HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 4055c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 I I
25 26 I
27
28
e e
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4055
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN 84,000 SQUARE FOOT
PROFESSIONAL CARE FACILITY ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EL
CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE
DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 2.
CASE NAME: BRIGHTON GARDENS
CASE NO.: CUP 96-19/SDP 96-1O/SUP 96-06/HDP 96-09
WHEREAS, Marriott Senior Living Services, Inc., “De~eloper~~, has fi
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by HSP El Ca
North, Inc., “Owner”, described as
Parcels 2 and 4 of Parcel Map No. 13206, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 14,
1984 as Filepage No. 84-092419 of Official Records; and
Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 13206, filed in the office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, California, together
with a portion of lot 5 in Section 32, Township 11 South, Range
4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to the Official
Plat thereof, all being in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of February 3
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 testin
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff,
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fa(
relating to the Negative Declaration.
...
...
\ ll 0 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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Pla
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Pla
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to E
“ND” dated November 15, 1996, and “PII” dated November 8, 1996, att;
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findincs:
1. That the project has been designed to incorporate measures described by the M
Environmental Impact Report (EIR 93-01) to reduce cumulative impacts tc
quality and circulation.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed
considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified fo
project and any comments thereon prior to approving the project. Based on the HA
I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no subst;
evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and thc
APPROVES the Negative Declaration.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the indeper
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
~ 1 ...
PC RES0 NO. 4055 -2-
\
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 1
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pla
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of February 1997, E
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Heinr
Monroy, Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None e-
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CAFUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
U MICHAEL J. H~ZMILLER
Planning Director
27
28 PC RES0 NO. 4055 -3 -
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: East of El Camino Real and north of Carlsbad Village Drive.
Project Description: An 84,000 square foot, one and three story, assisted senior living
facility consisting of 140 rooms with 160 beds including both a
skilled nursing facility and alzheimer’s/dimentia facility on 4.83
acres in Local Facilities Management Zone 2.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within twenty (20) days
of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning
Department at (619) 438-1 161, extension 4448.
DATED: NOVEMBER 15,1996
CASE NO: CUP 96-1 9/SDP 96-1 OiHDP 96-09BUP 96-06
CASE NAME: BFUGHTON GARDENS
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 15,1996
MICHAEL J. HmMIL-R
Planning Director
CW:kr
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-0894
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASENO: CUP 96-19/SDP 96-10/HDP 96-O9/SUP 96-06
DATE: November 08,1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Brighton Gardens
2. APPLICANT: Marriott Senior Living Services Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Suite 430, 3130 S. Harbor Boulevard
Santa Ana, CA. 92704
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 08,1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An 84,000 square foot, one and three story, assisted senior living
facility consisting; of 140 rooms with 160 beds including both a skilled nursing facility and
alzheimer’ddimentia facilitv on 4.83 acres in Local Facilities Management Zone 2.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning [I1 TransportatiordCirculation c] Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
[I] Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality Noise Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0 DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR or
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior
Compliance has been prepared.
I I/i i?-/qL
Planner Signature Date 1
t I /?I%
Planning Direcws Signkdre Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact’’ answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations’’ has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measwes to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
i e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (1 : Land Use Element; 2: Section 5.6)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?: (1: Land Use Element; 2: Section 5.6)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?:
(1: Land Use Element; 2: Section 5.6)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (1: Land Use Element; 2: Section 5.6)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (1: Land Use Element; 2:
Section 5.6)
0
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (1 :Housing Element; 2: Section cl 0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area cl 0
or extension of major infrastructure)? (1:Housing
Element; 2: Section 5.5)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (1 :Housing Element; 2: Section 5.5) 0 0
5.5)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (1: Public Safety Element; 2: Section
5.1; 3)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (1: Public Safety Element; 2:
Section 5.1; 3)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1:
Public Safety Element; 2: Section 5.1 ; 3)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1: Public Safety
Element; 2: Section 5.1; 3)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (1: Public Safety Element; 2:
Section 5.1 ; 3)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1: Public
Safety Element; 2: Section 5.1; 3)
g) Subsidence of the land? (1: Public Safety Element; 2:
Section 5.1; 3)
h) Expansive soils? (1 : Public Safety Element; 2: Section
5.1; 3)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1 : Public Safety
Element; 2: Section 5.1; 3)
cl
0 o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 w o w
0 w
0 w
0 [XI
o w
0 [XI
o w
0 w
0 w
0 [XI o w o w o [XI
o w o w
O w
5 Rev. 03/28/96
e e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (2: Section 5.2)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (2: Section 5.2)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (2: Section 5.2)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (2: Section 5.2)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (2: Section 5.2)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (2: Section 5.2)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (2:
Section 5.2)
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0 Ixl
0 IXI
IXI
IXI
0 Ixl
0 IXI
0 IXI
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (2: Section 5.2)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater 0 0 IXI
otherwise available for public water supplies? (2: 0 0 0 w
Section 5.2)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Discussion)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
d) Create objectionable odors? (Discussion)
existing or projected air quality violation? (Discussion) o w
0 IXI
0 0 [XI
any change in climate? (Discussion) 0 IXI
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
proposal result in:
(Discussion) 17 0 0 IXI
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses o w
(e.g. farm equipment)? (Discussion)
(Discussion) 0 0 IXI
(Discussion) cl 0 [XI
(Discussion) 0 0 17 Ixl
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0 0 IXI
(Discussion)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Discussion) 0 0 IXI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
0 a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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? (1: Open Space and Conservation
Element; 2: Section 5.4; Discussion)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1:
Open Space and Conservation Element; 2: Section 5.4;
Discussion)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1: Open Space and
Conservation Element; 2: Section 5.4; Discussion)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(1: Open Space and Conservation Element; 2: Section
5.4; Discussion)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1: Open
Space and Conservation Element; 2: Section 5.4;
Discussion)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (2:
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
proposal?
Section 5.13) 0 o
inefficient manner? (2: Section 5.13) 0 0
resource that would be of future value to the region and 0 0
the residents of the State? (2: Section 5.13)
IX. 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)? (1: Public Safety Element; 2:
Section 5.10)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (1: Public Safety
Element; 2: Section 5.10)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (1 : Public Safety Element; 2: Section 5.10)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (1: Public .Safety Element; 2: Section
5.10)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (1 : Public Safety Element; 2: Section
5.10)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1 : Noise Element; 2:
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1: Noise
Section 5.9) 0 0
Element; 2: Section 5.9) 0 0
7
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
o w
0 [XI
0 w
0 IXI
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
IXI
w
[XI
w
0 IXI
0 w
Rev. 03/28/96
0 e Issues (and Supporting Informatioh Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation
Incorporated 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? (2: Section 5.12)
b) Police protection? (2: Section 5.12)
c) Schools? (2: Section 5.12)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (2:
e) Other governmental services? (2: Section 5.12)
Section 5.12)
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? (2: Section 5.12)
b) Communications systems? (2: Section 5.12)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (2: Section 5.12)
e) Storm water drainage? (2: Section 5.12)
f) Solid waste disposal? (2: Section 5.12)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (2: Section 5.12)
facilities? (2: Section 5.12)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (1:
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (1:
c) Create light or glare? (1: Circulation Element;
Circulation Element; Discussion)
Circulation Element; Discussion)
Discussion)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1 : Open Space and
Conservation Element; 2: Section 5.8)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1: Open Space and
Conservation Element; 2: Section 5.8)
c) Affect historical resources? (1: Open Space and
Conservation Element; 2: Section 5.8)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1: Open
Space and Conservation Element; 2: Section 5.8)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (1: Open Space and
Conservation Element; 2: Section 5.8)
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 o
w w w
[XI o w
o w o [XI o w
0 w o [XI 0 [XI 17 Kl
O w
0 w
0 w
o w o w
O w o w
o w
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
0
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (1: Open Space 0 0 0 IXI
and Conservation Element)
Space and Conservation Element) cl 0 o w b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1: Open
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 0 0 IXI
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? w 0 0 0
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, 0 0 0 [x1
either directly or indirectly?
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
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
9 0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project is located east of El Camino Real and north of Carlsbad Village Drive on a vacant
parcel which has a General Plan designation of Residential Medidoffice and a Zoning
designation of Residential Professional. Senior assisted living facilities are allowed within the
zone with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The site has been previously graded into
large pads and has been kept void of significant vegetation. Development has occurred on all
four sides of the site. To the north is an office development, to the east is a condominium
development up-slope of the project site, to the south is a bank building and to the west is El
Camino Real and an apartment development.
Because the site is “infill” and the site has been maintained void of any significant vegetation,
the site has been determined not to have any biological significance. There are no natural
features within the site boundaries and the aesthetic value is limited to the development pads.
Development height of the site is limited to 35 feet, the project is designed with single story
elements as well as a three story element and will therefor not fully obstruct views from El
Camino Real of the slope to the west. The proportions and design of the building is substantially
in conformance with the existing adjacent buildings.
The proposed development is in compliance with all applicable City regulations and policies.
AIR OUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted, The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
10 Rev. 03128196
* 0 0
7 further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS:
1. Carlsbad General Plan adopted 1994
2. Carlsbad General Plan Master EIR 93-0 1
3. Geotechnical Report prepared by NMG Geotechnical, Inc. dated September 3, 1996
11 Rev. 03/28/96