HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 4537c 0
.9 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. 4537
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO PERMIT A
MUSEUM TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 5790 ARMADA DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 13
CASE NAME: NAMM MUSEUM OF MAKING MUSIC
CASE NO.: SP 207(D)/LCPA 98-10/SDP 95-09(A)/CDP
98-88
WHEREAS, NA”, “Developer” and “Owner”, has filed a verified ar
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lot 8 of Carlsbad Tract No. 94-09 in Carlsbad Ranch Unit 1
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction I
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of April 199
the 5th day of May 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all t
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by I
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a
relating to the Negative Declaration.
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 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative i
to Exhibit “ND” dated January 26, 1999, and “PII” dated January :
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
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
Findincs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, anal!
considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identifie
project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVA
project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Cor
finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effc
environment and thereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Deck
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the ind
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of May 1991
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heure
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COURTNEY E. HEwhairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4537 -2-
0 0
I - City of Carlsbac
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: 5790 Armada Drive/East side of Armada Drive north of Palom
Airport Road
Project Description: An amendment to the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan with
corresponding Local Coastal Program Amendment to allow
museum open to the public on only Lot 11 shown on Figure 32 (
the specific plan. Also proposed is an amendment to the existir
Site Development Plan for the property as well as a Coast
Development Permit to permit the existing 6,500 square fo,
museum to be open to the general public.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projec
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act an
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 tk
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in th
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 20 days of dat
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Planning Department at (760
43 8- 1 1 6 1, extension 4446.
DATED: JANUARY 26,1999
CASE NO: SP 207(D)/LCPA 98-10/SDP 95-09(A)/CDP 98-88
CASE NAME: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUSIC MERCHANTS MUSEUM 01
MAKING MUSIC
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 26,1999 0-
MICHAEL JmLZ&?LLER
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-088
0 a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SP 207(D)/ LCPA 98-10/SDP 95-09(A)/CDP 98-8
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: National Association of Music Merchants Museum of Makine: Music
2. APPLICANT: The Harrison Companv
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4401 Manchester Avenue, #20:
Encinitas, CA 92024; (760) 753-2824
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED:
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan with
corresponding Local Coastal Program Amendment to allow a museum open to the public on on’
Lot 11 shown on Figure 32 of the specific plan. Also proposed is an amendment to the existir
Site Development Plan for the property as well as a Coastal Development Permit to permit tl
existing 6,500 square foot museum to be open to the general public. The project site is at 575
Armada Drive within Planning. Area 2 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impa
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
c] Land Use and Planning IXI TransportatiodCirculation [XI Public Services
Population and Housing c] Biological Resources IXI Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources [7 Aesthetics
[XI Water 0 Hazards
H Air Quality c] Noise
Cultural Resources
0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
17 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on th
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
- u 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 the mitigatio
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but i
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlic
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatio
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negatih
declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
c] 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 all potential1
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impac
report (EIR) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigate
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impose
upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. k X /-2/-9?
Planner Signature Date
+rlq.i
Date
2 Rev. 03128196
e e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cit:
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significar
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followin
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and huma
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information t’
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negativ
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
a A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that ar
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. I
“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.
a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that th
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopte
general standards and policies.
a “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 tl-
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tl.
effect to a less than significant level.
a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that s
effect is significant.
a Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa~
effect on the environment, but @J potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzc
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicab
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatc
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upc
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to (
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pric
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
a When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirt
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier El
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement 1
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
a A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence th
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 a
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, an
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In thi
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 includin
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect ha
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, an
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tha
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact ha
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do nc
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is nc
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, c
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significar
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of th
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentio
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determine
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (1; pg. 5.7-1 through 5.7-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (1; pg.5.4-5 through 5.4-13, 5.7-1 through 5.7-
18, and 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(1; pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
landuses? (1; pg. 5.1-1 through 5.1-16)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (1; 5.7-1 through 5.7-18)
0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (1; pg. 7-1 through 7-4) 0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0
or extension of major infrastructure)? (1; pg. 7-8 and 7-
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (1; pg. 7-8 and 7-9) 0
9)
111.
a)
b)
c)
4
4
f)
SI
h)
i)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (1; Appendix A)
Seismic ground shaking? (1 ; Appendix A)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1;
Appendix A) 0
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1; Appendix A)
Landslides or mudflows? (1 ; Appendix A)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1; 0
Appendix A and pg. 5.12-6 and 5.12-7)
Subsidence of the land? (1 ; Appendix A)
Expansive soils? (1 ; Appendix A)
Unique geologic or physical features? (1 ; Appendix A)
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff! (1; pg. 5.12-1 I7
such as flooding? (1 ; Appendix A)
through 5.12-7)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
oxygen or turbidity)? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved 0
5
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0 ow
0 om
0 OH
0 om
0 0 w
0 ow
0 ow
ow
0 0151 17151 0 OB
0 0151 ow 0 ow
0 OB 0 OH ow
ow
0 ow
0 om
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (1 ; pg. 5.12- 1 through 5.12-7)
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? (1; pg. 5.9-13 through 5.9-22 and 5.12-1
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1 ;
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (1; pg.
5.9-13 through 5.9-22)
body? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
through 5.12-7)
pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
5.12-7)
17
0
0
0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
c)
d)
VI.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e>
f)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (1 ; pg. 5.2-1
through 5.2-8)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1 ; pg. 5.2- 1,
5.2-4, 5.2-6, and 5.2-7)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (1; Appendix A)
Create objectionable odors? (1 ; Appendix A)
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1; pg.
5.5-1 through 5.5-29; 2)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29 and 5.9-1 through 5.9-4)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (1 ; pg.
5.5-25 and 5.5-26)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1;
Appendix A)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1; pg.
5.7-16)
ixl
0
0
0
lxl
0
0
0
0
0
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1; pg. 5.7-1
through 5.7- 18) 0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
result in impacts to:
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 0
animals, and birds? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13)
5.4- 1 through 5.4- 13)
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4- 0
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1; pg.
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
6
0
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0
0 o
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
OBI
OBI
UBI
OB
ON om
nu
ON
ON
OBI
on n€zl
om
OBI ntxl
OBI
OH
OBI
UBI
OB
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
13) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1; pg. 5.4-1
(1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13)
through 5.4- 13)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1;
Appendix A)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( 1 ; Appendix A)
c) 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? (1; Appendix A)
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; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (1; 5.9-1 through 5.9-4)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (1; pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-1 through 5.8-7)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1 ; pg. 5.8-1
through 5.8-7)
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? (1; pg. 5.9-1 and 5.9-2)
b) Police protection? (1; pg. 5.9-2 through 5.9-4)
C) Schools? (1; pg. 5.9-7 through 5.9-13)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1 ;
e) Other governmental services? (1; pg. 5.7-2 and 5.7-16)
pg. 5.7-2,5.7-3, and 5.7-16)
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? (1; Appendix A)
b) Communications systems? (1 ; Appendix A)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0 lxl 0 El
0
0 0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
ow
OBI
ow ow
OB
OEI
ow
OH
OB
OH
ow ow
OB 00 ON ow ow
UBI UBI ow
Rev. 03128196
a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
facilities? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
f) Solid waste disposal? (1; pg. 5.10-1 through 5.10-5)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (1; pg. 5.9-13 and
5.9-22)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1; pg. 5.11-1
b) Have a demonstratable negative aesthetic effect? (1 ;
c) Create light or glare? (1 ; Appendix A)
through 5.11-7)
pg. 5.11-1 through 5.11-7)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1
through 5.3-8)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through
5.3-8)
c) Affect historical resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1; pg. 5.3-
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8)
1 through 5.3-8)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (1; pg. 5.7-2
through 5.7-3 and 5.7- 16)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1 ; pg. 5.7-2
through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16)
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
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 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
8
0 0 17 0
0
17
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
€a
0
8
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0 0 [XI El
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
El
0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
ow ow no nu
OH om
ON
OM ow
05 n[xI
OH
uw
ow
00
no
ow
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
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 negatih
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify tk
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availabl
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklir
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuar
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 site
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
-
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The opening of the National Association of Music Merchants (NA") Museum of Makin
Music to the public is proposed at the existing facility located at 5790 Armada Drive withi
Planning Area 2 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. An existing 6,500 square foot museul
within the NA" Headquarters is presently only available to NA" members, associates an
their guests. This is the result of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan not listing museums whic
are open to the general public as a permitted use within the planning area. The proposed specifi
plan amendment and local coastal program amendment would allow the proposed museum us
on the NA" lot within Planning Area 2. The site development plan and coastal developmer
permit would specifically provide for the existing 6,500 square foot museum to be open to th
general public. Should NA" wish in the future to construct additional building area in exces
of 1,000 square feet a site development plan amendment and coastal development perm
amendment would be required to be approved. The only physical change to the site with thj
amendment is to provide bus parking to accommodate groups particularly school field trips. '
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The existing NA" facility was evaluated in the "Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendmen
Final Program Environmental Impact Report, dated November 1995 (EIR 94-01)." EIR 94-0
evaluates the environmental effects of the development and operation of The Carlsbad Rancl
Specific Plan; improvements to the I-S/Cannon Road Interchange; and the development of
24.2 acre parcel immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the- specific plan site. Th
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan is a planning document which will guide the development of c
447.40 acre area through the provision of a comprehensive set of guidelines, regulations, an(
implementation programs. The proposed land uses for the Specific Plan include office, researcl
and development, related light manufacturing, commercial, hotel, destination resort, golf course
agriculture, a vocational school campus, and LEGOLAND Carlsbad. The 24.2 acre parce
adjacent to the northern boundary is proposed as a continuation of the Specific Plan golf course.
EIR 94-01 analyzed the following environmental issue areas: Agricultural Resources, Ail
Quality, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources, Biological Resources
Traffic/Circulation, Hazardous Wastepesticide Residue, Land Use Compatibility; Noise, Public
Services and Utilities, Solid Waste, Visual AestheticdGrading, and Water Quality. The Initial
Study prepared for the Specific Plan Amendment is contained in Appendix A of EIR 94-01 and
analyzed additional issues which were determined not to have a significant environmental
impact. EIR 94-01 was certified by the Carlsbad City Council on January 9, 1996. At that time
Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation and
Monitoring Program were approved. All mitigation measures applicable to the NA" facility
have been incorporated into the project design or were implemented as conditions of approval foI
the project. The requested approvals to allow a museum open to the public does not create anq
new environmental impacts. Additional traffic analysis has been completed to determine if the
proposal would generate additional average daily trips. The analysis determined that thc
museum use generates less traffic than the same area which was previously evaluated as office
space for traffic generation purposes.
References to the applicable section of EIR 94-01 are provided next to each item on this
environmental impact assessment form. Reference is also made to the recent analysis by Urban
Systems Associates for the museum trip generation. A brief explanation is provided in the
10 Rev. 03128196
0 0
following section for each item checked as having a “potentially significant impact” (
“potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated”:
V. AIR QUALITY
a) Air Quality
No significant impacts as a result of construction activity are anticipated for the entir
Carlsbad Ranch Project. Implementation of the air quality mitigation measures wi
lessen long-term operation air quality impacts to a level less than significant, It wa
concluded in the analysis for EIR 94-01 that the development anticipated under th
proposed specific plan amendment together with the development of other relate
projects will have a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on the region’s a
quality. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted for this cumulativ
impact.
As detailed fwther in the analysis section for transportation the museum use will generat
fewer vehicle trips thereby having less of an impact than was projected in the Carlsbac
Ranch Specific Plan Program EIR.
VI. TFL4NSPORTATION/CIRCUATION
a) Increased Vehicle Trips
A series of circulation system improvements are required as part of the development o
the Carlsbad Ranch property. With the implementation of the improvements identified ir
EIR 94-01 all of the analyzed intersections and street segments are projected to operate a
acceptable levels of service. It was determined that the Carlsbad Ranch project ir
conjunction with cumulative build-out forecasts, will result in a significant cumulativt
impact to the 1-5 freeway and SR-78. A statement of overriding considerations wa:
adopted for this cumulative impact.
The Museum of Making Music Trip Generation analysis prepared by Urban Systemr
Associates, Inc. dated December 3, 1998 determined that were the museum open to tht
public it would have a trip generation rate of 3 trips per thousand square feet of building
area. This is compared to the generation rate of 10 trips per thousand square feet which is
the corporate office rate previously applied to the project. The result is that dedication of
building area to museum use lowers the expected trip generation fi-om the project
therefore not creating traffic impacts in excess of those evaluated in the Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan Program EIR.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
b) Police protection
The EIR analysis concluded that the conversion of an agricultural area to an urban area
which will attract visitors will require additional law enforcement and crime prevention
services. The potential increase in demand on police services is a significant impact.
This demand for police protection was reduced through implementation of a mitigation
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
measure requiring security measures to be incorporated into the proposed development
No further impact will be created by the lower traffic generating public museum use. *
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
0 Solid waste disposal
The generation of additional solid waste by the entire Carlsbad Ranch project was :
potentially significant impact. The mitigation measure identified in EIR 94-01 reduce
this impact to a level of less than significant. The mitigation measure required thl
submittal of a solid waste management plan to address the project’s needs for recyclin;
facilities and diversion programs/measures which can be implemented. The propose1
museum use will have less of an impact than office uses thereby not creating ar
additional impact not analyzed in EIR 94-01.
g) Local or regional water supplies
The Carlsbad Ranch project requires the construction of onsite water lines. The impact:
of buildout of the Carlsbad Ranch project to water supplies are potentially significant
Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in EIR 94-01 reduces impacts to :
level of less than significant. The mitigation includes utilizing reclaimed water fo:
landscaping on the project site which has already been accomplished on the site. Nc
further impact is created by the museum use being opened to the public.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
13 Rev. 03128196
0 e
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
h THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES ANT
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Departmen
located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1 161)
1. “Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report, City o
Carlsbad, November 1995 .”
2. “Museum of Making Music Trip Generation, Urban Systems Associates, Inc., December 3, 1998.”
14 Rev. 03/28/96