The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-03-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 33601 I1 e c 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 I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3360 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SKILLED NURSING FACILITY ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING PROFESSIONAL CARE FACILITY. CASE NAME: LAS VILLAS DE CARLSBAD CASE NO: CUP 255(A) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of March, 1992, 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 informatior 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 Commissior as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibil "ND", dated January 16, 1992, and "PII", dated January 6, 1992, attached heretc and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: FiIldiIlS: - 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project mal have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously graded and landscaped pursuant to an earlie] environmental analysis. 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposec project. .... II @ e 1 2 3 4 5 the following vote, to wit: 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly impacted by this project. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of March, 1992, by 6 7 AYES: Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Holmes, Savary, Noble & Hall. 8 NOES: None. 9 ABSENT: None, 10 ABSTAIN: None. 11 12 13 ATTEST: /’ L %~L.. TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 14 15 16 r 17 PLANNING DIRECTOR 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PC RES0 NO. 3360 -2 - 27 II 28 8 4) NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDEWWLOCATION: 1088 Laguna Drive in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a 11,290 square foot skilled nursing facility adjacent to an existing retirement facility. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on frle in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 21 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4499. DATED: JANUARY 16, 1992 CASE NO: . CUP 255(A) Planning Director CASE NAME: LAS VILLAS DE CARLSBAD PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 16, 1992 MICHAEL*. HO~MILLER . MG:h il) 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CUP 255(A) DATE: JANUARY 6, 1992 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: LAS VILLAS DE CARLSBAD 2. APPLICANT: VILLAS DE CARLSBAD. LTD. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1060 EIGHTH AVENUE. SUITE 405 SAN DIEGO. CA 92101 (619) 234 4316 4. DATE EM FORM PART I SUBMITTED: APRIL 5. 1991 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION OF A 11.290 SOUARE FOOT SKILLED NURSlh FACILITY ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING RETIREMENT FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environme The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. T checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the propor project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project any of its aspects may cause a sigmficant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checl to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may que for a Negal Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deen insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" and 'YES-in respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form un DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discus: mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. I) e PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT {ILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? - - X 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? - X - 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? 4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? 6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? 7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? 8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - X - X X - x - X X X X - -2- e 0 BIOLOGICAL ENWRONMF.NT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES big) 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a banier to the normal replenishment of existing species? - - 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? - - 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? - HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY 17. Alter the present or planned land use 18. Substantially affect public utilities, of an area? schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? YES big) - - - -5- YES (insig) - - - - - YES (insig) - - 4 NO X - X - X - X X NO X - X - m HUMANENVIRON" WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 20. Increase existing noise levels? 21. Produce new light or glare? 22. Involve a sigmficant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? 24. Mect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? I 25. Generate substantial additional traffic? ' 26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? 27. Impact existing aansportation systems or alter present patterns of.circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? 29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 30, Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? 31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? i 4- 0 YES big) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - YES (insig) - - - - - 7 - - - - - - - - A NO ' X X X - - X - X - x - X - X X X - - X - X - X - .X - e 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat 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 en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, 34. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) 35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively con- siderable!' means that the incremental effects of an individual 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.) 36. Does the project.have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES YES NO bid (insigl x - - - X - - X - - X - - -5- .I 0 0 >ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I'his project consists of the construction of a 11,290 square foot, 34 bed skilled nursing facility. The ne >uilding will be locared on an undeveloped, landscaped area immediately east of an existing retireme: racility. The project site has been graded and landscaped with non-native ground cover and shrubber 3ased upon site visits, staff has determined that no adverse environmental impacts will result from rt ?reject. WYSICAL ENVIRONMENT I. No grading other than remedial site preparation is needed and, therefore, no geologic hazards or unstat earth conditions will result. 2. Since the existing topography is relatively flat and no significant change in topography is proposed, : adverse impacts are expected. 3. The existing drainage system is adequate to handle all runoff from the building and standard erosi control measures will be used during construction. No significant adversities due to erosion of soils i anticipated. 4. There are no beach sands, rivers, or stream channels on or near the project site and no impacts to SI will result. 5. There will be short-term increment& increase in aerosol production dkg construction, however, t short term effect on ambient air quality is considered insignificant. 6. Development of the existing landscape area will alter climatological indices such as moisture 2 temperature,however, these small scale alterations are not considered significant. 7. No watercourses exist on or near the project site and no adverse impacts to such features will occur, 8. No significant surface or ground water sources exist in the project area and public water supplq adequate to accommodate the use. No significant adverse effects to the quality or quantity of wa supplies &e expected. 9. A short tern incremental increase in the consumption of fossil fuels during construction is expecl however, this short term increase is considered insignificant. 10. See answer no. 9. 11. The site has been previously disturbed and no significant archaeological, paleontological, or histor structures or objects exist on site. No adverse impacts are anticipated. -6- e 0 !IOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12. The existing non native landscaping is not unique in its diversity and the proposed development wi incorporate similar landscaping. No significantly new species of plants are proposed and no adver! impacts to the existing flora is anticipated. .3. See answer no. 12. .4. No agricultural crops or farmlands exist on or near the site and no adverse effects to such features w ’ occur. 15. No significant diversity of animals currently exist on the project site and no new animal species a proposed with the nursing facility, therefore no significant adverse impacts to fauna or habitat w occur. 16. See answer no. 15. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 17. The present land use of the area is the same as the proposed project use. 18. The affect upon public facilities is incremental rather than substantial due to the project being addition to an existing care facility. 19. The existing sewer, solid waste, and hazardous waste control systems are adequate for this project 20. There may be an incremental, short-term increase in noise levels during construction of the projf however this short-term increase is considered insignificant. 21. No new light or glare sources are proposed with the project and no significant adverse impacts due such are anticipated. 22. No hazardous or explosive substances are proposed with the project and no significant risks expected to OCCUT. 23. The occupants of the new skilled nursing facility will be cuqrent residents of the existing retirem center and, therefore, no Significant alteration of human density will result. 24. The proposal does not displace any existing housing, nor does it create a demand for additional housi No adverse impacts to the housing supply or demand will result. 25. The 102 additional daily trips generated by the proposed nursing facility can be accommodated by existing street system and no adverse impacts due to additional trac should occur. 26. The existing parking amount are sufficient to meet the additional demand due to the project and existing parking facilities will be significantly affected. -7- 0 0 7. No existing transportation systems or patterns of circulation will be affected by the proposal and n adverse impacts to such are anticipated. 1 !8. No waterborne, air, or rail traffic traverse the project site and no adverse impacts to the: transportation mediums will occur. 19. Standard safety practices will be implemented during construction to insure pedestrian safety and r significant motor vehicle or bicycle traffic is expected to enter the project site, therefore no hazards a anticipated. 30. No emergency response or evacuation plans involve the project site, therefore no impacts to these pla will result from the proposed nursing facility. 31. No scenic vistas are present on the project site and the development of the single story nursing fad will not create an aesthetically offensive view. 32. . No significant recreational opportunities exist within the area of development and, therefore, no adve: impacts to either the quantity or quality of recreational opportunities will result. 33, No significant fish or wildlife species, habitats, plant communities, or examples of California histc exist on the previously disturbed, landscaped area and no impacts to such are anticipated. 34. No short or long term environmental goals are compromised by this infill project since the site 1 already been disturbed and is surrounded by urban development. 35. All potential impacts related to the new skilled nursing facility are well below the level of significa: and do not cumulatively produce significant adverse affects. 36. As discussed above, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated with the project, therefore substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, are expected to occur. -8- m 0 A ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f> alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) The project is one complete building and phasing is impractical. b) Alternate site designs and scales of development do not offer environmental advantages since proposed development does not produce any significant impacts. c) see b) above. d) The existing use and the proposed use are consistent and compatible. An alternate use would not lik produce the same level of compatibility. e) The nursing facility is currently needed by some of the occupants of the retirement center and, si the area is previously graded and landscaped, postponement or elimination of development does offer any environmental benefits. f) The proposal is integral to the existing retirement center and alternate sites would reduce or elimir: the effectiveness of the nursing facility without offering environmental advantages. g> see e) above. -9- @ 0 DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: - X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a sigmficant effect on the environment, and a NEGATl DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because 1 environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction w previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is requir Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there F not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. - I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. & %&& - s Signature LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) MG:h ATACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE] -1 0- .. e e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDfTION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature MG: -1 1-