applicable regulations and the upgrade of the lighting system would decrease any existing light spillage impacts to neighboring residential areas. Given the environmental analysis, a Notice of Intent to Issue a Negative Declaration was posted on December 26, 2003. No public comments were received during the 20-day review period. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5547 (Neg. Dec.) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5553 (GPA) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5548 (CUP) Location Map Disclosure Statement Background Data Sheet Planning Commission Resolution No. 4907 Exhibits “A” - “D” dated January 17,2004 3k7 - City of Carlsbad DISCLOSURE STATE3IEST A4pplicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications discretionary action on the part of the City Council or an!’ appointed Board. Comniission or Cornmitree hich n ill require 1 The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be revie\ved until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as “Any individual, fum, co-partnership, joint venture. associ5tion. social club. fraternal organization. corporation. estate. trust. receiver. syndicate, in this and any other count. cit) and count). city municipaliq, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.“ Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and propem. on.ner must be provided below. 1. APPLICAYT (Not the applicant’s agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a comoration or uartnershin include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10Y0 of the shares. IF NO APPLICABLE (N/A) THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned cornoration, include the names. title , and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page ma) be attached if necessary. , Title TU~LIC WOrU’3 sL)f&/SL Title Address dOS- OAL 43C- C0Q9 ?W% Address INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDICATE NON- Person ~LC A. SWU clc Corp/Part C 19 of CMLSG f+D -. 3 OWNER (Not the owner’s agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a comoration or DartnershiD, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv- owned cornoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person CorpRart Title Title Address Address 37 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 @ -. 30s-PROFIT ORGAYEATION OR TRLST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonmofit orcanization or 3 trusi. 115: :i:< names and addresses of -4" person sening as an officer or director of the noli-protir organization or as trustee or beneficiq. of the. Son Profit'Trust Son Profit'Trust Title Title Address Address 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Civ staff. Boards, Commissiyx. Committees ador Council within the past nvelve ( 12) months'? u Yes INo If yes, please indicate person(s): NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. 9146 A.Sc/.(IIccc d,AE fl.Su-IdtC/, Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicableldate Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 38 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: GPA 03- 12/CUP 00- 16(A) CASE NAME: Chase Field Lighting Upgrades APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a General Plan Amendment to change 2.74 acres from Continuation School (HC) to Open Space (OS) and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the replacement and refurbishment of the existing ball field lighting and electrical system at Chase Field, located at the southwest comer of Hardinn Street and Chestnut Avenue. LEGALDESCRIPTION: the Office of the County Recorder in the County of San Diego on March 12, 1915. Block 61 of the Amended Map of the Town of Carlsbad, in the APN: 204-193-01 Acres: 2.74 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: HC (proposed to change to OS) Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A Existing Zone: 0-S Proposed Zone: N/A Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan Site 0-s HC North 0-S OS (pending) South R-3 RM East R-3 RMH West R-3 RM Current Land Use Chase Field Future Community Park SinglelMultifamily Res. SinglelMultifamily Res. Single family residential PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued January 21,2004 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated 0 c] Other, 1 3 - 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 PLAKNING COhIhIISSlON RESOLUTION NO. 4907 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLAhXIKG COMhLIISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. CALIFORllI.4. APPRO\ING .A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO -4LLOM’ IMPRO\’Eh?ENTS AT, AND ESTABLISH A CUP FOR. CHASE FIELD. AN EXISITNG CITY PARK IK LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CHASE FIELD CASE NO.: CUP 00-16 WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad Parks and Recreation Department. “Developer.” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property on.ned by the City of Carlsbad, “Owner,” located at the southwest comer of Chestnut Avenue and Harding Street (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “E” dated January 17, 2001, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, CHASE FIELD - CUP 00-16, as provided by Chapters 1 1.32,21.42, and 2 1 SO of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of January 2001 and on the 7th day of February 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 CUP. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES CHASE FIELD - CUP 00-16, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 4 1 7 3 4 < 6 L I E s 1c 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findinps: 1. The proposed use is: a) necessaq- and desirable for the dei.elopnienr of the coIiirnun11! 11; recreational resource; b) consistent with the General Plan in that the General Plan School land use designation does not preclude the provision of baseball facilities: and the General Plan calls for the joint use of facilities between local school districts and the general community and. c) not detrimental to permitted uses in the OS zone in that the design and operational features of the facilic (Le. park hours of operation. 24 hour lighting, etc.) minimize its potential for negative impacts to the surrounding community; -. 3 The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use in that the proposed improvements can be easilv accommodated on the site with only minimal removal of existing landscape materials; 3. All features necessary to adjust the requested use to the existing uses are provided in that the facility will have limited hours of operation consistent with other City parks; 4. The street system serving the proposed use would not be significantly impacted by the proposed conditional use in that additional vehicle trips would be minimal and generated outside of peak traffic periods. Conditions: 1 If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Conditional Use Permit. 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Parks and Recreation Department to make, all corrections and modifications to the Conditional Use Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibit and as described in the Planning Commission staff report. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. A. This Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that PC RES0 NO. 4907 -2- 1-11 1 3 - 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 the use does not have a substantial negati1.e effect on surrounding propcn1t.s OT' the public health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the usc hs such substantial negative effects, the Planning Director shall recommend that tlic Planning Commission, after providing the permittee the opponunip. to be hcard. add additional conditions to reduce or eliminate the substantial negati1.e effects. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th da\. of February ZOO1 b!. the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker. Compas. Heineman. L'Heureux, Nielsen, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JE~ N. SEGM, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION _. ATTEST: MICHAEL MOLMILLER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4907 -3- Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT January 21,2004 Chairperson White directed everyone’s attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the Commission would be following for that evening’s public hearing. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairperson White asked Assistant Planning Director, Don Neu, to introduce the first item. 1. CUP 98-18x1 - LA POSADA DE GUADALUPE DE CARLSBAD - Request to reconsider CUP 98-18 to extend the CUP an additional two years, for a total of seven (7) years and set a public hearing for the formal action at the February 4, 2004 meeting. Mr. Neu introduced Item 1 stating that it was a request to reconsider the Conditional Use Permit extension for La Posada de Guadalupe de Carlsbad. He stated that at a previous meeting the Planning Commission had considered the CUP extension and granted a five-year extension. Approximately a week after that hearing, the Planning Department was notified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development that the loan that they were granting for the facility had a seven-year term and they wanted the CUP to run for the same term as the loan. Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission set February 4, 2004 to reconsider this CUP extension. . MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission reconsider La Posada de Guadalupe de Carlsbad CUP 98-18x1 and set a public hearing for the February 4, 2004 Planning Commission meeting to consider amending the term of the CUP from five (5) years to seven (7) years. Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton VOTE: 6-1 AYES: NOES: Whitton Chairperson White asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next Item. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. PCDlGPC 03-04 - 3322 MADISON STREET ACQUISITION - Request for a Planning Commission Determination of General Plan Consistency for the City acquisition of property located at 3322 Madison Street, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. CUP 01-09 - SPRINT PCS - CALAVERA HILLS COMMUNITY PARK - Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation, operation, and maintenance of an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility at Calavera Hills Community Park located at the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. CT 13-12lPUD 03-08 - PROMONTORY BUSINESS PARK - LOT 21 - Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Non-Residential Planned Unit Development Permit to subdivide a 5.38 acre parcel into seven lots, located north of Palomar Airport Road and east of Loker Avenue West within Local Facilities Management Zone 5. CUP 03-071CDP 03-17 - RALPH’S AT&T WIRELESS - Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the installation, operation and maintenance of an unmanned wireless telecommunication facility located at 7140 Avenida Encinas in the C-2- Q Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 9. GPA 03-12lCUP 00-16(A) - CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES - Request for a General Plan Amendment to change 2.74 acres from Continuation School (HC) to Open Space (OS) and Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the replacement and refurbishment of the existing Planning Commission Minutes January 21,2004 Page 3 ball field lighting and electrical system at Chase Field, located at the southwest corner of Harding Street and Chestnut Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Mr. Neu stated that agenda Items 2 through 6 are normally heard in a public hearing context, however, these projects are minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends approval. He recommended that the public hearing be opened and closed, and that the Commission proceed with a vote as consent Items including the errata sheets. If the Commission or someone from the public wishes to pull an Item, Staff would be available to respond to questions. Chairperson White asked the Commissioners if anyone wished to pull an Item and asked the public if anyone wished to comment on an Item. Seeing none, Chairperson White called for a motion. MOTION ACT1 0 N : Motion by Commissioner Whitton, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve Items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall, White, and Whitton VOTE: 7-0 AYES: NOES: None NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, March 2, 2004, to consider approving a Negative Declaration and a request for a General Plan Amendment to change 2.74 acres from Continuation School (HC) to Open Space (OS) at Chase Field, located at the southwest corner of Harding Street and Chestnut Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as: Block 61 of the Amended Map of the Town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map No. 775, filed in the Office of the County Recorder in the County of San Diego on March 12, 1915. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after February 27, 2004. If you have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. If you challenge the Negative Declaration and/or General Plan Amendment 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, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: GPA 03-1 2 CASE NAME: CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES PUBLISH: February 20,2004 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SITE CHASE FIELD LIGHTING UPGRADES GPA 03-12 * CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CITY OF ENClNlTAS 505 S VULCAN AVE CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085 CITY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 SD COUNTY PLANNING STE B 5201 RUFFIN RD SANDIEGO CA 92123 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SANDAG 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE 100 STE 800 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 9174 SKY PARK CT 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 ATTN TED ANASIS AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR URBAN STUDIES SANDIEGO CA 92123 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKSlCOMMUNlTY SERVICES CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER MICHAEL GRIM CITY OF CARLSBAD P U BL I C W ORKS/EN G I NE ERI NG DEPT CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Oll27i2004 AVERYB Address Labels Laser 5160@ AFJR PARTNERSHIP L P 4255 OCEAN BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92109 ALMANZA THOMASgMAGDALENA 1905 S DITMAR ST OCEANSIDE CA 92054 TRUST 04-1 6-91 APODACA MARIA L TRUST 3345 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 AYALA ANDREW L REVOCABLE 3380 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 TRUST 12-08-01 BOBBITT JAMES D LIVING TRUST 3730 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 08-27-01 CADMAN JOHN P&MENDOZA- CADMAN GRISELCA 3600 HARBOR BLVD #110171 OXNARD CA 93035 CARRENO DAGOBERTO P&MERCED B 910 PALM AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 _. . .. , AJDOUR MICHAEL&JULIE 6507 ALTA AVE BALTIMORE MD 21206 AMMON FAMILY TRUST 01 -24-90 4070 SUNNYHILL DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ANTONACCI MORENO&KATHRYN L 825 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 ASBILL FAMILY TRUST 12-04-01 ATAYEE FAMILY TRUST 04-30-01 3530 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 12762 SALMON RIVER RD SAN DIEGO CA 92129 BAIRD WILLIAM T JR 3535 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 BATTEN BRYAN J 3461 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 BRAKEBILL MARC C&VICTORIA A 880 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 BUSH JAMES R P 0 BOX 645 CARLSBAD CA 9201 8 CAMPA JESUSaMAGDALENA CANALES ISABEL 0 FAMILY TRUST 12-1 9-97 3447 JEFFERSON ST 770 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CASTILLO MICHEAL R 3419 BRIGHTON ST ROSEMEAD CA 91770 CHILDS THERESA 3331 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 CRUZ BEN M REVOCABLE TRUST 3640 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 DELOACH RALPH K&GENE BAKER 12141 AVENIDA CONSENTIDO SAN DIEGO CA 921 28 06-28-91 TRUST 08-22-95 Laser 5 160@ Laser 5160° .. . L. . . DENNISON JOHN E DEWHURST DAVID 300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR #108A CARLSBAD CA 92008 3425 SEACREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DEWHURST DAVID R 863 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 DEWHURST DOUGLAS G 840 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 DOYLE TIMOTHY M&DONNA D 843 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 EKBLAD PHILLIP M 813 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 FERGUSON AVRIL R 1998 TRUST 4260 SUNNYHILL DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 FEULING JOSEPH&SUZANNE 755 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 FREEMAN D DOUGLAS&DENISE M FRENCH FAMILY TRUST 11 -23-93 842 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 790 LAS PALMAS DR VISTA CA 92083 GARCIA ANTONIO&DIONICIA 3590 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 GOMEZ FAMILY TRUST 4765 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 GONZALES ADAM M 4887 FOXCREEK TRL RENO NV 89509 HARTZELL CHARLES B&LAURETTA D TRS LIVING TRUST 4009 CRESCENT POINT RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 HARVEY GLORIA D REVOCABLE 795 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 HERNANDEZ ARTHUR G JR <LE> HERNANDEZ ARTHUR G JR 790 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 HERNANDEZ VIRGINIA M 220 N EL CAMINO REAL #13 OCEANSIDE CA 92054 HOLMES PAULINE J TR 722 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 JERROMES STEVEN J&CYNTHIA L 757 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 DEWHURST DAVID 841 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 DORANTES ALBERT0 J8TINA 773 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 ENRIQUEZ RODNEY M 790 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 FLETCHER LIVING TRUST 07-1 2-00 P 0 BOX 1925 CARLSBAD CA 9201 8 GAOIRAN FAMILY TRUST 09-06-94 3520 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 GAY TRUST 03-27-93 2272 SOLEDAD RANCHO RD SAN DIEGO CA 92109 GRIJALVA LEONARD A&RACHAEL 149 POLK ST OCEANSIDE CA 92057 HEDRICK MICHAEL C&LUZVIMINDA E 16777 N 111TH ST SCOlTSDALE AZ 85255 HIRATA FRANK S G&LORI L G 3434 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 KAHAHAWAI ELIZABETH 771 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 5160@ 5 160@ La er laser . . . - . . . .. I *.. _- . . . .. ..... . .. . ..- - . KIRBY CONNIE J 4845 TARANTELLA LN SAN DIEGO CA 92130 KNOWLES BARBARA L 3536 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 KOUMA MARTIN TRUST 10-1 2-96 3630 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 LANYI ANDY&CAROLYN 1629 CALLE LAS CASAS OCEANSIDE CA 92056 LARSEN SHIRLEY A TRUST 01-22-99 LOPEZ RICHARD V&CARMEN A 3605 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 815 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 LUJAN JESUS&MANUELA B 3545 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 MACLEOD ALICE M 755 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 MADRID ROSANNA LIVING TRUST 2435 TUTTLE ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 05-1 3-03 MAGALLANES HENRY 600 SOWELL RD MCDONOUGH GA 30252 MARR RUSSELL T 434 LA VETA AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 MARTINEZ VIRGINIA H 3367 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 MATA ANTHONY A&PHYLLIS T 450 CHINQUAPIN AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 MATHEWS JOHN L&CHERYLE L 3376 ADAMS ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 MELLING BERNARDINO&M LOURDES 863 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 MlER MONICA P P 0 BOX 4301 CARLSBAD CA 9201 8 POBOX4 MlSETlC 1994 FAMILY TRUST 1456 LEMON AVE BRADBURY CA 91 01 0 MOHAMMED1 ZIA T 838 LINCOLN BLVD #2 SANTA MONICA CA 90403 MONTANEZ HENRY 3391 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 MORENO SALV :l""r MORENO SALVADOR R 3468 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 NAVARRO RITA M 3463 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 NORMAN RICHARD S&SHEILA E 893 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 OROZCO JOSE A P 0 BOX 607 CARLSBAD CA 9201 8 NOVAK KATHLEEN 822 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 OROZCO JOSE A REVOCABLE 786 PALM AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 TRUST 08-01-95 PACHECO RUBEN TR 3357 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 00 Laser 5160@ Laser 5160@ PARAGON INVESTMENT L L C C/O AMERICAL SERVICES L L C 3574 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 PRUITT MICHAEL N8THERESA L 770 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 RAMIREZ JULIO H 1298 BUENA VISTA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 RODRIGUEZ FRANK L&JOSEPHINE A 860 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 REZNICHEK RYAN P 3575 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 REZNICHEK RYA RODRIGUEZ PATRICIA J 661 CHESTNUT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 RUGGLES STEPHEN J8GINNA S 3149 FAIRVIEW DR VISTA CA 92084 SANCHEZ ROY R8ESTELA V 3482 ROOSEVELT ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 FAMILY TRUST 10-30-95 SCHNEIDER WILLIAMELELLEN P 0 BOX 891 CARLSBAD CA 92018 SENTENO ALFONSO S8CRESPINA REVOCABLE TRUST 3323 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 SERETTI ENRIQUE M 210 LILLE LN #206 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 SERNA JUAN J 3535 MADISON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 SHAH MUKUND LLMADHU K 3570 PI0 PIC0 DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 SlMlKlCH RATKO8CHERYL L 1029 HONEYSUCKLE DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069 SLAWSON GRANT H8MCCAFFERY VICTORIA 3490 DEL REY ST #IO0 SAN DIEGO CA 92109 SORINO DOMINICK8NORMA J 1993 1351 SUNSET GROVE RD FALLBROOK CA 92028 FAMILY TRUST 04-28- SOTELO VIRGINIA F TRUST 09-07-95 C/O RUDY F SOTELO 154 CREGAR ST OCEANSIDE CA 92054 SOUGIAS NIKOLAOSBMARIA TRS P 0 BOX 232047 ENClNlTAS CA 92023 154 CREG STANDERFER JOHN L8BARBARA M 861 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 STIMPSON RALPH&LILLIAN 3482 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 REVOCABLE TRUST 02-04-91 P 0 BOX 23 TANGUMA PAULINE TR 200 S EMERALD DR #35 VISTA CA 92081 TASSONI PAUL D 81 1 CAMELLIA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 THOMAS PAUL 861 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 VALDEZ RUDOLPH G8FRANCES L 810 AVOCADO LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 VALDlBlESO ALEX J8SARAH C 3450 HARDING ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 TRUST 1 0-1 7-96 VANRIPER GERARD J 5814 REED RD FORT WAYNE IN 46835 Laser 5160@ Laser 5160@ * VENSTROM CARL J&BARTLETT WALKER-GILBERT TRUST 11 -1 5-93 WELLS DOLORES J LORI S 4350 HIGHLAND DR 772 CAMELLIA PL 2933 LANCASTER RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 WOOLEN SIDNEY W&CLARA J TRS 1312 AMBER PL ONTARIO CA 91 762 ZEll'NER WILLIAM L 940 PALM AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ZIMMERMAN ROBERT D 2880 MAVERICK ST LAS VEGAS NV 89108 Chase Field General Chase Field General Plan AmendmentPlan AmendmentGPA 03GPA 03--1212 Chase Field Chase Field Site and SurroundingsSite and Surroundings!!Total site covers 2.74 acres.Total site covers 2.74 acres.!!Site is zoned Open Space (OSite is zoned Open Space (O--S).S).!!Historically and currently used for baseball Historically and currently used for baseball and other recreational uses.and other recreational uses.!!Residential uses to the south, east, and west.Residential uses to the south, east, and west.!!Future Northwest Quadrant Community Future Northwest Quadrant Community Park to the north (previous location of Park to the north (previous location of Continuation School).Continuation School). Chase FieldChase FieldLocation MapLocation MapCHESTNUT AVEH A R D IN G S T J E F F E R S O N S T PALM AVEIN T E R S T A T E 5 AVOCADO LNM A D IS O N S T WALNUT AVEPINE AVESITER O O S E V E L T S T Chase Field General Plan Chase Field General Plan AmendmentAmendment!!General Plan Amendment to change from General Plan Amendment to change from Continuation School (HC) to Open Space Continuation School (HC) to Open Space (OS).(OS).!!Negative Declaration for the proposed Negative Declaration for the proposed actions.actions. Chase FieldChase FieldProject HistoryProject History!!At their January 21, 2004 public hearing, At their January 21, 2004 public hearing, the Planning Commission:the Planning Commission:––Recommended approval of General Plan Recommended approval of General Plan Amendment and Negative Declaration.Amendment and Negative Declaration.––Approved a Conditional Use Permit Approved a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the replacement and Amendment to allow the replacement and upgrade of the lighting and electrical system.upgrade of the lighting and electrical system.!!No public comments received at Planning No public comments received at Planning Commission hearing.Commission hearing. Chase FieldChase FieldRecommended ActionsRecommended Actions!!Adopt Resolution No. 2004Adopt Resolution No. 2004--075, approving 075, approving General Plan Amendment GPA 03General Plan Amendment GPA 03--12 and 12 and the associated Negative Declaration.the associated Negative Declaration. Chase Field General Chase Field General Plan AmendmentPlan AmendmentGPA 03GPA 03--1212