HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 40751
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
e 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4075
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AN
ADDENDUM TO MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ZONE CHANGE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION
OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
FROM OFFICE TO TRAVEL SERVICE COMMERCIAL AND
THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM OFFICE TO
COMMERCIAL TOURIST.
CASE NAME: SEAPOINTE RESORT EXPANSION
CASE NO.: GPA 96-04IZC 96-05LCPA 96-1 1
WHEREAS, Grand Pacific Resorts, “Developer”, has filed a verified applic
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Kristopher and Elizabeth Scl
“Owner”, described as
REPORT EIR 93-01 FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,
That portion of Lot 2, Section 20, Township 12 South, Range 4
West, $an Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to the Official Plat thereof, bounded on the west by the easterly
line of the land described in Deed to the State of California
recorded October 4, 1951, in Book 4253, Page 578 of Official
Records as Document No. 121143, bounded on the east by the
westerly line of that parcel of land conveyed in Deed to
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, recorded
January 29, 1946 as Document No. 9749, in Book 2031, Page
277 of Official Records; bounded on the south by the northerly
line of La Costa Downs, Unit No. 1 according to Map thereof
No. 2013, and bounded on the north by the north line of the
south 60 acres of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and the southeast quarter of
the southeast quarter of Section 20 and Lot 4 and the
southwest quarter of southwest quarter of Section 21,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, excepting from said Lots 1 and 2, and portions
thereof, now or herebefore lying below the mean high tide line
of the Pacific Ocean
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad certified EIR 93-01 on September 6,1994;
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 I
28
0 0
WHEREAS, the addendum to EIR 93-01 as described in the attached e
"EIR 93-01 addendum #1" indicates that the EIR 93-01 project description is amended ar
the requested land use change will not alter impacts as described and mitigated by EIR
caused by development of the subject sites; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of March 1997
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by stafl
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fi
relating to the addendum to EIR 93-01 and the Negative Declaration.
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 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the addendum to EI:
01, the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit EIR 93-01 addendum to P
dated March 19, 1997, "ND" dated January 27, 1997, and "PII" dated Januar
1997, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may hi
significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis.
3. The streets have been improved to an adequate size to handle traffk generated b
proposed use.
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly imp;
by this project.
5. The change of Land Use will not have any impact on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 4075 -2-
/I 0 0 II
1 11
2 II PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pla
3
4 following vote, to wit:
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of March 1997, 1
5
6
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Hein1
Monroy, Noble, Savary and Welshons
7 NOES: None
8 ABSENT: None
9 ABSTAIN: None
10
11
12
13
14 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTEST:
*
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4075 -3 -
0 0 EIR 93-01 addeB
March
ADDENDUM TO MEIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A request has been made to change the General Plan Land Use designation of a .5 acre parcel of
land from Office to TraveVRecreation Commercial. The effect is a change to the EIR 93-01
project description to include the potential development of the .5 acre piece as TraveVRecreation
Commercial versus Office.
CHANGE IN IMPACTS
There will be no change in impacts. The proposed land use, TravelARecreation Commercial will
have the same development standards as the original land use designation. The development
potential of the site will not be increased nor will it be decreased by virtue of the land use
change.
The use of the property will be slightly altered in that as a TraveVRecreation Commercial site the
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) will be reduced from that of an office development. The net effect
will be a reduction in impacts because there will be less traffic impacts on surrounding roads and
intersections and subsequently an incremental decrease in the cumulative contribution to air
quality.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: Northeast comer of Island Way and Surfside Lane, City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
Project Description: Change General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use from
Office to TraveURecreation Commercial and the zoning
designation from Office to Commercial-Tourist.
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 thirty (30) days
of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning
Department at (6 19) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 4448.
DATED: JANUARY 27,1997
CASE NO: GPA 96-04/ZC 96-05LCPA 96-1 1
CASE NAME: SEAPOINTE RESORT EXPANSION
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 27,1997
MICHAEL J. HOTZMIMER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894
c 6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 96-04/ZC 96-05LCPA 96-1 1
DATE: January 15, 1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Seapointe Resort Expansion
2. APPLICANT: Grand Pacific Resorts c/o Timothy Stripe and David Brown
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 200,
Carlsbad, California 92008; (619) 431-8500
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 15,1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request to change the land use of an approximately % acre parcel
of land from Office to Travel Services Commercial on the General Plan Land Use Map and
Local Coastal Program Land Use Map and from Office to Commercial-Tourist on the Zoning
Map.
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.
6
0 Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiodCirculation Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
[7 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION. 'C ,c
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
H I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 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.
*1 0 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 Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Negative Declaration
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
&
\J-r/.r7 Date 1
rl =+i T-
Planning Directxs Sig'dature Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
I /
ENVIRONMENTAL I &TS b’
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.
e “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
4 effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but 4 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. 03/23/96
&’ 6
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
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
b b
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significan
Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s):
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses?
e) Disrupt or dividc the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
population projections? 0 0 0
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0
or extension of major infrastructure)?
housing? 0 0 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
4 0
0 0 0 o
-. c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
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?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
5
0 0 0, 0 0 0
0
0 El 0
No Impact
IXI w
IXI w
IXI
[XI
€4
IXI
[XI IXI IXI IXI IXI w
0 0 0 (XI 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 w
0 0 0 [x]
0 0 0 [x]
0 0 [XI
0 0 Ix)
Rev. 03/28/96
I;
Issues (and Supporting Informdm Sources).
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
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?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Potentially &tentially Significant Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
\ V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
d) Create objectionable odors?
existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0
0 0
any change in climate? 0 0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
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?
&
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
El 0
0 0 0 0
0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
in impacts to:
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 0 0
animals, and birds?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
0 0
n n forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? 0 0
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? U U 0 0
VTII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
proposal?
0
6
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 IXI
0 El
0 IXI 0 IXI
Ix)
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
IXI w Ix1
€3
Ix1 IXI
IXI IXI IXI El
IXI
0 IXI
0 IxI cl IXI
cl IXI 0 El
0 (XI
Rev. 03/28/96
r.
Issues (and Supporting Inform !h Sources). Potentially 6 otentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
inefficient manner? 0 0
resource that would be of future value to the region and 0 0
the residents of the State?
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)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of &y health hazard or potential health
hazards?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
’ grass, or trees?
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
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:
d a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
XII.UTILIT1ES 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?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
facilities?
0
0
cl
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
d
O
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
7
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 IXI
0 !XI
0 w
o w
0 w
0 IXI o w
O w 0 [XI
0 0 0 0 0
IXI w w
[XI
[XI
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI
[x1 0 0 IXI 0 !x
Rev. 03/28/96
&;j :.;
Issues (and Supporting Informa Sources). Potentially 6. otentially Less Than No
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c)
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
Create light or glare?
cl 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 (XI 0 0 w
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potentid to cause a physical change which
0 0 0 El 0 0 OB 0 0 IXI
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 0 El
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
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 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,
either directly or indirectly?
& wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl 0 Ix1
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 El
0 0 w
0 0 IXI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
XVII. EARLIERANALY b . c
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. Identifj 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.
5
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
a
DISCUSSION OF ENVI FIR MENTAL, EVALUATION 6
Physical Environment
The requested land use changes will not have a direct environmental effect. However, it is
anticipated that there will be development subsequent to the land use changes.
There are no known conditions on the site that would expose future development to geologic
hazards of any sort. Grading proposed will be in accordance with standard grading principals
and practice which include erosion control and compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) standards.
Although the site is near the Pacific Ocean, it is not contiguous and development of the property
will not directly effect beach sand or modify a channel of free flowing waters.
Future development will not create a change to air flow, movement, or temperature and may not
consume great quantities of natural resources, fuel or energy. Future development will be
required to obtain gas and/or electric service from San Diego Gas and Electric and will be
charged the appropriate service fees.
Biological Environment
The site is currently in a disturbed state as a result of previous grading and agriculture. There are
no known sensitive species of plants or animals within the area of potential development of the
site. There is also no evidence that there will be adverse impacts to the biological environment
offsite as a result of development.
Human Environment
The change will have some effect on the distribution of traffic and the hours of activity on the
site. With the change it is anticipated that activity on the site will change from daytime, 8:OO
a.m. to 5:OO p.m., to 24 hours. Future traffic patterns may change from heavy peaks in the
morning and evening hours for an office use to a more even flow throughout the day.
All of the utility services required by development will be provided by standard methods.
Development would introduce new levels of noise and light into the area. However, those levels
are typically not considered significant. A California State campground is located across the
street and may be impacted during the evening hours by ambient light. Mitigation for the
potential impact could be shielding and landscaping.
Although the sight is visible prominent from Carlsbad Boulevard, construction of a building
within the height limits will not be an adverse visual impact because views of the site are from a
distance to the east and predominantly from a higher elevation. The combination of height and
distance allow the residents to the east of Interstate 5 horizon view of the Pacific Ocean.
Analysis of Viable Alternatives to the Proposed Proiect Such As:
b
a. Phased development of the project;
b. Alternate site designs;
10 Rev. 03/28/96
.
C. Alternate hi e of development; 6
d. Alternate uses for the site;
e. Development at some future time rather than now;
g. No project alternative.
f. Alternate sites for the proposed project; and
Analysis of the proposed project indicates that there will not be any adverse effects to the
environment. Phasing or' redesign will not contribute to a reduction of impacts when no
significant impacts have been identified.
z
11 Rev. 03/28/96