HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 37900
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
1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3790
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
ADDENDUM, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND
VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CARLSBAD BY THE SEA
PROFESSIONAL CARE FACILITY AT 2855 CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD AND A VACANT PARCEL LOCATED
DIRECTLY WEST OF OCEAN STREET ACROSS FROM
THE EXISTING PROFESSIONAL CARE FACILITY.
CASE NAME CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN
CASE NO: CUP 94-10/HDP 94-08/V 94-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of Augu
and on the 6th day of September, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescr
law to consider said request, and
HOME
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te:
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by st
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the PI
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the P
Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaratil
addendum according to Exhibit “ND” dated March 6, 1995 and “PII”
March 6, 1995, attached hereto and made a part hereof and the a1
findings:
~ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, based on the fol
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzc
considered Mitigated Negative Declaration and addendum for CUP 94-10/H
OS/V 94-01, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project a1
comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~
* *
approval of the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments there
Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project M
a significant effect on the environment and hereby APPROVES the M
Negative Declaration and addendum.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Dec
and addendum for CUP 94-10/HDP 94-08/V 94-01 and Mitigation Monitor
Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements
California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines, and the Enviror
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The City's MEIR found that air quality and circulation impacts are signific;
adverse; therefore, the Council adopted a statement of overriding con side^
The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those effects, no adr
environmental document is required.
Planning Conditions:
CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. The applicant shall file a performance bond in accordance with a cost e
submitted by a qualified historian with the City to ensure that the mil
measures and design product are consistent with the materials on file with tl
recent application.
2. The design of the new facility will be consistent with the existing historic str
inasmuch as the facade which is currently present will be faithfully replicatet
new design. The size and scale of the facility (front facade) will be faithful wil
is currently present. The architectural style of the new facility will be faithfu
existing structure. The construction materials will be consistent with the 1
structure, for example, plaster walls, tile roof, window size, style, and placeme
maintenance of a design which includes a porte cochere and one-story, oc'
rooms at the two forward corners.
3. The history of the former hotel and property will be documented by a q
historian and appropriate information concerning the acquisition, constructia
and activities that took place there will be compiled. This archival researc
include photographs and other memorabilia which relate to the hotel over tirr
goal of the presentation will be to place the structure into the context of the
to demonstrate how it changed over time. Attention will also be paid
connection of this business with the development of Carlsbad.
4. A photographic documentation of the existing historic building will be compl
a qualified photographer. Color photographs should be made of the facade a1
of the remaining elevations. Interior as well as exterior shots shall be mal
special attention to the portions of the structure that are more reminiscenl
early years of use and operation. Photographs of architectural details shol
be made.
PC RES0 NO. 3790 -2- I
e e
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
5. The photographic documentation shall also include the production
informational video. As with the still photographs, attention shall be
recording as much as possible of the look and feel of the building and the g
This video shall also include interviews with individuals who may want to re
about the structure or provide some useful information. This shal
professionally produced product and will be kept on file in the library of 1
facility with a copy on file at the Carlsbad City Library.
6. To augment the still photographs and the video, drawings of certain portion
existing structure shall be made. These will allow for the presentation of mol
and dimension.
7. An inventory of materials, fixtures, or built-ins shall be made to identify tho:
which can be salvaged for adaptive reuse or can be used for display in t
facility.
8. A rendering of the new facility will be posted in front of the existing historic b
one month prior to any demolition to provide the citizens of Carlsbad an oppc
to see the new facility. The rendering will be provided at sufficient size anr
to accurately represent the planned structure. This will include some detail
landscaping design. These exhibits will be available to staff for review at t
of submittal.
9. A qualified archaeological monitor will be present during grading to idenl
assess any buried cultural resource deposits. In the event that important t
resource materials are uncovered, a recovery and analysis program
implemented.
NOISE
10. Noise generated by the project’s roof equipment shall not exceed existing noia
at property lines surrounding the project. Prior to the issuance of a Certif.
Occupancy the applicant shall submit evidence from an acoustical expert thr
levels at property lines do not exceed the existing noise levels as identified in 4
Salter and Associates Noise Report dated January 9, 1995 incorporated he
reference.
11. Sound rated windows in accordance with Charles M. Salter Associates Preli
Noise Report dated June 30,1994, shall be installed at designated locations tc
the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Where windows are requirc
unopenable or kept closed in order to meet the interior noise standards, mec
ventilation and cooling, if necessary, shall be provided to maintain a h;
environment.
....
I ..*.
PC RES0 NO. 3790 -3-
e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting '
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of Septt
1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, h
Nielsen and Savary
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Noble
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
KIM MLSHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMI
MICHAEL J. MILZ&LER .
Planning Director
I PC RES0 NO. 3790 -4-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Carlsbad By The Sea
2855 Carlsbad Boulevard
Carlsbad, CA 92008
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 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 Overlay 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 Overlay Zones. All three parcels
will be developed with new structures, however, the front facade of
the main structure 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) will 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 structures 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 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
Mitigated Negative Declaratyn (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on
the environment) is herebyissued 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, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in wriiing to the Planning Department within 30 days of datc
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department ai
(61 9) 438-1 161, extension 4477.
DATED: MARCH 6, 1995
CASE NO: RP 94-06/CDP 94-O6/CUP 94-IO/ Planning Director
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 10, 1995
HDP 94-08N 94-01/PR 6.1 19
mvd
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (619) 438-1 16'
0 0
ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED MARCH 6,1995
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
CASE NO: LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-10/HDP 94-08/V 94-01/PR 6.119
la. Land Use
The Environmental Impact Assessment completed for the project specified that no
ground floor visitor commercial use is included in the project and that the visitor
commercial requirement does not apply to Carlsbad by the Sea since no change to the
existing use is proposed. Coastal Commission comments received in June, 1995,
indicated that to be consistent with the V-R Coastal Program, it is necessary to process
a Local Coastal Program Amendment to exempt the redevelopment of Carlsbad by the
Sea from the visitor commercial requirement. Staff agreed and the project now
includes a resolution recommending approval of a Local Coastal Program Amendment.
The project has been revised to require retail commercial uses within a 3,200 square
foot ground floor area of the Parcel B structure fronting on Carlsbad Boulevard. The
required parking for the retail commercial area is provided onsite in the subterranean
garage and signage for the commercial uses must be consistent with the Village
Design Manual sign standards. As revised, the project will result in greater retail
continuity to serve visitors along Carlsbad Boulevard between Carlsbad Village Drive
and Grand Avenue and increase the inventory of visitor commercial uses. Therefore,
greater consistency with the requirements of the Village LCP and Village Design
Manual is achieved thereby further reducing environmental impacts already identified
as less than significant.
6d. Transporation/Circulation
The revised Christiansen Way roadway design will reduce the area of proposed street
vacation and replace 12 of the public parking spaces lost along the roadway due to the
previous driveway access ramp design. This change will not result in additional safetl
hazard impacts and will result in a greater net increase in available onstreet public
parking than previously reported. The revised project will therefore improve beach
area parking and result in a less than significant circulation/parking environmental
impact requiring no additional mitigation.
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. RP94-06. CDP94-06. CUP94-10, HDP94-08,
DATE: MARCH
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
2. APPLICANT CARLSBAD LUTHERAN HOMES
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: JULY 19.1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Carlsbad by the Sea Droiect will consist of the redevelopme
existing: Drofessional care facility located north and south of Grand Avenue in the Village Redevl
Zone, R-3 and Beach Area Overlay Zones, and the develoDment of a 12.600 sauare foot ocean frc
directly west of the main structure on Ocean Street in the R-3 and Beach Area Overlay Zones. A
parcels will be developed with new structures, however. the front facade of the main structure
replicated. The existing Drofessional care facilitv consists of 102 living units, 59 skilled nursing 1
ancillary services. The redeveloDed facility (including all three parcels) will consist of 159 livi
33 skilled nursing beds. 2 visitor units, a therapy center with pool, ancillary facilities. and subt
parkinp below each of the structures Droviding ~arking for 229 cars. The proiect also includes
street vacation of Christiansen Way from 80 feet of ripht-of-wav to 40 feet of right-of-way,
improvement of a 57 mace Dublic ~arking lot within the existing Garfield Street right-of-way.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involvin#
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless M
Incorporated'' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Land Use and Planning - X Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service !
- Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
- Water - Hazards - X Cultural Resources
- X Air Quality - X Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
1-1 Rev. 1/30/95
0 0
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I frnd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fmd 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 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effe
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) ha
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if t
effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially signifhnt unless mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTMTIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it r
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WlLL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable stan&
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 projec
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
,"
&&&W Y/'/dL/%JL 6 , Pv5-
ANNE HYSONG, idSSISTAb$X" PLANNER Date
A
3(bh !r
Date
1-2 Rev. 1/30/95
0 e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an I
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The I
Jinpact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City wi:
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negativ
or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
e A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequate11
an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answe~
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply ti
the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source docum
or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential
adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies
e "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Signif
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measur
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than Significant level.
e "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect i
Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
environment, but fl potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoidec
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitiga
that are imposed upon the proposed project, then no additional environmental document is I
Compliance).
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the
of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
e If there are one or more potentially signScant effects, the City may avoid preparing an El
mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this. case, the appropriate "Potentia
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated'' may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Deck
prepared.
* When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to I:
if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made p
earlier EIR.
1-3 Rev.
e e
b An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not
following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigate(
EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measure
the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overridihg Considerations" for the sign
has not been made pursuant to an earlier ElR; (3) proposed mitigation meawes do not red111
to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part It analysis it is not possible to determin
significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigatio:
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 th
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
1-4 Rev. I
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
I. 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 the 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 community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (Source #7)
IT. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #3)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( 1
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( 1
1-5
Potentially
Sig&lcant
Impact
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impac t Impact
UdeSS LessThan
X - -
X - - -
X - - -
X - - -
X - - -
X - - -
X - - -
X - - -
Rev. 1/30/95
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Potentially unless LeSsThan
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
m. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source #1) - - -
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #1)
X - - -
c) Seismic ground failure, including
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? ( )
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( Source # 2)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
1-6 Rev. 11
hes (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially significant
Potentially UdesS LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Discharge into Surface waters or other
alteration of Surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the mount 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) - - -
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
#3) - X - -
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source #3) - - -
No
Impact
X -
X -
X -
X -
X
X
-
-
X -
-
X -
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( ) - - - - X
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) - - - - X
1-7 Rev. 1130195
a 0
Issues (and Supporting Wonnation Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIEtCUL,ATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source
#3 & #4) X - -
b) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source
#4) - - - X
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source #3) - - - X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (Source #4)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? (Source #4)
- X - -
X - - -
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source #3) - - - X
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts? (Source #3) - - -
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (Source #3) - - -
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (Source #3) - - -
1-8 Rev. 1f30f95
a 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially
Significant
Impact
e) 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)
-
-
VIII. 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) -
e) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State? (Source
#3) -
E. HAZARDS. Would the 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)
-
-
Potentially
Significant unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
LessThan
Significant
Impact
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
1-9 Rev. 1/30/9
0 e
Potentially
Significant
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially UXlleSS LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (Source #3) - - -
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #5) - - X -
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? (Source #5) - X -
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (Source #3)
b) Police protection? (Source #3)
c) Schools? (Source #3)
- X
- X
- X
-
-
-
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Source #3) - - X
e) Other governmental services? (Source #3) - - X
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source #3) - - -
b) Communications systems? (Source #3) - - -
I- 10 Rev. 1/30/9
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (Source #3)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially unless LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
- X -
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #3)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #3)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #3)
X
- X
- X
- -
-
-
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #3) - - X
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? (Source #3)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? ( 1
c) Create light or glare? (Source #3)
- X - -
- X -
- - -
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #3) - - -
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) - - -
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? (Source #6) - - -
I- 11 Rev. 1/30/9:
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially
Significant
Impact
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source
#3) -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source
#3) -
XVI. MANDATORY FLNDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to 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 endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory? -
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed h'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 directly or indirectly? -
Potentially
Significant
UdeSS LessThan
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact I
- -
- -
X -
- -
X -
I- 12 Rev. 1/30/9:
0 0
XVII. 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 followi
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 bas
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.
I- 13 Rev. 1/30/9
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The existing Carlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Home consists of multiple structures on two of three
parcels: Parcel 1 is a 2.3 acre parcel fronting Carlsbad Blvd. north of Grand Avenue; Parcel 2 is
square foot ocean front lot west,of Ocean Street; and Parcel 3 is a .9 acre lot fronting Carlsbad B1.
of Grand Avenue. The larger parcel or main facility is located in both the Village Redevelopment :
Beach Area Overlay Zone and within two separate local coastal program segments. It contains 11
units, offices, meeting rooms, chapel, dining room and lobby. The main structure fronting Carlsbaa
multistory, approximately 36.5' in height, and has been identified as a locally si@lcant historic str
the City's cultural resource survey. It was constructed, partially of unreinforced concrete masonry
and currently is not in compliance with local and state seismic code requirements. The parcel also
six multi-unit single story cottages consisting of living units and located on the western portion of t
fronting on Ocean Street in the Beach Area Overlay Zone. The small beach front parcel is
undeveloped and is used as a scenic viewing area consisting of a concrete stairway, benches, and
The .9 acre parcel located south of Grand Avenue consists of a single story, 59 bed skilled nursinl
and small community center, both built in 1974. Improvements include two parking areas and garai
southwest corner of the lot fronting on Garfield Street.
The decision to redevelop rather than rehabilitate the existing facility stems from the estimated cost o
retrofit along with costs for major upgrades to the existing building's aging plumbing, heating, and 1
systems. The applicant has also indicated that the existing facility is no longer competitive w
comparable professional care facilities due both to accessibility problems and living units which are c
hotel rooms that are too few, too small, and poorly configured.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is previously disturbed and surrounded by existing relatively small scale comme
residential development. These parcels have frontages on Carlsbad Boulevard, a community then
corridor, Christiansen Way, Grand Avenue, Garfield Street, and/or Ocean Street. The existing
provide very limited'parking onsite and rely on the surrounding public streets to satisfy their parking
Parcel 1 site elevations range from 58 feet msl on the east to 45 feet msl on the west and is subjt
development regulations of three different zoning designations (VR, R-3, and BAOZ) and two differ
coastal program segments (Village Redevelopment and Mello II). Parcel 3 site elevations range fror
msl to 50 feet msl and is entirely within the VR zone and regulated by the Village Design Manual
2 site elevations range from 7 feet msl at the bottom of the coastal bluff to 44 msl along Ocean Stre
infill lot has never been developed although it has been utilized as a scenic viewing area and is cove
invasive ice plant species and surrounded by development. Parcel 2 is subject to the R-3 and BA
development regulations and the Mello 11 segment of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Environmental Impact Discussion
I - 14 Rev. 1/30/95
a 0
la. Land Use:
The project consists of the redevelopment of the existing professional care facility which is locatec
designated by the General Plan for both Village Redevelopment (YR) and high density residential (R
permitted by right and conditionally in these designated areas include commercial, multiple family re
and professional care facilities (allowed as a conditional use). The project is subject to and consis
the R-3, BAOZ, and VR zoning. ordinances as well as the Mello 11 and Village Redevelopment seg
the Local Coastal Program except for building height. Although the Village Design Manual (zoning (
for redevelopment area) specifies that the entire ground floor of all projects located in the area
Carlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Home has existed at its present location since the mid-1960’s. While tl
will be intensified, the existing professional care uses will not change. The professional care fac
commercial use, however, neither the existing facility nor the proposed facility includes a visita
commercial component on the ground floor. The Village Design Manual regulating uses in the VR z1
does not specify that existing uses must be converted to visitor serving uses if sites are redeveloped
existing uses. Upon change of use on the property, visitor serving uses on the ground floor will be
The project is consistent with the development standards of the above mentioned zoning ordinance
for building height. Parcel 1 building height exceeds the maximum 35’ building height allowed i
Carlsbad Boulevard frontage (36.5 feet) and adjacent to the driveway ramp along Christiansen F
mitigation for demolishing the locally significant historic structure, the applicant is required to rep:
existing 36.5’ building facade along Carlsbad Boulevard. Building height also exceeds the 35’ n
height standard along Christiansen Way (northern elevation) adjacent to the driveway ramp providi
to the underground parking garages. Building height is exceeded at this location since the closest
measurement purposes is the sidewalk and street located north of the driveway ramp which is lower
grade established for height measurement around the remainder of the building. An exemption 1
standards will be recommended since strict adherence to height standards at these locations would
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the i~
purpose of the Village Design Manual and Plan. Exceptional circumsmces do apply to the 1
development with regard to construction requirements surrounding the skilled nursing facility and the
zoning regulations applicable to the property. Building height will not be injurious or materially de
to property or the public at this location since building height currently exceeds 35’ along Carlsbad B
and the structure is separated from adjacent development to the north by the driveway ramp and the
Christiansen Way public right of way. Granting an exemption will not contradict the standards es
by the manual since the intent of the manual is to provide general design guidelines and regulations ra
strict standards, and with the exceptions noted above, the Parcel 1 and 3 structures comply with the n
height permitted by the VR and R-3/BAOZ zones. Based upon the above, the project building height
generate a significant environmental impact with regard to aesthetics or building intensification in the
The Parcel 2 structure, located west of Ocean Street in the Beach Area Overlay Zone, is restricted tc
two levels due to its flat roof. The flat roof is utilized as an open roof garden above a parking garage
to Ocean Street and six living units extending over the bluff to the beach. The proposed stn
approximately 4-5’ high along Ocean Street, and 39’ to the top of roof along the western elevatit
western portion of the structure is also three levels. A variance to height standards is required at this
however, the additional height will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact since the
view corridor will be retained from Ocean street for residents and the public, the structures will ob:
“stringline” structural setbacks avoiding Mer seaward encroachment, and the structure will be t
height or lower than existing structures adjacent to the north and south.
devoted to visitor commercial uses unless an amendment to the Local Coastal Program is appu
I - 15 Rev. 1/30/95
e 0
lb. The project is located within the Mello IT and Village Redevelopment segments of Carlsbad's Loci
Program. Parcel 2 located west of Ocean Street and one third of parcel 1 located east of Ocean
subject to Mello II policies requiring bluff stability, avoidance of liquefaction problems associated wil
hazards, "stringline" setbacks, access along shorelines, and archaeological or paleontological 1
Compliance with the recommendations of the Leighton and Associates' Geotechnical Investigation
parcels will avoid conflicts with policies requiring soil stability. The required seaward stringline sel
provided by the project thereby ensuring lateral public access. Due to the relatively small ac~
previously disturbed and/or jnfill nature of the sites, signifkant archaeological or paleontological resc
unlikely to be present. Although no seawall is proposed for the development, a 7' high foundation
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 LC1
Design Manual) which regulates land uses and development standards. As described above, the exi:
will not change and the project is consistent with all required development standards except buildi
(see paragraphs 2 and 3 under Land Use la. above).
IC. Carlsbad by the Sea is an existing professional care facility which has occupied two of the thre
proposed for development for approximately 30 years. The facility is surrounded by a hotel and a
the north, a motel, vacation rental residential units, and the ocean to the west, Carlsbad Boulevard tc
and the Town Center commercial development to the south. The project will intensify the
development on two of the parcels and develop Parcel 2 located west of Ocean Street which is
undeveloped. The project adheres to coverage and height standards (with two exceptions) through 2
design in which building height is reduced to 30' consistent with the BAOZ height restriction. Parcel
south of Grand is completely within the VR zone permitting 35' in building height, however, a terracc
will be provided to create a transition from three stories to two stories along the Garfield Street fr
ensure compatibility with the smaller scale development located west of Garfield Street within thl
Additionally, since Parcel 3 abuts the Town Center Commercial development to the south, the j
designed to orient living units away from the commercial development by limiting south facing win1
locating stairways along the property line to buffer units from adjacent commercial developmc
structure is oriented away from the southern property line to the greatest extent possible and a five tl.
high screen wall along the southern property line is provided to screen the outdoor recreation a
adjacent commercial development.
The above described site design will ensure compatibility with existing smaller scale development
in the vicinity. Additionally, the provision of underground parking on each Parcel will reduce the n
vehicles associated with the existing professional care facility which currently park on the stree
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
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 Oca
however, access to a Garfield Street public parking lot and the beach will still be provided w
remaining right of way. The project will not divide the physical arrangement of the area since the pro
care facility is being developed or redeveloped on existing parcels.
I- 16 Rev. 1/30/95
a 0
2a. Although the project represents an increase of 57 living units with the potential to double the current
by the Sea resident population which will represent a small increase in the local population, develq
the facility will not result in changes to population projections since projections .are based upon rc
dwelling units. Professional care facilities are commercial service in nature and are therefore not cc
in the City’s population projections.
2b. The redevelopment project will increase in size, however, it will not induce substantial growth in the a
the number of living units will increase by only 57 and the number of nursing beds will decrease by
increase will have no impact on existing projects surrounding the site which may also expand their COI
facilities within the existing regulatory parameters upon approval of a redevelopment permit or cc
use permit.
2c. The redevelopment of the professional care facility will temporarily displace current residents of Ca
the Sea during construction, however, residents will be relocated to other Carlsbad Lutheran Homes
return to the Carlsbad facility upon completion of the project if they choose to do so.
3a-i. Compliance with the recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation conducted by Leigl
Associates in June, 1994, for the project will ensure that there are less than significant impacts fi
conditions as seismic ground shaking, ground failure, land subsidence, landslides or other unst
conditions. The coastal bluff proposed for development on Parcel 2 is a unique geologic feature, I
the infill parcel is heavily impacted by erosion due to wave action. The bluff will be supportc
approximately 20’ high retaining wall constructed beneath the structure thereby protecting it fion
erosion.
4a-d. Water Quality:
The project consists of the redevelopment of existing previously developed parcels and drainage
absorption rates or surface runoff will not change substantially. Drainage from the existing ar
development is routed into an existing storm drain system located beneath the Ocean Street righ
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 CI
Proposed Seawall, California Lutheran Complex” report, prepared by Hetherington Engineering, 6
October 18, 1994, the following mitigation will be incorporated into the project design to avoid si
impacts to water quality resulting from the project: 1) require the installation of protective design I
to protect structures from the effects of wave action; 2) require the project to consbxct all public
needed to serve the proposed development prior to or concurrent with the need it generates; and 3
the dedication and improvement of all public right-of-way for public utility and storm drainage fac
serve the project. Additionally, prior to approval of a grading permit, the applicant must comply
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicm
required to provide the best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level
discharge into storm drain facilities.
5. Air Quality:
Subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will
increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently
increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and su
I- 17 Rev. 1/30/95
0 e
suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well
San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a %on-attainment basin", any additional air e
are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as propost
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 n
measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for road
intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trip
the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to e
alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy
building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adop
applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporate(
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located
%on-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impa
project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required bec
certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "State
Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations
to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, t
no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Department.
6. Circulation
la. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updat
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be ader
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely imp
regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally in1
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even \
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail tf
adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, n
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These .include measures 1
the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative I
transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalh, pedestrian linkages, and corn
systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of
through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts tha
within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan ci
mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the. design of the project or are incl
conditions of project approval.
I- 18 Rev. 1/30/95
0 0
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the f
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initk
checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the Gene
therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because.the recent certification of Final M
93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerat
circulation impacts. This "statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
review of circulation impacts is required.
covered by the General PImfs Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further envh
6b,e. The project design does not create hazards to traffic or pedestrian safety. The project includes
street vacation of Christiansen Way resulting in a 28' wide public street with no parking on eil
and the narrowing of traffic lanes on Grand Avenue to allow for diagonal parking and a
promenade (sidewalk) or linkage to the beach. The project will be conditioned to install
improvements on both sides of all streets surrounding the project thereby improving pedestrian ci
and safety. Both of these roadways are consistent with Carlsbad Standards for public road\:
intersections.
6c. The project is within the five minute fire service response area required by the Growth Management C
and emergency access to the site is provided by public streets surrounding the project as required bj
Department. The project will be conditioned to provide the necessary fire hydrant and fire flow capac
to building permit issuance.
6g. There are no rail, waterborne, or air traffk resources within close enough proximity to the projc
impacted.
7a-e. As identified by the Biological Resources Section 5.4 of the Master EIR, the project in within the d
area of the City and consists of the redevelopment of previously disturbed and infii sites conta
sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will have no impact on these resources.
8a-c. The Carlsbad by the Sea project consists of the redevelopment of existing, previously develop
parcels with no mineral or agricultural resources in the vicinity. The project represents an expansic
existing facility, therefore, energy consumption will also increase. Mitigation such as compliance
Building Code, Title 20, Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code specified by the Electricity and Nat
Section 5.12.1 of the Master EIR to ensure the implementation of energy conservation measures M
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 Se
ensure that the provision of health care services is safely administered. Risks with respect to a
explosion or the release of hazardous substances is not one typically associated with this type of faci
facility provides ongoing health care services to elderly resident patients and will not create a heal1
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
Department to ensure adequate design features are incorporated into the project to permit emergenc
and response is a condition of project approval.
10. Although the project is a commercial service use, it includes living units for residents along
Boulevard, which is a circulation element roadway requiring mitigation for residential projects witf
I- 19 Rev. 1/30/95
-.
0 0
and future projected noise levels above the City standard of 60 CNEL exterior and 45 CNEL inter
to the nature of the project, the 60 CNEL/45 CNEL standard has been imposed. Additionally, th
consists of substantial mechanical equipment planned for the roof of the skilled nursing building (
and Parcel 3 with noise generation potential.
The preliminary noise report concludes that the only exterior areas subject to noise levels of 67 dB (
and 70 dB (future) are the Parcel 3 balconies located along Carlsbad Boulevard. However, accordj
City's noise guidelines, the balconies are exempt since they are less than 6 feet deep. To meet 1
interior noise standard of CNEL 45 dB, it will be necessary for certain windows to be sound rated s
attenuation measures will be required as mitigation for noise impacts.
According to the Preliminary Noise Report prepared for Carlsbad by the Sea by Charles M. Salter A!
Inc. dated 30 June 1994 and January 9, 1995, noise generated by the Parcel 1 roof equipment is a
by the proposed roof screens and barriers to avoid exceeding existing noise levels with one except:
existing 60 CNEL noise level along Ocean Street will increase to 61 CNEL as a result of the increa
generated by the roof equipment. Mitigation ensuring that noise levels do not exceed the existing no.
at property lines as verified by an acoustical engineer prior to the City's issuance of a Certificate of O(
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 condil
comply with the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards for public facilities and
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, v
existing Parcel 1 structure housing the Carlsbad by the Sea professional care facility has existed for I
It is a locally significant historic structure with prominent visual characteristics due to its arc1
therefore its replication will be necessary. The existing Parcel 1 and 3 structures will be demoli!
redeveloped and the front facade of the Parcel 1 structure and landscaping will be replicated
significant adverse aesthetic impacts along Carlsbad Boulevard. A public view corridor to the Beach c
exists between the existing structures on Grand Avenue; therefore, redevelopment of the site wiU n
encroachment into existing view corridors. The Parcel 3 structure south of Grand will increase to threc
however, structural articulation, fenestration, and the incorporation of architectural elements from 1
structure will aesthetically enhance the Carlsbad Boulevard street frontage. Additionally, the project
minimum 20' landscaped setbacks from Carlsbad Boulevard with special attention to landscaping at tht
of Carlsbad Boulevard and Christiansen Way/Grand Avenue. The project also incorporates the impr
of a public view corridor and pedestrian promenade to the beach access west of Ocean Street comp
enhanced paving, public art, street furniture, and decorative lighting along Grand Avenue. The pro
incorporates all of the Village Design Manual development standards and design guidelines to avoid
impacting the area.
14. According to the Cultural Resource Survey and Historical Assessment performed for the project by E
the Carlsbad by the Sea facility, formerly "the California-Carlsbad Mineral Spring Hotel, is an i~
resource area per criteria A and C of CEQA. The enterprise is directly linked to the growth and deve
of the City of Carlsbad and to the recognition of this obscure stop on the southern California cc
destination. This resort attracted people from nationwide and also served as a local hub of social ev
community .activities during these early years of growth and development. In addition, this propert
I - 20 Rev. 1/30/95
0 0
as an important link with one of the most diffkult economic episodes in the history of the United St
a great extent, what happened to this hotel serves as an. example of what occurred nationally.’‘
Pursuant to CEQA, mitigation is required to reduce significant impacts associated with the destructil
historically significant facility. Mitigation includes the filing of a performance bond with the City 1
will be consistent with the existing historic structure, inasmuch as the facade which is currently pre
be faithfully replicated including size, scale, and architectural style of the former hotel structure. N
shall also include the historical, photographic, and video documentation of the hotel and prop
qualified historian which includes an inventory of materials, fixtures, or built-ins to identify items a
be salvaged for reuse or display in the new facility. Additionally, a rendering of the new facility
posted in front of the existing historic structure one month prior to demolition to provide cit
opportunity to see the new facility.
The cultural survey concludes that “the results of the cultural resource survey are negative for px
cultural resource sites, features, or isolates. While the location may have provided a reasonable stoppj
for aboriginal peoples, none of the evidence of these visits have survived. The most likely reason
if sites have existed on this project, is that evidence of buried sites is masked by the buildj
landscaping, or that the sites were destroyed by farming and later development on’ this property.” M
to avoid archaeological impacts is included which requires a qualified archaeological monitor to bc
during grading to identify and assess any buried cultural resource deposits. In the event that i:
resource materials are uncovered, a recovery and analysis program will be implemented.
that mitigation measures and design product are consistent with approved plans. The design of the ne1
15. No recreational facilities will be impacted by the redevelopment of Carlsbad by the Sea nor
commercial development increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks.
V. SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Departmenl
at 2075 Las Palrnas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161).
1. ”Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad by the Sea”, prepared by Leighton and Associates, dated June 2
2. ”Coastal Design Criteria for Proposed Seawall, California Lutheran Complex,” prepared by Hetheringt
Inc., dated October 18, 1994.
3. “Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update” prepared by the City of Carlsbad :
Department and certified September 6, 1994.
4. ”Transportation Analysis for Carlsbad by the Sea”, prepared by Urban Systems Associates, In
December 21, 1994 (Revised February 17, 1995).
5. “Carlsbad by the Sea Senior Housing Preliminaq Noise Report“, prepared by Charles Salter Assock
dated 30 June 1994 and 9 January 1995.
6. “Carlsbad by the Sea Facility Cultural Resource Survey and Historical Assessment”, prepared by I
dated July, 1994.
7. ’The Village Design Manual, City of Carlsbad, California”, revised April 1988.
8. “Mello II Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program”, Ceaified June 1,1981.
I - 21 Rev. 1130195
0 0
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
Cultural Resources:
The applicant will file a performance bond with the City to ensure that the mitigation measures and desig
are consistent with the materials on file with the most recent application.
The design of the new facility will be consistent with the existing historic structure, inasmuch as the faca
is currently present will be faithfully replicated in the new design. The size and scale of the new facili
be consistent with what is currently present. The architectural style of the new facility will be faiW
existing structure. The construction materials will be consistent with the current structure; for exmpl
walls; title roof; window size, style, and placement; and maintenance of a design which includes a port(
and one-story, octagonal rooms at the two forward comers.
The history of the former hotel and property will be documented by a qualified historian and ap
information concerning the acquisition, construction, uses, and activities that took place there will be c
this archival research shall include photographs and other memorabilia which relate to the hotel over ti
goal of the presentation will be to place the structure into the context of the period and demonstrate how il
over time. Attention will also be paid to the connection of this business with the development of Carlr
A photographic documentation of the existing historic building will be completed by a qualified photc
Color photographs should be made of the facade and each of the remaining elevations. Interior as well a
shots should be made with special attention to the portions of the structure that are more reminiscent of
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 witl
photographs, attention should be paid to recording as much as possible of the look and feel of the buildin
grounds. This video should also include interviews with individuals who may want to reminisce about the
or provide some useful information. This should be a professionally produced product and will be kept
the library of the new facility with a copy on file at the City of Carlsbad library.
To augment the still photographs and the video, drawings of certain portions of the existing structure r
made. These will 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 sal.
adaptive reuse or can be used for display in the new facility.
A rendering of the new facility will be posted in fiont of the existing historic building one month pri
demolition to provide the citizens of Carlsbad an opportunity to see the new facility. The renderin]
provided at sufficient size and detail to accurately represent the planned structure. This will include son
of the landscaping design. These exhibits will be available to staff for review at the time of the submi
A qualified archaeological monitor will be present during grading to identify and assess any buria
resource deposits. In the event that important cultural resource materials are uncovered, a recovery anc
program will be implemented.
I - 22 Rev. 1/30/9!
0 0
NOISE
Noise generated by the project's roof equipment shall not exceed existing noise levels at property lines SUI
the project. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall submit evidence
acoustical expert that noise levels at property lines do not exceed the existing noise levels as identified i]
Salter and Associates Noise Report dated January 9, 1995 (Source Document #5).
A'ITACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASUR
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
NL%4 b, /%?e Date
I - 23 Rev. 1/30/92
ENVIRO~TAL MITIGATION MONITORMGI~ECBLIST Page I of 4
3 o\ e
4
n
z 4
q 8 4
#, 0
ut
PC
ut !%
ut src s 4
n
&ti
o\
&I
u s
orw
0 ..
itn yg z
2$
25
p E
38 Ei
E“ 6 e
Q) E
5 3 3 m d, 5
cp z e .-.)
9 L
E
-4 g$
$2 >
E%
E2 On
3 3 .$
8 i3
# 88
-3 3 f
93 8
%Q
.s 3 g
$38
‘0” 3 z a3 -
5 65
%
z&v
.s g rn
3 7A&
0,s
4:
;i[
+oE
+ 0-4
7858 k.8 9
8 3a
2 8 .g
3 5.2 i$< -f *z 24 rn 33 8 w $44 8 gg ZJ 23
g MEI 3-
-z -8 2
-5; 1
.% El 0
v-: 8j g
.a c
Er=S
sg g
.s k
d .A $24 a 8 63
G.g 3 + w
.p 3 qB -
s -6 g e,$
ENVIRO~AL MITIGATION MONITORING ~CKLIST Page 2 of 4
ENVIRO~AL MITIGATION MONITORING &C~,IST Page 3 of 4
ENVIRO~NTAL MITIGATION MONITORIN~HECKL~ST Page 4 of 4
g
E
B
t C
.C c
.C c
'E c
e
c r f
E
-.E
E
z 8 E
3
64
R
b s
.C c s
g e
a
i 0
Dl
.$ 8 11 d *g i! 3:
cp Od
*? sa E .i
8 *g &E
II 3
June 15, 1995
California Coastal Commission
San Diego Coast kea
3 11 1 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92 108-1725
Attention: Mr. Bill Ponder
SUBJECT: RP9446/CDP9606- MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CARLSBAD
BY THE SEA PROJECT
Dear Mr. Ponder:
Thank you for your comments following the review of the subject mitigated negative declaration. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines, the City of Carlsbad offers the foilowing responses to your
comments and concerns:
Villane LCP
1. The application for Local Coastal Program Amendment to exclude Carlsbad by the Sea from
the visitor serving ground floor requirement will include analysis to show that existing visitor
serving commercial uses are adequate and that adequate land is reserved to meet foreseeable
future demands for visitor commercial uses.
As you are aware, the City is currently reviewing a && Village Master Plan (Village Design
Manual) in which appropriate land uses in the various districts of the .Village have been
analyzed. As a result of our review of land uses in the Village, the ncommendation by staff
and the Village Master Plan Advisory Committee regarding the status of existing institutional
uses such as Carlsbad by the Sea located in the coastal Zone wilt be: 1) that they are
appropriate and desirable uses at their current locations; and 2) they will not be subject to the
visitor serving requirement.
2. With regard to the 35' maximum building height standard, the current Village Design Manual
also specifies that "no gxemmioq shall be granted under the redevelopment plan which
would ............... increase the height limit unless the exemption is approved by .the Coastal
. Commission." This provision Seem to indicate that height elsemptions can be granted by the
Coastal commission. I was unable to locate a requirement for a development disposition
agreement in the Village Design Manual.
Mello TI LCP
3. The Mello II Local crracral Program doeis provide for variances in Attachment 5, Item 5, which
amends Chapter 21.50 (Variances) of the zoning Ordinance to include provisions for varianw
in the coastal zone.
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 _(44
RP 94-061CDP 94-04 0 e
CARLSBAD BY THE SEA
PAGE 2
JUNE 15, 19954
4. The project does not include any sites containing historic public use. Parcel 2 is a privat
owned and fenced viewing area. The parcel has no public beach access, and the applicar
environmental analysis indicates that no access to the beach has ever been documented.
5. The Parcel 2 foundation wall/seawall location discussed in your letter is consistent ~k
surrounding projects approved under existing regulations by the Coastal Co~~on (a 5
071St. Tropez Condominiums). The structure adheres to the stringline setback requiremc
thereby providing the required lateral beach access, and is located "in-line" with existi
seawalls to the northwest and south& in order to prevent accelerated erosion or scou~ wid
comer areas between adjacent walls as recommended by the wave run-up analysis perfom
for the project by Hetherington Engineering, hc., Geotechnical Consultants.
6. As stated above, the project adheres to the structural stringline setback thereby providing t
necessary lateral beach access along the shoreline. There are existing public access sbirwa
within 60' of the project to the north and south providing public access to the beach from Gra
Avenue and Christiansen Way. The project includes a public parking lot to be conshuct.
within the unimproved Garfield Street right of way and street improvements which include CUI
gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of Ocean Street and Qlristiansen Way. These impmvemer
will formalize parking in the area and improve pedestrian and vehicular access to the bead
7. The unimproved Garfield Street right of way proposed to be improved as a public parking 1
was considered as a parking reservoir by the Transpoxtation Analysis performed for the proje
by Urban Systems Associates. Since no formalized parking spaces exist within the unimprove
right of way, the analysis includes the number of parallel parking spaces which could 1
accommodated along both sides of the right of way in the existing parking space inventor
By improving the right of way as a parking lot, a net increase of 26 spaces in this informal art
is achieved and considered as partial replacement parking for the reduction of 38 parking spaa
located on christiansen Way. Except as mitigation necesary to replace on-street parking, th
improvement of Garfield Street is not required for this project.
If you have any questions or comments concerning the above, please contact me at (619) 438-1 163
extension 4477.
Sincerely, L*
ANNE HYSONG
Assistant Planner
c: Tony Lawson
Chris DeCerbo
Gary Wayne
**
GEW:MEI RPw0s.a
e 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
(619) 521-8036
~ Ann Hysong Ci ty of Carl sbad
2075 Las Palmas
Carl sbad, CA 92008
\\ T:.
,' C' a__
Re: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the "Carisbad by the Sea" Project
Dear Ms. Hysong,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above. Staff has reviewed the subject document and has the foiiowing comments.
General Comments/Villaue Redevelopment Area
Regarding the main element of the project on Parcel 1, the "Vi 1 lage Design
Manual 'I of the certified Village Redevelopment Local Coastal Program (LCP)
requires in Subarea 5 that the entire ground floor of all projects must be
devoted to vi si tor commercial uses, and that mixed use projects which do not
meet this criteria require approval by the Coastal Commission or the Executive
Director as a major or minor amendment to the Local Coastal Program. In either instance, an amendment must be submitted to and approved by the Coastal Commission before it is effective. The above document finds the proposed
project would not be subject to the above provision because the proposed
intensification of the existing non-conforming commercial use does not
constitute a "change in use" that would trigger a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA). However, staff's position is that while not a change in use, the project represents- "new development" because of the structures' total demo1 i tion and subsequent intensification of the professional care faci 1 i ty. Therefore, since the redevelopment does not provide a visitor commercial use on the ground floor, staff believes the project should be subject to the LCP
amendment requirement. The continuance of non-conforming uses through redevelopment is directly contrary to the planning goals of the certified LCP .
Section 30221 of the Coastal Act provides that oceanfront lands suitable for recreational use shall be protected unless both present and foreseeable future
demands for publ i c or commercial recreational activities is already adequately provided for in the area. Section 30222 provides that private lands suitable for vi si tor-servi ng commercial faci 1 i ti es designed to enhance publ i c access opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over other land uses except coastal dependent and agricultural land uses. How can the proposed intensification and redevelopment of an existing non-visitor-serving use on this site be found consistent with the certified LCP and the above Coastal Act
sections? Section 30221 states that if adequate commercial recreational
activities to meet current and future demands are provided in the area, other lower priority land uses can be a1 lowed. Thus, staff believes the amendment must address this issue and document both the present kinds and extent of
vi si tor commercial uses in the planning area and provide the necessary assurances and rational e that adequate land has been reserved to
0 0
Ann Hysong June 7, 1995 Page '2
meet foreseeable future demands for vi si tor commercial uses. As a LCPA filing requirement, the amendment would need to document the nature and amount of vi sitor-serving uses in the immediate vicinity, as we1 1 as those within Subarea 5 and the Vi 1 lage Redevelopment Area in particular. Depending on the scope of any prospective LCP amendment, it might be necessary to present such
documentation on Carlsbad's coastal zone in general.
The document indicates a height variance (36.5 feet) wi 11 be given above the certified Vi 1 lage Redevelopment Area LCP standard of 35 feet as mi tigation for demolishing a locally significant historic structure on Parcel 1. The
document a1 so states that the intent of the Vi 1 lage Design Manual is "to provide general design guidelines and regulations rather than strict [height]
standards". However, the manual .states that the maximum height for new
bui ldi ngs within the vi 1 lage area shall not exceed 35 feet, unless a
development disposition agreement is approved by the Housing and.Redeve1opment
Commission. It must be demonstrated that the proposed height variance is consistent with the above LCP provision.
Mello I1
The proposed Parcel 2 residential structure, located west of Ocean Street on
the coastal bluff, also requires a height variance (proposing 39' high on the coastal bluff with an LCP-specified 35' height limit). The document justifies
the variance stating an existing view corridor will be retained, the structure will be consistent with "stringline" structural setbacks, and will be the same height or lower than existing structures to the north and south. However, the certified Me1 lo I1 Local Coastal Program (LCP) does not provide for variances;
thus, it must be demonstrated how the project can be found consistent with the
LCP .
This 12,500 sq. ft. parcel overlooks the beach, is residentially undeveloped and is used as. a private viewing area of the professional care faci 1 i ty. Development on the parcel includes a concrete stairway, benches and fencing. The certified Me1 lo I1 segment contains a Coastal Shore1 ine Development Overlay Zone (C-D) which identifies access requirements on sites containing historic public use, including siting development in a way that does not
interfere with existing publ ic use or providing an area of equivalent publ ic access in the immediate vicinity of the site which wi 11 accommodate the same type and intensity of use as may have existed. The document should address how the above LCP provision would be applied to the proposed development of
Parcel 2.
The ordinances of the C-D contain detai 1 ed regulations regarding the construction of revetments, seawalls, cliff-retaining walls, and other similar shore1 ine structures. The ordinances a1 low for the construction of such structures only when they are required to serve coastal dependent uses or to
protect exi stinq structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when
designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts .on local sand supply. The
document notes the coastal bluff proposed for development on Parcel 2 is heavily. impacted by erosion due to wave action, and the bluff would be supported by a 20' high retaining wall constructed beneath the structure
0 0
Ann Hysong
June 7, 1995 Page 3
thereby protecting it from further erosion. The document also notes that
although no seawall is p.roposed, a 7' high foundation wall will provide the necessary protection from wave action during high tides and severe storms.
The foundation wall appears to function as a seawall which as noted above can
only be approved to protect existing development, not new development as proposed. To comply with this LCP requirement, new development must be sited and designed to not require shoreline protection. The Commission has found seawall s cause adverse impacts to shorel ine processes and public access. In siting new development without the need for shorel ine protection, existing site conditions must be identified and a geotechnical evaluation/wave runup analysis performed. The document must address this issue, and must also address what alternatives to the proposed foundation wall/shoreline protective work were exami ned.
The C--0 ordinance a1 so states that as a condition of approval , permitted shoreline structures may be required to replenish the beach with imported
sand, and further, permitted shoreline structures shall be required to provide publ i c access. The above document is si lent on the project's need to provide lateral access along the beach.
The project proposes the half street vacation of Christiansen Way, resulting in the elimination of 38 exi sting para1 1 el parking spaces which the publ i c has used do park near the beach. To offset this adverse impact to public access, the document states a small net increase in public parking will be provided in the immediate vicinity of the project through the improvement of the Garfield
Street unimproved right-of-way and the addition of diagonal parking on the south side of Grand Avenue (the narrowing of traffic lanes on Grand Avenue is
proposed to a1 low for diagonal parking and a 10 foot wide promenade to the
beach)l. However, Garfield Street is an existing unimproved parking reservoir,
and, as such, the document should establish why it should be accepted as bonafide replacement parking.
I apologize for this late response. We also realize that the scope of our comments goes beyond specific environmental issues but wished to provide a broader explanation of coastal concerns. We would 1 i ke to coordinate with the City in determining the most appropriate action on the project site. If you
have any questions, please contact me at the above number.
Sincerely
Bi m?b 11 Ponder
Coastal Pl.anner
BP: bp(0236A)
cc: Tony Lawson
-