Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 94-06; Carlsbad by the Sea; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (4)City of Carlsbad Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Carlsbad By The Sea 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, CA 92008 The Carlsbad By The Sea project will consist of the redevelopment of the existing professional care facility located north and south of Grand Avenue in the Village Redevelopment Zone, R-3 and Beach Area Overiay Zones, and the development of a 12,600 square foot ocean front parcel directly west of the main stmcture on Ocean Street in the R-3 and Beach Area Overiay Zones. All three parcels will be developed with new structures, however, the front facade of the main stnjcture will be replicated. The existing professional care facility consists of 102 living units, 59 skilled nursing beds, and ancillary services. The redeveloped facility (including all three parcels) wili consist of 159 living units, 33 skilled beds, 2 visitor units, a therapy center with pool, ancillary facilities, and subterranean parking below each of the stmctures providing parking for 229 cars. The project also includes a partial street vacation of Christiansen Way from 80 feet of right-of-way to 40 feet of right-of-way, and the improvement of a 57 space public parking lot within the existing Garfield Street right-of-way. The City of Carisbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carisbad. As a result of said review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby4ssued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carisbad, Carrfornia 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4477. MARCH 6, 1995 DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 10, 1995 AH:vd RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-10/ HDP 94-08/V 94-01/PR 6.119 CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART n (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. RP94-06. CDP94-06. CUP94-10. HDP94-08. V94-01 DATE: MARCH 6. 1995 BACKGROUND 1. CASENAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME 2. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD LUTHERAN HOMES 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4. DATE EL\ FORM PART I SUBMITTED: JULY 19. 1994 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Carlsbad bv the Sea proiect will consist of the redevelopment of the existing professional care facilitv located north and south of Grand Avenue in the Village Redevelopment Zone. R-3 and Beach Area Overlav Zones, and the development of a 12.600 square foot ocean front parcel directly west of the main structure on Ocean Street in the R-3 and Beach Area Overlav Zones. All three parcels will be developed with new stmctures. however, the front facade of the main stmcture will be replicated. The existing professional care facilitv consists of 102 living units. 59 skilled nursing beds, and ancillary services. The redeveloped facilitv (including all three parcels) will consist of 159 living units. 33 skilled nursing beds. 2 visitor units, a therapy center with pool, ancillary facilities, and subterranean parking below each of the stmctures providing parking for 229 cars. The proiect also includes a partial street vacation of CMstiansen Way from 80 feet of right-of-way to 40 feet of right-of-way, and the improvement of a 57 space public parking lot within the existing Garfield Street right-of-way. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTL\LLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involvmg at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning _K_ Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics Water Hazards X Cultural Resources X Air (Juality _X_ Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance I-l Rev. 1/30/95 % DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. • I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. • I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATE NEGATTVE DECLARATION is requhed, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D 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 earUer EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. ANNE HYSONG, ASSISTAm" PLANNER Date PLANNING DIRECTOR*^ Date I - 2 Rev. 1/30/95 % ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to detennine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supportmg evidence that the potential unpact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, then no additional environmental dociunent is required (Prior Compliance). A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. I - 3 Rev. 1/30/95 • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not liinited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part n analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or detennine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure m 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. 1-4 Rev. 1/30/95 • Issues (and Sipporting Information Sources): Potentially Sigmficant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Sigmficant Impact No Impact L LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #3, #7) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over die project? (#3, #7, #8) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source #7) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source #3, #8) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established conununity (including a low- income or minority community)? (Source #7) X X X X n. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would die proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Source #3) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either dkectiy or mdirectiy (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastmcture)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) X X 1-5 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Sigmficant Impact No Impact m. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault mpture? (Source #1) b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #1) c) Seismic ground failure, includmg liquefaction? (Source #1) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) X X x_ x_ x_ x_ X TV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( Source # 2) X X 1-6 Rev. 1/30/95 % Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (Source #3) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Source #3) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #3) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source #3) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Sigmficant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X V. AIR QUALITY. Would die proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source #3) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source #3) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) X X_ X X 1-7 Rev. 1/30/95 % Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source #3 & #4) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source #4) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Source #3) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Source #4) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Source #4) f) Conflicts with adopted poHcies supporting altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? (Source #3) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (Source #3) X X X X X X vn. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (Source #3) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source #3) X X 1-8 Rev. 1/30/95 % Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #3) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? (Source #3) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source #3) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Source #3) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Source #3) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of fiiture value to the region and the residents of the State? (Source #3) X IX. HAZARDS. Would die proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (Source #3) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source #3) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (Source #3) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (Source #3) X X X X 1-9 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable bmsh, grass, or trees? (Source #3) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #5) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source #5) X XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (Source #3) b) Police protection? (Source #3) c) Schools? (Source #3) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Source #3) e) Other govemmental services? (Source #3) X x_ X xn. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the followmg utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (Source #3) b) Communications systems? (Source #3) JL X I - 10 Rev. 1/30/95 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (Source #3) ___ X d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #3) X e) Storm water drainage? (Source #3) X f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #3) X g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #3) X xm. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Source #3) X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) X c) Create light or glare? (Source #3) — X XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paieontological resources? (Source #3) X b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #6) X c) Affect historical resources? (Source #3, #6) X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source #6) X e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (Source #6) X I-11 Rev. 1/30/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Sigmficant No Impact Imi)act XV. RECREATION. Would die proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source #3) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source #3) X XVL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the liabitat of a fish or wild life 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 Califomia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directiy or indirectly? X X I - 12 Rev. 1/30/95 XVn. 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. 1-13 Rev. 1/30/95 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION L PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION The existing C!arlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Home consists of multiple structures on two of three separate parcels: Parcel 1 is a 2.3 acre parcel fronting Carlsbad Blvd. north of Grand Avenue; Parcel 2 is a 12,600 square foot ocean front lot west of Ocean Street; and Parcel 3 is a .9 acre lot fronting Carlsbad Blvd. south of Grand Avenue. The larger parcel or main facility is located in both the Village Redevelopment Zone and Beach Area Overlay Zone and within two separate local coastal program segments. It contains 102 living units, offices, meeting rooms, chapel, dining room and lobby. The main stmcture fronting Carlsbad Blvd. is multistory, approximately 36.5' in height, and has been identified as a locally significant historic structure in the City's cultural resource survey. It was constmcted, partially of unreinforced concrete masonry in 1929, and currently is not in compliance with local and state seismic code requirements. The parcel also contains six multi-unit single story cottages consisting of living units and located on the westem portion of the parcel fronting on Ocean Street in the Beach Area Overlay Zone. The small beach front parcel is currently undeveloped and is used as a scenic viewing area consisting of a concrete stairway, benches, and fencing. The .9 acre parcel located south of Grand Avenue consists of a single story, 59 bed skilled nursing facility and small community center, both built in 1974. Improvements include two parking areas and garages at the southwest comer of the lot fronting on Garfield Street. The decision to redevelop rather than rehabilitate the existing facility stems from the estimated cost of seismic retrofit along with costs for major upgrades to the existing building's aging plumbing, heating, and electrical systems. The applicant has also indicated that the existmg facility is no longer competitive with other comparable professional care facilities due both to accessibility problems and living units which are converted hotel rooms that are too few, too small, and poorly configured. n. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is previously disturbed and surrounded by existing relatively small scale commercial and residential development. These parcels have frontages on Carlsbad Boulevard, a community theme scenic corridor, Christiansen Way, Grand Avenue, Garfield Street, and/or Ocean Street. The existing facilities provide very liinited parking onsite and rely on the surrounding public streets to satisfy their parking demand. Parcel 1 site elevations range from 58 feet msl on the east to 45 feet msl on the west and is subject to the development regulations of three different zoning designations (VR, R-3, and BAOZ) and two different local coastal program segments (Village Redevelopment and MeUo II). Parcel 3 site elevations range from 57 feet msl to 50 feet msl and is entirely within the VR zone and regulated by the Village Design Manual. Parcel 2 site elevations range from 7 feet msl at the bottom of the coastal bluff to 44 msl along Ocean Street. This infill lot has never been developed although it has been utilized as a scenic viewing area and is covered with invasive ice plant species and surrounded by development. Parcel 2 is subject to the R-3 and BAOZ zone development regulations and the Mello n segment of Clarlsbad's Local Coastal Program. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. Environmental Impact Discussion I - 14 Rev. 1/30/95 la. Land Use: The project consists of the redevelopment of the existing professional care facility which is located in areas designated by the General Plan for both Village Redevelopment (VR) and high density residential (RH). Uses permitted by right and conditionally in these designated areas include commercial, multiple family residential, and professional care facilities (allowed as a conditional use). The project is subject to and consistent with the R-3, BAOZ, and VR zoning ordinances as well as the Mello n and Village Redevelopment segments of the Local Coastal Program except for building height. Although the Village Design Manual (zoning document for redevelopment area) specifies that the entire ground floor of all projects located in the area shall be devoted to visitor commercial uses unless an amendment to the Local Coastal Program is approved, the Clarlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Home has existed at its present location since the mid-1960's. While the facility will be intensified, the existing professional care uses will not change. The professional care facility is a commercial use, however, neither the existing facility nor the proposed facility includes a visitor serving commercial component on the ground floor. The Village Design Manual regulating uses in the VR zone only, does not specify that existing uses must be converted to visitor serving uses if sites are redeveloped to serve existing uses. Upon change of use on the property, visitor serving uses on the ground floor will be required. The project is consistent with the development standards of the above mentioned zoning ordinances except for building height. Parcel 1 buildmg height exceeds the maximum 35' building height allowed along the Clarlsbad Boulevard frontage (36.5 feet) and adjacent to the driveway ramp along Christiansen Way. As mitigation for demolishing the locally significant historic structure, the applicant is required to replicate the existing 36.5' building facade along Carlsbad Boulevard. Building height also exceeds the 35' maximum height standard along Christiansen Way (northem elevation) adjacent to the driveway ramp providing access to the underground parking garages. Building height is exceeded at this location since the closest grade for measurement purposes is the sidewalk and street located north of the driveway ramp which is lower than the grade established for height measurement around the remainder of the building. An exemption to height standards will be recommended since strict adherence to height standards at these locations would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Village Design Manual and Plan. Exceptional circumstances do apply to the proposed development with regard to constmction requirements surrounding the skilled nursing facility and the multiple zoning regulations applicable to the property. Building height will not be injurious or materially detrimental to property or the public at this location since building height currently exceeds 35' along Clarlsbad Boulevard and the stmcture is separated from adjacent development to the north by the driveway ramp and the 40' wide (Christiansen Way public right of way. Granting an exemption will not contradict the standards established by the manual since the intent of the manual is to provide general design guidelines and regulations rather than strict standards, and with the exceptions noted above, the Parcel 1 and 3 stmctures comply with the maxunum height permitted by the VR and R-3/BA0Z zones. Based upon the above, the project building height does not generate a sigmficant environmental impact with regard to aesthetics or building intensification in the Village. The Parcel 2 structure, located west of Ocean Street in the Beach Area Overlay Zone, is restricted to 24' and two levels due to its flat roof The flat roof is utilized as an open roof garden above a parking garage adjacent to Ocean Street and six living units extending over the bluff to the beach. The proposed structure is approximately 4-5' high along Ocean Street, and 39' to the top of roof along the westem elevation. The westem portion of the stmcture is also three levels. A variance to height standards is required at this location, however, the additional height will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact since the existing view corridor will be retained from Ocean street for residents and the public, the structures will observe the "stringline" stmctural setbacks avoiding further seaward encroachment, and the stmcture will be the same height or lower than existing stmctures adjacent to the north and south. 1-15 Rev. 1/30/95 lb. The project is located within the Mello n and Village Redevelopment segments of Clarlsbad's Local Coastal Program. Parcel 2 located west of Ocean Street and one third of parcel 1 located east of Ocean Street are subject to Mello n pohcies requiring bluff stabiUty, avoidance of Uquefaction problems associated with seismic hazards, "stringline" setbacks, access along shorelines, and archaeological or paieontological resources. Compliance with the recommendations of the Leighton and Associates' Geotechnical Investigation for these parcels will avoid conflicts with policies requiring soil stability. The required seaward stringline setbacks are provided by the project thereby ensuring lateral public access. Due to the relatively small acreage and previously disturbed and/or infill nature of the sites, significant archaeological or paieontological resources are unlikely to be present. Although no seawall is proposed for the development, a 7' high foundation wall will provide the necessary protection from wave action during high tide and severe storms. The remainder of Parcel 1 and Parcel 3 are subject to the Village Redevelopment segment of the LCP (Village Design Manual) which regulates land uses and development standards. As described above, the existing uses will not change and the project is consistent with all required development standards except building height (see paragraphs 2 and 3 under Land Use la. above). lc. Clarlsbad by the Sea is an existing professional care facility which has occupied two of the three parcels proposed for development for approximately 30 years. The facility is surrounded by a hotel and a church to the north, a motel, vacation rental residential units, and the ocean to the west, Clarlsbad Boulevard to the east, and the Town Center commercial development to the south. The project will intensify the existing development on two of the parcels and develop Parcel 2 located west of Ocean Street which is currently undeveloped. The project adheres to coverage and height standards (with two exceptions) through a terraced design in which building height is reduced to 30' consistent with the BAOZ height restriction. Parcel 3 located south of Grand is completely within the VR zone permitting 35' in building height, however, a terraced design will be provided to create a transition from three stories to two stories along the Garfield Street frontage to ensure compatibility with the smaller scale development located west of Garfield Street within the BAOZ. Additionally, since Parcel 3 abuts the Town Centei (Commercial development to the south, the facility is designed to orient living units away from the commercial development by limiting south facing windows and locating stakways along the property line to buffer units from adjacent commercial development. The stmcture is oriented away from the southem property line to the greatest extent possible and a five to six foot high screen wall along the southem property line is provided to screen the outdoor recreation area from adjacent commercial development. The above described site design wiU ensure compatibiUty with existing smaller scale development and uses in the vicinity. Additionally, the provision of underground parking on each Parcel will reduce the number of vehicles associated with the existing professional care facility which currently park on the street thereby reducing the impact of this type of facility in the beach area. Id. No agricultural resources or operations will be impacted by the proposed redevelopment project wliich is located in the downtown Village area and has been surrounded by development for many years. le. The project includes the partial vacation of Christiansen Way between Carlsbad Boulevard and Ocean Street, however, access to a Garfield Street public parking lot and the beach will still be provided within the remaining right of way. The project will not divide the physical arrangement of the area since the professional care facility is being developed or redeveloped on existing parcels. 1-16 Rev. 1/30/95 2a. Although the project represents an increase of 57 Uving units with the potential to double the current Carlsbad by the Sea resident population which will represent a small increase in the local population, development of the facility wiU not result in changes to population projections since projections are based upon residential dwelUng units. Professional care facilities are commercial service in nature and are therefore not considered in the City's population projections. 2b. The redevelopment project will increase in size, however, it will not induce substantial growth in the area since the number of Uving units will increase by only 57 and the number of nursing beds wiU decrease by 26. This increase will have no impact on existing projects surrounding the site which may also expand their commercial facilities within the existing regulatory parameters upon approval of a redevelopment permit or conditional use pemiit. 2c. The redevelopment of the professional care facility will temporarUy displace current residents of Clarlsbad by the Sea during constmction, however, residents will be relocated to other Clarlsbad Lutheran Homes and may retum to the Carlsbad facility upon completion of the project if they choose to do so. 3a-i. Compliance with the reconunendations of a Geotechnical Investigation conducted by Leighton and Associates in June, 1994, for the project will ensure that there are less than significant impacts from such conditions as seismic ground shaking, ground failure, land subsidence, landslides or other unstable soil conditions. The coastal bluff proposed for development on Parcel 2 is a unique geologic feature, however, the infill parcel is heavily hnpacted by erosion due to wave action. The bluff will be supported by an approximately 20' high retaming waU constmcted beneath the stmcture thereby protecting it from further erosion. 4a-d. Water Quality: The project consists of the redevelopment of existing previously developed parcels and drainage pattems, absorption rates or surface runoff will not change substantially. Drainage from the existing and future development is routed into an existing storm drain system located beneath the Ocean Street right of way thereby avoiding any impact to surface water. In accordance with the Hydrology Section 5.2 of the Master EIR 93-01 and the "Coastal Design CMteria for Proposed SeawaU, Clalifomia Lutheran Complex" report, prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. dated October 18, 1994, the following mitigation will be incorporated into the project design to avoid significant impacts to water quality resulting from the project: 1) require the installation of protective design measures to protect stmctures from the effects of wave action; 2) require the project to constmct all public facilities needed to serve the proposed development prior to or concurrent with the need it generates; and 3) require the dedication and improvement of aU public right-of-way for public utility and storm drainage facilities to serve the project. Additionally, prior to approval of a grading permit, the applicant must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant will be required to provide the best management practices to reduce siuface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge into storm drain facilities. 5. Air (pality: Subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan wiU result m increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and I - 17 Rev. 1/30/95 suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as weU as in the San Diego Air Basin. Smce the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City CouncU Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Clonsiderations" appUes to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is avaUable at the Planning Department. 6. Circulation la. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments wiU be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facUities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop altemative modes of transportation such as traUs, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are mcluded as conditions of project approval. 1-18 Rev. 1/30/95 Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buUdout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checkUst is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City CouncU Resolution No. 94-246, mcluded a "Statement Of Overridmg Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Cbnsiderations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. 6b,e. The project design does not create hazards to traffic or pedestrian safety. The project includes the half street vacation of (Hhristiansen Way resulting in a 28' wide public street with no parking on either side, and the narrowing of traffic lanes on Grand Avenue to allow for diagonal parkmg and a 10' wide promenade (sidewalk) or linkage to the beach. The project will be conditioned to install sidewalk improvements on both sides of aU streets surrounding the project thereby improving pedestrian circulation and safety. Both of these roadways are consistent with (Carlsbad Standards for public roadways and intersections. 6c. The project is within the five minute fire service response area required by the Growth Management Ordinance and emergency access to the site is provided by public streets surrounding the project as required by the Fire Department. The project will be conditioned to provide the necessary fire hydrant and fire flow capacity prior to building permit issuance. 6g. There are no rail, waterbome, or air traffic resources within close enough proximity to the project to be unpacted. 7a-e. As identified by the Biological Resources Section 5.4 of the Master EIR, the project in within the developed area of the City and consists of the redevelopment of previously disturbed and infill sites containing no sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will have no impact on these resources. 8a-c. The Clarlsbad by the Sea project consists of the redevelopment of existing, previously developed, infill parcels with no mineral or agricultural resources in the vicinity. The project represents an expansion of the existing facility, therefore, energy consmnption will also increase. Mitigation such as compliance with the Building Code, Title 20, (Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code specified by the Electricity and Natural Gas Section 5.12.1 of the Master EIR to ensure the implementation of energy conservation measures will avoid the project's use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and/or inefficient manner. 9a,c,d. The professional care facility is licensed and regulated by the County Department of Health Services to ensure that the provision of health care services is safely administered. Risks with respect to accidental explosion or the release of hazardous substances is not one typically associated with this type of facility. The facility provides ongoing health care services to elderly resident patients and will not create a health hazard or expose people to existing sources of health hazards. 9b. The project will not interfere with the City's emergency response or evacuation plans. Review by the FUe Department to ensure adequate design features are incorporated into the project to pennit emergency access and response is a condition of project approval. 10. Although the project is a commercial service use, it includes living units for residents along Carlsbad Boulevard, which is a circulation element roadway requiring mitigation for residential projects with existing 1-19 Rev. 1/30/95 and future projected noise levels above the City standard of 60 CNEL exterior and 45 CNEL interior. Due to the nature of the project, the 60 CNEL/45 CNEL standard has been imposed. Additionally, the project consists of substantial mechanical equipment planned for the roof of the skilled nursing buUding (Parcel 1) and Parcel 3 with noise generation potential. The preliminary noise report concludes that the only exterior areas subject to noise levels of 67 dB (existing) and 70 dB (future) are the Parcel 3 balconies located along Carlsbad Boulevard. However, according to the City's noise guidelines, the balconies are exempt since they are less than 6 feet deep. To meet the City's interior noise standard of CNEL 45 dB, it wiU be necessary for certain windows to be sound rated and these attenuation measures wUl be required as mitigation for noise impacts. According to the Preliminary Noise Report prepared for Carlsbad by the Sea by (Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. dated 30 June 1994 and January 9, 1995, noise generated by the Parcel 1 roof equipment is attenuated by the proposed roof screens and barriers to avoid exceeding existing noise levels with one exception. The existing 60 CNEL noise level along Ocean Street will increase to 61 CNEL as a result of the increased noise generated by the roof equipment. Mitigation ensuring that noise levels do not exceed the existing noise levels at property lines as verified by an acoustical engineer prior to the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy will be required. 11-12. Public Services and Utilities In accordance with the City's Master EIR, the project must be consistent with and will be conditioned to comply with the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards for public facilities and services to ensure that adequate public facilities are provided prior to or concurrent with development. 13a-b. The project (Parcel 1 and 3) is situated to the west of (Carlsbad Boulevard, a scenic corridor, where the existing Parcel 1 stmcture housing the Carlsbad by the Sea professional care faciUty has existed for 65 years. It is a locally significant historic stmcture with prominent visual characteristics due to its architecture; therefore its repUcation will be necessary. The existuig Parcel 1 and 3 stmctures will be demoUshed and redeveloped and the front facade of the Parcel 1 stmcture and landscaping will be repUcated to avoid significant adverse aesthetic impacts along Carlsbad Boulevard. A public view corridor to the Beach currently exists between the existing structures on Grand Avenue; therefore, redevelopment of the site wUl not allow encroachment into existing view corridors. The Parcel 3 stmcture south of Grand will increase to three stories, however, stmctural articulation, fenestration, and the incorporation of architectural elements from the main stmcture will aesthetically enhance the Carlsbad Boulevard street frontage. Additionally, the project includes minimum 20' landscaped setbacks from Carlsbad Boulevard with special attention to landscaping at the comers of Carlsbad Boulevard and (Christiansen Way/Grand Avenue. The project also incorporates the improvement of a public view corridor and pedestrian promenade to the beach access west of Ocean Street complete with enhanced paving, public art, street fumiture, and decorative lightmg along Grand Avenue. The project also incorporates all of the Village Design Manual development standards and design guidelines to avoid visually impacting the area. 14. According to the Cultural Resource Survey and Historical Assessment performed for the project by RECON, the (Carlsbad by the Sea faciUty, formerly "the (Califomia-(Carlsbad Mineral Spring Hotel, is an important resource area per criteria A and C of CEQA. The enterprise is dkectiy linked to the growth and development of the City of (Carlsbad and to the recognition of this obscure stop on the southem (CaUfomia coast as a destination. This resort attracted people from nationwide and also served as a local hub of social events and conununity activities during these early years of growth and development. In addition, this property serves I - 20 Rev. 1/30/95 as an important link with one of the most difficult economic episodes in the history of the United States. To a great extent, what happened to this hotel serves as an example of what occurred nationally." Pursuant to CEQA, mitigation is requked to reduce sigmficant impacts associated with the destmction of the historically significant facility. Mitigation includes the filing of a performance bond with the City to ensure that mitigation measures and design product are consistent with approved plans. The design of the new facility will be consistent with the existing historic stmcture, inasmuch as the facade which is currently present will be faithfully replicated including size, scale, and architectural style of the former hotel structure. Mkigation shall also include the historical, photographic, and video documentation of the hotel and property by a qualified historian which includes an inventory of materials, fixtures, or built-ins to identify items which can be salvaged for reuse or display in the new facility. Additionally, a rendering of the new faciUty must be posted in front of the existing historic stmcture one month prior to demolition to provide citizens an opportunity to see the new facility. The cultural survey concludes that "the results of the cultural resource survey are negative for prehistoric cultural resource sites, features, or isolates. While the location may have provided a reasonable stopping place for aboriginal peoples, none of the evidence of these visits have survived. The most likely reason for this, if sites have existed on this project, is that evidence of buried sites is masked by the buUdings and landscaping, or that the skes were destroyed by farming and later development on this property." Mitigation to avoid archaeological impacts is included which requkes a qualified archaeological monitor to be present during grading to identify and assess any buried cultural resource deposits, hi the event that important resource materials are imcovered, a recovery and analysis program will be implemented. 15. No recreational faciUties will be impacted by the redevelopment of (Carlsbad by the Sea nor will the commercial development increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks. V. SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: AU source documents are on file m die Plannmg Department located at 2075 Las Pahnas Drive, (Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161). 1. "Geotechnical Investigation, (Carlsbad by the Sea", prepared by Leighton and Associates, dated June 30,1994. 2. "Coastal Design Criteria for Proposed Seawall, (CaUfomia Lutheran (Complex," prepared by Hetherington Eng., UlC, dated October 18, 1994. 3. "Final Master EIR for the City of (Carlsbad General Plan Update" prepared by the City of (Carlsbad Planning Department and certified September 6, 1994. 4. "Transportation Analysis for (Carlsbad by the Sea", prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc, dated December 21, 1994 (Revised Febmary 17, 1995). 5. "Carlsbad by the Sea Senior Housing Preliminary Noise Report", prepared by (Charles Salter Associates, inc. dated 30 June 1994 and 9 January 1995. 6. "Carlsbad by the Sea FaciUty (Cultural Resource Survey and Historical Assessment", prepared by RECON, dated July, 1994. 7. "The Village Design Manual, Cky of Carlsbad, Califomia", revised April 1988. 8. "MeUo n Segment of die Carlsbad Local Coastal Program", Certified June 1, 1981. 1-21 Rev. 1/30/95 LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) (Cultural Resources: The applicant will file a performance bond with the City to ensure that the mitigation measures and design product are consistent with the materials on file with the most recent application. The design of the new faciUty wUl be consistent with the existing historic stmcture, inasmuch as the facade which is currently present wUl be faithfully replicated in the new design. The size and scale of the new facility should be consistent with what is currentiy present. The architectural style of the new facility will be faithful to the existing stmcture. The constmction materials will be consistent with the current stmcture; for example, plaster walls; title roof; window size, style, and placement; and maintenance of a design which includes a porte cochere and one-story, octagonal rooms at the two forward comers. The history of the former hotel and property wiU be documented by a qualified historian and appropriate information conceming the acquisition, constmction, uses, and activities that took place there will be compiled, this archival research shall include photographs and other memorabilia which relate to the hotel over tkne. The goal of the presentation will be to place the stmcture into the context of the period and demonstrate how it changed over time. Attention wiU also be paid to the connection of this business with the development of (Carlsbad. A photographic documentation of the existing historic building will be completed by a qualified photographer. Color photographs should be made of the facade and each of the remaining elevations. Interior as well as exterior shots should be made with special attention to the portions of the stmcture that are more reminiscent of the early years of use and operation. Photographs of architectural details should also be made. The photographic documentation should also include the production of an informational video. As with the still photographs, attention should be paid to recording as much as possible of the look and feel of the building and the grounds. This video should also kiclude interviews with individuals who may want to reminisce about the stmcture or provide some useful information. This should be a professionally produced product and will be kept on file in the library of the new faciUty with a copy on file at the City of Carlsbad library. To augment the stUl photographs and the video, drawings of certain portions of the existing stmcture should be made. These wUl allow for the presentation of more detail and dimension. An inventory of materials, fixtures, or built-ins should be made to identify those items which can be salvaged for adaptive reuse or can be used for display in the new facility. A rendering of the new facUity will be posted in front of the existing historic building one month prior to any demolition to provide the citizens of (Carlsbad an opportunity to see the new facUity. The rendering will be provided at sufficient size and detail to accurately represent the planned stmcture. This wiU include some details of the landscapmg design. These exhibits will be avaUable to staff for review at the tkne of the subnuttai. A qualified archaeological monitor will be present during grading to identtfy and assess any buried cultural resource deposits. In the event that important cultural resource materials are uncovered, a recovery and analysis program will be implemented. I - 22 Rev. 1/30/95 NOISE Noise generated by the project's roof equipment shall not exceed existing noise levels at property lines surrounding the project. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall submit evidence from an acoustical expert that noise levels at property lines do not exceed the existing noise levels as identified in Charles Salter and Associates Noise Report dated January 9, 1995 (Source Document #5). ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECCT. Date 1-23 Rev. 1/30/95 CASE NO. DATE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I JUL f 9 1994 (To be completed by APPLICANT) CITYOFCARLSBAD \Q BE Applicant: CAI TFORNTA I IITHFRAM HnMF.q Address of Applicant: 2315 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE ALHAMBRA CA 918Q5 Phone Number: (818 ) 57Q-561Q Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than Applicant): ANTHONY LAWSON; ADL PLANNING ASSOCIATESI 5962 LA PLACE COURT SUITE 205, CARLSBAD CA 92008 (619) 951-8657 GENERAL INFORMATION: (Please be specific) Project Description: THE REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF THE CARLSBAD BY THE SEAI AN FXTSTTNG PROFFSSTONAI CARF FATTI TTY. Project Locati on/Address: 2855 CARLSBAD BLVD. CARLSBAD CA 92008 Assessor Parcel Number: 205 - 251 -01; 205-255-05; 205-252-15 General Plan/Zone of Subject Property: CBD, RHH, RH / V.R.; R-5 Local Facilities Management Zone: 1 Is the site within Carlsbad's Coastal Zone? YES Please describe the area surrounding the site to the North: VACANT & CHURCH East: CARLSBAD BLVD. South: GRAND AVENUE & EXISTING West: OCEAN COMMERCIAL List all other applicable permits & approvals related to this project: REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT, CUP, HDP, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2 (Please be Specific. Attach Additional Pages or Exhibits, if necessarv) 1. Please describe the project site, including distinguishing natural and manmade characteristics. Also provide precise slope analysis when a slope of 15' or higher and 15% grade or greater is present on the site. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" 2. Please describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design and/or operation of the project. ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING AND CONTROL SYSTEM, HIGH EFFICIENCY HVAC MOTORS, DDC ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR HVAC SYSTEM, DUAL GLAZING WINDOWS, FULLY INSULATED STRUCTURE. 3. PLEASE ATTACH A PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET WHICH SHOWS THE FOLLOWING: a. If a residential project identify the number of units, type of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected, average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG rates). N/A b. If a commercial project, indicate the exact type, activity(ies), square footage of sales area, average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG rates), parking provided, and loading facilities. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "B" c. If an industrial project, indicate the exact type or industry(ies), average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG rates), estimated employment per shift, time of shifts, and loading facilities. N/A d. If an institutional project, indicate the major project/site function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. N/A I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Please Answer each of the following questions by placing a checl< in the appropriate space. Then, fully discuss and explain why each item was checked yes or no. Provide supporting data if applicable. Attach additional sheets as necessary. YES NO 1) Could the project significantly impact or change present or future land uses in the vicinity of the activity? EXPLANATION: EXISTING LAND USE TO REMAIN 2) Could the activity affect the use of a recreational area, or area of aesthetic value? EXPLANATION: NO EXISTING RECREATIONAL AREAS ARE AFFECTED EXCEPT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO BEACH ACCESS PARKING. 3) Could the activity affect the functioning of an established community or neighborhood? EXPLANATION: EXISTING LAND USE TO BE MAINTAINED. 4) Could the activity result in the displacement of community residents? EXPLANATION: Ppn iFrj C^HAI I RF PHA.^FD TO AI i nw EXISTING CARLSBAD BY THE SEA RESIDENTS TO REMAIN ON SITE OR TEMPORARILY BE RELOCATED TO ANOTHER CLH FACILITY UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. YES NO 5) Could the activity increase the number of low and moderate cost housing units in the city? EXPLANATION: NOT A HniisTNG PROJECT 6) Could the activity significantly affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? EXPLANATION: NUMBER OF THE EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT STGNTFTrAIMTI Y rHANGF FROM EXISTING. 7) Are any of the natural or man-made features in the activity area unique, that is, not found in other parts of the county, state or nation? EXPLANATION: NONE ARE KNOWN TO EXIST QN SITE 8) Could the activity significantly affect an historical or archaeological site or its settings? EXPLANATION: PORTION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT PER CEQA (SEE ATTACHED CUI TURAI RF.qnilRrF .qilRVFY AND HTSTORTC ASSESSMENT) 9) Could the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural resource? EXPLANATION: NONE ARF I^NOWN TO FXTST ON STTF YES NO 10) Could the activity significantly affect fish, wildlife or plant resources? EXPLANATION: UA 11) Are there any rare or endangered plant or animal species in the activity area? EXPLANATION: MOMF ARF K^MOWM TO FXTST IN THE AREA 12) Could the activity change existing features of any of the city's stream, lagoons, bays, tidelands or beaches? EXPLANATION: BEACH PARCEL IS CURRENTLY FENCED AND NOT ACCFSSTRLF TQ PUBLIC 13) Could the activity result in the erosion or elimin- ation of agricultural lands? EXPLANATION: ^/|\ (NO AGRICULTURAL USES) 14) Could the activity serve to encourage development of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop- ment of already developed areas? EXPLANATION: FIAJORITY OF PROPERTY NEARBY HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN DEVELOPED OR IS CURRENTLY IN P! ANNING YES NO 15) Will the activity require a variance from estab- lished environmental standards (air, water, noise, etc.)? EXPLANATION: NQ VARTANCF.q FXPFCTFD 16) Is the activity carried out as part of a larger project or series of projects? EXPLANATION: NO, HOWEVER PROJECT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN 2 PHASES. 17) Will the activity require certification, authoriza- tion or issuance of a permit by any local, state or federal environmental control agency? EXPLANATION: NQNE REQUIRED EXPLANATION: PRnFF<;<^ T OM AI CARF FACTI TTTF^ ARF PFRMTTTFn RY Cll.P. 19) Will the activity involve the application, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materiais? 18) Will the activity require issuance of a variance or conditional use permit by the City? _)(_ EXPLANATION: NO KNOWN POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS MATERIAIS SHAII RF INVOLVED WTTH THIS PRQJECT YES NO 20) Will the activity involve construction of facilities in a flood plain? y EXPLANATION: No FLOOD PLAIN IS NEARBY. HOWEVER STRUCTURES WTII RE ABOVE THE HIGHTIDE LEVEL. 21) Will the activity involve construction of facilities in the area of an active fault? EXPLANATION: Mo FAIII T.q ARF I^MOWM TO FYL^T NFARRY 22) Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of dust? EXPLANATION: GRADING WILL BE CONTROLLED FOR DUST WTTH SPRINKLERS OR OTHFR METHOD 23) Will the activity involve the burning of brush, trees, or other materials? EXPLANATION: ALL UNUSABLE OR UNSALVAGABLE MATERIALS SHALL BE HAULED AWAY AND NO BURNING ON SITE. 24) Could the activity result in a significant change in the quality of any portion of the region's air or water resources? (Should note surface, ground water, off-shore.) EXPLANATION: AlR QUALITY OR WATER RESOURCE WTI I NOT RF AFFECTED. YES NO 25) Will the project substantially increase fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)? EXPLANATION: THIS IS RENOVATION TO EXISTING FACILITY. 26) Will the activity involve construction of facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater? EXPLANATION: BEACH PARCEI HAS SOME STEEP SI OPES. (l TKE Al I OTHFR PARCFI S Al ONG OCEAN STREET) 27) Will there be a significant change to existing land form? (a) Indicate estimated grading to be done in cubicyards: 72,000 CY CUT, 1-,000 CY FILL (b) Percentage of alteration to the present land form: i FSS THAN 5^ • (c) Maximum height of cut or fill slopes: +/- S' FILL, +/- 26^ CUT • EXPLANATION: +/- 70.000 CY OF CUT T .q FOR .qiiRTFRR ANFAN f;ARAr;F WHICH T FMCOiiPAnFn WTTHTM VTI I A^F RFDFVFI OPMFMT ZONE 28) Will the activity result in substantial increases in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets? EXPLANATION: THIS IS RENOVATION AN EXISTING FACILITY. YES NO 29) Will the project significantly increase wind or water erosion of soils? EXPLANATION: pnTFMTiAi FPPK^TM OF RFAPH PAprF|. WILL DECREASF 30) Could the project significantly affect existing fish or wildlife habitat? EXPLANATION: NO HABITATS SHALL BE AFFECTED 31) Will the project significantly produce new light or glare? EXPLANATION: THIS PROFESSIONAL CARE FACILITY DOES NOT PRODUCE MUCH NIGHT LIGHT. 10 ^NIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS^ II. STATEMENT QF NON-S If you have answered yes to any of the questions in Section I but think the activity will have no significant environmental effects, indicate your reasons below: 8. IMPACTS TQ THE EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE HAVE BEEN REVIEWED, EVALUATED AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS DEFINED IN ATTACHED "CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AND HISTORIC ASSESSMENT" REPQRT. PRQJECT WILL UTILIZE THESE MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS. 18. THIS IS AN EXISTING PROFESSIONAL CARE FACILITY TO BE RENOVATED AND REDEVELOPED. THE PORTION OF THE SITE OUTSIDE THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA WILL REQUIRE A STANDARD C.U.P. (TYPICAL FOR THIS USE). 25. THE BEACH PARCEL SLOPES ARE NOT CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT IN RELATIONSHIP TQ ALL OTHER PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT ALONG OCEAN STREET. BUILDING IS SITED BELQW OCEAN STREET TO MAINTAIN VIEW TO OCEAN FROM STREET. III. COMMENTS QR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE OUESTIONS IN SECTION I (If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach additional sheets as needed.) Signature Date Signed 11 EXHIBIT A EXISTING CONDITIONS The Carlsbad by the Sea Retirement Community and Health Facility is located west of Carlsbad Boulevard and north of Carlsbad Village Drive in Carlsbad. California. The Community and Health facility encompasses three separate parcels: 1) a 2.3-acre rectangular lot surrounded by Ocean Street, Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Boulevard, and Christiansen Way; 2) a 12/00 s.f. ocean front lot west of Ocean Street and north of Grand Avenue; and 3) a 0.9-acre lot bounded by Carlsbad Boulevard, Grand Avenue, Garfield Street, and existing commercial stmctures to the south. The large 2.3-acre parcel consists of 6 cottages on the western portion of the site and a large U-shaped stnjcture with 102 living units (licer^ed for 130) offices, meeting rooms, chapel, dining room facility and lobby on the eastern portion of the site. The cottages which were constnjcted in the mid to late 1950's consist of six multi-unit single-story residences. The multi-story large U-shaped stnjcture was originally built in 1929 as a hotel. This building was later converted to a seniors facility in 1957 and then acquired by California Lutheran Homes, (CLH) in 1964. Site elevatior^ range from approximately 45 feet mean sea level (m.s.I.) on the west to approximately 58 feet m.s.l. on the east. The beach front property which ranges in elevation from approximately 7 to 44 feet (m.s.l.) currently is utiiized as a scenic viewing area. Existing improvements inciude a concrete stainvay, landings and benches. The lot Is fenced off and covered with ice-plant. The 0.9-acre lot located on the south side of Grand Avenue currently consists of a single story, 59 bed skilled nursing facility (SNF) and small community center, both built In 1974. In addition to the structure on the lot. Improvements Include two parking areas and garages at the southwest comer of the lot. Site elevations range form approximately 50 to 57 feet m.s.l. EXHIBIT B PROJECT SUMMARY The redevelopment of Carlsbad by the Sea wiil consist of new structures on all 3 parcels with a replication of the facade fronting on Carlsbad Boulevard. The proposed redeveloped project will Include 162 commercial IMng units, 33 skilled nursing beds, 2 visitor units, therapy center with pool and exercise facilities, dining facility, subterranean parking for 229 cars, 10 surface parking spaces, a main entry porte-cochere, offices, community/multi-purpose room, miscellaneous ancillary facilities (such as beauty shop, storage, laundry and maintenance), miscellaneous activity rooms (for crafts, cards, billiards, exercise, library, tounge). a roof garden and beach observation deck, therapeutic gardens and landscaped outdoor spaces, a public pedestrian promenade along Grand Avenue, upgraded public street improvements and Increased public parking. The project is expected to generate approximately 843 ADT, (477 existing). The existing Christiansen Way between Carlsbad Boulevard and Ocean Street is proposed for vacation. In its place will be a short private cul-de-sac accessed from Carlsbad Boulevard. This cul-de-sac will sen/e both Carisbad by the Sea and the Saint Michaels Episcopal Church. Sen/ice and loading faciiities shall be located on the north side of the main building and accessed from this cul-de-sac. Further to the west, a 30' public right of way will be maintained from Ocean Street to intersect with the south end of Garfield Street. The architectural program inciudes stnjctures of various heights and levels with a unifying Mediterranean Mission revival design theme which complements and emulates many of the elements found in the existing facade. Building heights and setbacks are consistent with City code requirements and adjacent properties. Parcel 1 includes the primary or core facilities for the project. The structure includes subterranean paricing and storage areas across the majority of the site, basement level or back-of-house uses below the eastern portion of the site, 2 levels of living units above grade in the westem third (BAOZ), 2 replicated single story octagonal elements anchoring the comers of the front, a 3 level replicated porte-cochere, and 3 levels above grade which will Include lobby, dining, offices, support facilities, a second story skilled nursing facility and various IMng units. Access to the subterranean parking is on the north side of the site at the end of the shared private street (formeriy Christiansen Way). Parcel 2 includes a 3 level structure with an ocean view terrace (roof deck) for additional outdoor recreational use. This structure has IMng units and parking all situated low enough on the beach siope to maintain an open visual corridor to the sea from Ocean Street. No sea-walls are anticipated for this site. Parcel 3 Includes a split level, 3 story structure with subterranean pari<ing. Part<ing access Is from Garfield Street with pedestrian access on Grand Avenue. A therapy center, health facility with covered pooi and additional IMng units are all located above grade on this parcel.