HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 43660 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4366
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW A CHILD DAY
CARE CENTER LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PASEO
DEL NORTE BETWEEN PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND
MANAGEMENT ZONE 3
CASE NAME: DISCOVERY ISLE CHILD DAY CARE
CASE NO.: SDP 98-02KDP 98-1 1
WHEREAS, Discovery Isle Child Development Center, Inc., “Develo]
filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned b1
Capital Corporate Advisors, “Owner”, described as
ENCINAS CREEK IN THE R-P ZONE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
CENTER
Parcel 3 of the City of Carlsbad Minor Subdivision No. 837
according to Map No. 16860 filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on May 28,1992 as file No. 92-
324938 of Official Records.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Deve.
Plan and Coastal Development Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “E” dated Septe~
1998, on file in the Planning Department, DISCOVERY ISLE CHILD DAY
CENTER, SDP 98-02/CDP 98-11, as provided by Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad M
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of Septembel
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 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 Negative Declaration.
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according tc
“ND” dated August 1, 1998, and “PII” dated July 28, 1998, attached hc
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission finds that this project is within the scope of MEIR 9:
that all feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the ME1
which are appropriate have been incorporated into this Project.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy
considered the Negative Declaration dated August 1, 1998, and the envirc
impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thereon on fil.
Planning Department, prior to APPROVING the project. Based on the EIA Pa
comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial t
the project will have a significant effect on the environment and hereby APPRO’
Negative Declaration.
3. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Negative Declaration 1
prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Qua
the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the
Carlsbad.
4. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration dated August :
reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Cx
...
...
...
...
~ --.
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 4366
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of September 199
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, a]
Monroy
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
ABSTAIN:
63
w:& &$> n ,.%";y,... p "37 u I, ."? = ,7
BAILEY NOBfk, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. MLZ&LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4366
0 ,. - City of Carlsbac
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: East side of Paseo del Norte between Palomar Airport Road a.
Encinas Creek in the RP zone in Local Facilities Manageme
Zone 3.
Project Description: Request for approval of a site development plan, coas
development permit, and day care permit to allow the constructic
of a 12.363 square foot child day care center located on a vacar
pre-graded 3.37 acre infill parcel.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proje
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ar
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review,
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on tl
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in tk
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannin
Department. 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public ar
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of dat
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department 2
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4477.
DATED:' AUGUST 1.1998
CASE NO: SDP 98-02/CDP 98-1 1/DC 98-01
CASE NAME: DISCOVERY ISLE CHILD DAY CARE CENTER
I PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 1.1998
MICHAEL J. HOw!dI&&R
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-089
0 e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNJNG DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 98-02/CDP 98-1 1/DC 98-0
DATE: JULY 28,199
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: DISCOVERY ISLE CHILD DAY CARE CENTER
2. APPLICANT: SIERRA CAPITAL CORPORATE ADVISORSkA COSTA MEADOW
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: CRAIG DAVIDSON, P.O. BOX 167t
RAMONA, CA 92065
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: FEBRUARY 2.1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a site development plan and coast2
development permit to allow finish grading and the construction of a 12,363 square foot chil.
day care center on a vacant, 3.37 acre parcel located immediately north of Encinas Creek 01
Paseo del Norte in the R-P zone.
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 Impac
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
u Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water Hazards Cultural Resources
[7 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tl
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatic
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and 5:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but,
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlil
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negatiy
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 th
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential1
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Negative Declaratio
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to th:
earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impose
upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
a"c& 7- LA&- sg
Planner Signatury Date
d2CrlGtB Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cil
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followir
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum;
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information 1
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negath
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that a1
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatio
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. ,
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, c
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general Standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that tl-
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopte
general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatio
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and th
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce th
effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significan
effect on the environment, but glJ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzec
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicabll
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatec
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up01
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to o
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prio
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additiona
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily require4
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIF
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement 0:
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tha
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
a If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing i
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. a1
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate(
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includir
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, X
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect k
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less thl
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations’’ for the significant impact hi
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduc
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is n
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, I
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tE
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentio
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determine
significant.
4 Rev. 03128196
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant lmpac Impact Unless lmpact
Mitigation
Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (Source #1,2)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (Source #l)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source #1)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (Source #I)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
0
0
0
0
0 0 IXI
0 0 Ix1
CI 0 [XI
0 0 e3
0 IXI
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #I) 0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an 0 cl 0
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source # 1 )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #1) cl 17 cl
w
IXI
[x1
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source #1)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #I)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #I)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #I)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(Source #1)
(Source #1)
SI
h 1
i)
Subsidence of the land? (Source #I)
Expansive soils? (Source #1)
Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #1)
0 0 cl
0 ,o 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 cl 0
0 0 0
0 IXI 0 €3 0 IXI
n'm 0 IXI 0 w
a 17 0
'El IXI IXI
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source #1, 0 0 IXI
#3 1
hazards such as flooding? (#1) 0 0 0 w b) Exposure of people or property to water related
5 Rev. 03/28/96
e I) Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#3)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?
f) 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? (#I)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#I)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
CI
- Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
o
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0
groundwater otherwise available for public water 0 0
supplies? ()
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source [XI
#I> b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source #I)
#1) 0
cause any change in climate? (Source #1) 0
0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) lncreased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source #I)
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? (Source #1)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Source #1)
f) Conflicts with adopted -policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source #1)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #I)
Ixl
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
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, 0 0
insects, animals, and birds?
6
Less Than No
Significant lmpa~ Impact
0 [XI
0 w
UBI
0 [XI
0 [XI o w Ixl
0
0 w
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 0
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 [XI 0 [XI
[XI
0 [XI
0 €3
Rev. 03/28/96
e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
pool)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0 0
0
0
e Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0
R
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(Source # 1 ) 0 IJ
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source #I) 0 0
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to 0
the region and the residents of the State? (Source
#1>
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)? (Source
#1> b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source #I)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (Source #1)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (Source #1)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (Source #1)
0
0
0
0
0
El
0
O
I7
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source 0 CI 0 0 #I)
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:
Less Than
Significant
lrnpact
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0 0
No
Impac
[XI w
[XI
N
Ix1 w w
[XI
[XI
IXI w w
[XI w
a) Fire protection? (Source #1)
b) Police protection? (Source #1)
c) Schools? (Source #1)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
0 0 [XI 0 0 cl [XI 0 IxI
(Source #I) 0 0 [XI
e) Other governmental services? (Source #1) 0 0 0 [XI
7 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
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 #I)
b) Communications systems? (Source #1)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source # 1)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #1)
f, Solid waste disposal? (Source #I)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #1)
facilities? (Source #I)
0 0 cl
0 0 0 0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (Source
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare? (Source #I)
#I) o
0 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #1,3)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #1,3)
c) Affect historical resources? (Source #I, 3)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(Source #I)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (Source #I)
El 0 0 0
0
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source
parks or other recreational facilities? (Source #I) 0
#1) 0
XVl. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce 0
the 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?
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
R 0 cl 0
0 0
0 CI 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 CI 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 cl
NO
Impac
Ix1 w E3
IXI
[XI w Ix1
[XI
[x1 1x1
Ixl
[XI w w
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impac
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? 0 0 0 1x1
(“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?
0 0 0 1x1
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ.
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negatil
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify tl:
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availab
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checkli
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursua
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigatio
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated c
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitt
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. LAND USE
The project site a 3.37 acre parcel designated for professional office uses by the General Plar
Specific Plan 184, and the zone map. The proposed day care use is allowed upon findings th
the proposed use is compatible with surrounding development. Surrounding developmer,
consists of offices and retail commercial uses which generate more traffic and are larger in scali
than the proposed development. Development to the south consists of Encinas Creek deet
restricted open space and multi-family residential. The child day care center is therefor
compatible with existing development in that it would buffer more intense retail and office use
to the north from open space and residential uses to the south.
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The proposed facility would occupy a vacant, infill site designated for office and relater
commercial uses. No housing currently exists on the site.
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
The project is proposed on a pre-graded pad which was graded in accordance with City standard
through the issuance of a grading permit. The proposed development will require minimal fin1
grading to accommodate the parking lot and structure and will avoid adjacent slopes and deec
restricted open space including the Encinas Creek floodplain.
IV. WATER
The project would result in increased surface runoff due to the addition of impervious service!
required for the development including a parking lot and structure. Drainage from the site wil
be conveyed through a storm drain pipe connected to an existing storm drain system whicl:
outfalls into a desiltation basin. This would reduce the rate of runoff to acceptable levels therebl
avoiding erosion and sedimentation in the Encinas Creek floodplain. Discharge from thc
desiltation basin into the Encinas Creek flood way would not result in a significant change in thc
amount or quality of surface water.
The project is located adjacent to the Encinas Creek floodplain, however, the project is located
outside and well above the 100 year floodplain within the developable portion of the lot.
Therefore, exposure to flooding would be an unlikely occurrence.
V. AIR QUALITY
The project is consistent with the parcel’s Office and Related Commercial General Plan land use
designation and therefore within the scope of the City’s MEIR for the 1994 General Plan update
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
10 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in th
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 variet
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisior
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measure
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demanl
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mas
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into th
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project i
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is markel
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, th,
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-0 1, by Ci?
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for ai
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ applies to all subsequen
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, nl
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at th
Planning Department.
VI. CIRCULATION
The project is consistent with the parcel’s Office and Related Commercial General Plan land us(
designation and therefore within the scope of the City’s MEIR for the 1994 General Plan update
Additional traffic generated by the project would not negatively impact the street system serviq
the project in that Paseo del Norte operates at LOS A and the nearest intersections at Paseo de,
Norte and Poinsettia Lane and Paseo del Norte and Palomar Airport Road operate at LOS A & E
respectively. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included ir
the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments wil
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 fieeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbac
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersection:
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 1)
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 01
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.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 1 0 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 93-0 1, 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 mher environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
The proposed project provides adequate onsite parking to satisfy its demand in accordance with
the City’s parking standard for child day care facilities.
VII. BIOLOGY
The proposed development would not result in disturbance to biological resources in that it is
located on a pre-graded developable pad outside the Coastal Commission deed restricted open
space (wetland habitat) as well as the Encinas Creek floodplain.
VIII. NOISE
The project is located within the 60-65 dBA transportation corridor noise contour. In accordance
with the City’s MEIR for the 1994 General Plan update, General Plan Noise Element and Noise
Guidelines Manual, the proposed development would be conditioned to require sound
attenuation against the combined. impact of noise from exterior noise sources to meet the City’s
interior noise guidelines of 45 dBA for preschool or day care facilities.
IX. AESTHETICS
The proposed development is smaller in scale and less intense that surrounding development.
The project site would include ample landscaped setbacks from Paseo del Norte and adjacent
development, and the single story structure would be located to the rear of the site. The proposed
single story, flat roof structure is architecturally compatible with surrounding development and is
designed with cornices, a portico entry, and column supported trellises for interest.
,
I
12 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
13 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES ANI
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROSECT.
Date Signature
14 Rev. 03/28/96