HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 47110 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4711
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAFZSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW A
DAY CARE CENTER ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD AND PLUM
TREE ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
20.
CASE NAME: KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER
CASE NO.: SDP 99-14/CUP 99-21/CDP 99-34
WHEREAS, Kindercare Learning Centers, Inc., , “Developer”, has filed
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Sambi Seasi
Heights, LLC, “Owner”, described as
Lot 140 of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-02 Sambi Seaside Heights
Unit 1, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to Map thereof No. 13378, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, December
9,1996
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring a]
Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of January, 200
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 testimol
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, a]
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all facto
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plannir
28 Commission as follows:
0 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
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planni
Commission hereby APPROVED the Mitigated Negative Declaration a1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit “N
dated November 19, 1999, and “PII” dated November 1, 1999, attached hen
and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinm: -
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaratil
Kindercare Learning Center - SDP 99-14/CUP 99-21/CDP 99-34, t
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any commer
thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance wi
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelinl
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidenc
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Kindercare Learnin
Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
)I PC RES0 NO. 471 1 -2-
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planni
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of January 2000, by t
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L'Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
I ABSTAIN:
U!Y"
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairper&
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
11 PC RES0 NO. 471 1 -3-
0 0
~ City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: APN 2 14-544-03
Lot 140 of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-02 Sambi Seaside Heights Unit 1
according to Map No. 13378
Project Description: 9,897 square foot child daycare facility on a vacant 1.79 in-fill lot
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, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments fi-om the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4455.
DATED: NOVEMBER 19,1999
CASE NO: SDP 99-l4/Cl.JP 99-21/CDP 99-34
CASE NAME: KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 19,1999
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 (
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 99-14/CUP 99-21/CDP 99-34
DATE: November 1,1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER
2. APPLICANT: Kindercare Learning: Centers
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
23832 Rockfield Blvd, Ste 225 Lake Forest CA 92630 949-609-7003.
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 4,1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a site development plan, conditional use
permit, and coastal development permit to allow finish grading and construction of a 9,897 square foot child daycare facility on a vacant 1.79 in-fill lot located at the northeast intersection
of Hidden Valley Road and Plum Tree Road (APN 214-544-03).
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.
Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities &z Service Systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
H Air Quality [7 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
B 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 MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
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. A Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
[7 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 Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
B&&A t 1 - "4
PlanLner Signature ' Date
!\ 1 II.1I.i.i
Planning DirecSoll's Sgnature Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
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.
0 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.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fi-om “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.
0 “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 all 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.
0 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. 03128196
0 0
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.
e 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
e
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 #l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
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
landuses)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community) ? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
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
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0
housing? (#l:PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
I7 0
0
n
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
E
5.1-15) 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
0
17
17
1 1)
5
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 o
0
0 0
I7
0
0
0
17
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
UBI om
ow ow
OB
UIXI nw
nm
om ON OIXI om otxl ON
ntxl om om
OH
urn ow
Rev. 03/28/96
a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
1 1)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
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)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
6
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
I7
I7 o
I7
El
0
0
0
[XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation Unless Impact
Incorporated I7 OH
0
0
OH
OH
OB
0 UIXI
0151
0 00
0 OH
0 UH
0 OB
0 no
OH
0 Ow
0 urn
0 0151
OH
0
ow
urn
0 17151
0 UIXI
Rev. 03128196
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0
- 5.4-24) 0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
o
0
0
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
healthhazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15)
1 - 5.9-15) 0
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
0 0 0
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-7) 0
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0
7
a
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
om
OH
ow ow
ow
ON
ow
ow mu ow
OH urn
0 0 ISI w IxI IXI ow
ow
Rev. 03128196
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 0 17
5.12.3-7) 0 0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0 0
5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0 0
I7 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change wluch
10) 0 17
10) 17 0 0
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 0 0
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 0 0 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 0 0
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#I :Pgs
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 0
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?
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
ow ow ow ow OBI OH
ow ow ow
ow ow ow ow
ow
ow
OBI
Cl~
8 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated 0 urn
0 0 om
9 Rev. 03128196
0 a
XVII. EAFUIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis of the proposed community facility site have been completed through the
General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-
01). The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent with
the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a project that was described in
MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01
which are appropriate to the project have been incorporated into this project.
The project site is located in an area which is subject to the requirements of the Zone 20 Specific
Plan approved by the City Council in 1994. A Final Program EIR was certified for the Zone 20
Specific Plan. The Zone 20 Program EIR identified, analyzed, and recommended mitigation to
reduce potentially significant impacts to insignificant levels. The subsequent Conditional
Negative Declaration prepared for the Sambi Seaside Heights Tract (CT 92-02) which included
the subject property, supplemented the Final Program EIR (EIR 90-03) and provided a more
focused and detailed project level analysis of site specific environmental impacts and provided
more refined project level mitigation measures as required by EIR 90-03.
The subject property is a pre-graded in-fill pad resulting from the previously approved
subdivision CT 92-02 and all mitigation measures included in the Negative Declaration and EIR
90-03 for that subdivision have been complied with. The following environmental evaluation
indicates that no significant impacts will result from this project and explains the basis for this
determination along with identifying the source documents which support the environmental
determination.
10 Rev. 03128196
0 e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is a 1.79 acre in-fill lot designated RM (Medium Density Residential) by the
General Plan. The property has been rough graded in conjunction with the Sambi Seaside
Heights Tract (CT 92-02) and has a generally flat topographic contour. A temporary desilting
basin is located at the southwest corner of the site and will be filled in with the proposed
development. The south and west slopes of the site are landscaped with ornamental trees and
shrubs. The northeastern edge of the triangular-shaped lot is adjacent to a parcel of land
containing a finger canyon which contains coastal sage scrub habitat. This habitat area was
designated as a Coastal Deed Restricted Area as part of CT 92-02. In addition, a 60 foot open
space easement from the perimeter of the habitat area was required. Portions of this open space
easement fall within the northeastern edge of the subject site.
Existing residential development surrounds the site to the north and east. A vacant parcel
approved for a planned residential development is located across Plum Tree Road to the south
and Poinsettia Park is located across Hidden Valley Road to the west. The project site is located
within the boundaries of Specific Plan 203 which covers the 640 acre Zone 20 Planning Area.
The Final EIR 90-03 for SP 203 addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with
the future buildout of the Zone 20 Specific Plan Area. In addition, a Conditional Negative
Declaration was prepared for CT 92-02 which resulted in the subdivision, grading, and
development of the Sambi Seaside Estates Tract.
11 Rev. 03128196
e 0
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
I. Land Use and Planning
The project site is a 1.79 acre parcel designated as RM (Medium Density Residential) by the
General Plan. The zone designation is RD-M-Q (Residential Density Multiple-Qualified Overlay
Zone) which requires approval of a Site Development Plan in conjunction with the development
proposal. The site was reserved as a community facility site as part of the approval for CT 92-
02. Specific Plan 203 requires approval of a conditional use permit for child daycare facilities.
In addition, the project requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit due to its location in
the Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Program.
11. Population and Housing
The development of this infill site with a childcare facility was anticipated with the subdivision
of CT 92-02 and associated reservation of the site as a community facility site for a five-year
period. The proposed use will not displace existing housing or induce substantial growth. The
childcare facility will provide a use which supports the surrounding residential community.
111. Geologic Problems
The project is proposed on a pre-graded pad which was graded in accordance with City standards
through the issuance of a grading permit. The proposed development will require approximately
850 cubic yards of cut, 1,200 cubic yards of fill, and 350 cubic yards of import to accommodate
development of the site with the proposed 9,897 square foot structure and associated playground
and parking lot. The amount of import proposed equates to approximately 35 truck trips in and
35 truck trips out of the site. The building pad will be elevated approximately 1.5 feet above
existing grade so that water will flow away from the foundation towards the drain inlets in the
play areas. Similarly, the parking lot area will be raised 1.5 feet or less to provide positive
drainage.
IV. Water
The project would result in increased surface runoff due to the addition of impervious surfaces
required for the development of the structure and parking lot. Drainage from the site will be
collect and conveyed in an underground private piping system and will be discharged by an
existing public storm drain system in Plum Tree Road. Development of the site will be required
to comply with all applicable City regulations regarding drainage and runoff, including
compliance with any applicable NPDES regulationsh-equirements.
VII. Biological Resources
The site will not result in an impact to biological resources. The northeastern edge of the
triangular shaped lot abuts a Coastal Deed Restricted Area open space lot which contains coastal
sage scrub habitat. In addition, a 60 foot open space easement from biological habitat is located
beyond the perimeter of the habitat area. Portions of this 60 foot open space easement are
located along the northeastern edge of the subject site. The open space easement area functions
primarily as a fire protection and brush management zone. Uses within the easement are
restricted and may not alter any landforms, remove any existing vegetation, or erect structures of
any type within this area. The project complies with this restriction in that the pad area within
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
the open space easement has been pre-graded and contains no vegetation, and no combustible
structures are proposed within the open space easement. Parking and playground uses are
proposed within the easement area and are permitted uses due to the non-combustible nature of
these features. Planting within the easement will comply with Fire Protection Policies contained
in the City’s Landscape Manual.
IX. Hazards
The Phase I Site Assessment prepared by Giles Engineering Associates, Inc., indicates that
previous environmental reporting was completed for Sambi Seaside Heights (CT 92-02), a large
parcel which includes the subject property. A Hazardous Materials Transaction Screen showed
that the subject properties and properties to the east and south had been utilized as agricultural
property. Pesticide testing revealed that pesticide concentrations were present in the near surface
soils. A Public Health Risk Assessment was performed as a result of the presence of residual
pesticide concentrations in the near surface soils. The results of the assessment indicated that
“the presence of trace levels of pesticide residues on the Sambi site do not pose a significant
health risk to resident adults, children, or construction workers”. It was unknown as to whether
any of the topsoil was removed from the subject property during grading activity for the subject
property and the Phase I Site Assessment indicated that further environmental investigation with
respect to pesticides should be considered. Subsequently, a Limited Phase I1 Environmental Site
Assessment was performed by Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. Soils samples were collected
and analyzed for the presence of pesticide constituents. Based on the information obtained, no
pesticide impacted soils have been discovered on the subject property and no additional study is
considered to be warranted at this time. However, the boring samples were taken at locations
under the building foundation and within the parking area. Because no borings were taken
within the children’s play areas, a condition requiring additional soils testing within the outdoor
play areas is incorporated into the mitigation measures for the project.
X. Noise
The future development of the site is not anticipated to result in increased noise levels or
exposure of people to severe noise levels. The architecture will be designed to as to ensure a 45
dB maximum noise level for interior spaces. When construction is proposed, there will be
temporary increases in noise as building occurs. However, these activities will be regulated by
the City’s construction activity regulations and will be temporary in nature and not severe.
XIII. Aesthetics
The site will not result in any aesthetic impacts. The development proposal for the 9,897 square
foot child daycare facility complies with all applicable City regulations for such development
including setbacks, height limitations, parking and landscape requirements, and screening of
equipment. Lighting for the structures is within soffits and parking lot lighting will be shielded
so that it does not illuminate adjacent residential properties. The site is an infill site and not
adjacent to any scenic highway or vista.
The finished pad elevation of 182’ is about 1.5 feet above the existing level of the rough graded
pad. The proposed daycare facility is a one-story structure with a height of 23’ -3 and is within
the allowable 30’ height limit as measured from existing grade. The building pads of the
residences across the canyon, about 200 feet north of the site, are at the 180 to 184 elevation.
The building pad for the residence across the canyon to the east is at the 201.9 elevation and
residences proposed directly to the south will be at about the 184 to 185.5 elevation. The
13 Rev. 03128196
0 0
proposed grading will not create any steep slopes or significantly alter the existing landform.
V. Air Quality
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
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
VI. TransportatiodCirculation
The project site is part of the Sambi Seaside Heights Tract map (CT 92-02) and was specified for
development as a community service site such as a church or daycare. Access to the site is via
Plum Tree Road. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the project using SANDAG traffic
generation rates for daycare facilities. It is calculated that the 184 child daycare facility will
generate about 920 daily trip ends (460 in and 460 out) with 80 inbound80 outbound trips during
the AM peak hour and 85 inbound85 outbound during the PM peak hour. Calculations for this
amount of traffic, much of which will be drawn fi-om the immediate area, were shown as not
significantly impacting the key intersections and street segments in the project area. Similarly,
the key intersections and street segments were determined to have adequate capacity to
accommodate near-term cumulative traffic volumes.
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
14 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
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.
The City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Report
has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport
Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This
potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previous environmental
documentation. Pursuant to $1 5 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a lead agency must prepare a
“Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.e., the recorded
intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, case law has
interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of a “Subsequent
EIR7 if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to a level of
insignificance.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn
lanes-northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound. This project has been conditioned
to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements” thereby, guaranteeing
mitigation to a level of insignificance.
15 Rev. 03128196
e 0
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4455.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan (EIR 90-03),
dated June 1992, Brian F. Mooney Associates.
3. Conditional Negative Declaration for Sambi (CT 92-02PUD 92-03/SDP 92-06/HDP 92-03),
dated August 5, 1993, City of Carlsbad.
4. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis for Proposed Kindercare Learning
Center (Project No. 26-9904015) dated May 28, 1999, Giles Engineering Associates, Inc.
5. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed Kindercare Learning Center No. 1634
(Project No. 2E-9904011) dated May 27, 1999, Giles Engineering Associates, Inc.
6. Limited Phase I1 Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed Kindercare Learning; Center
No. 1634 (Project No. 26-9904011-1) dated June 24, 1999, Giles Engineering Associates,
Inc .
7. Traffic Impact Analysis for Kindercare Child Care (Project No. 3-990943) dated October 20,
1999, Linscott, Law & Greenspan.
16 Rev. 03128196
e 0
LIST OF MITIGATTNG MEASURES
1. The Developer shall pay his fair share for the “short-term improvements’’ to the El Camino
Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to issuance of a building permit. The amount
shall be determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not
limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone 20 LFMP
fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing
district.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a detailed soils testing and analysis report, with borings
taken from the outdoor children’s play areas, shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer,
and submitted to the City Planning and Engineering Departments as well as the County of
Environmental Health for review and approval. The report shall evaluate the potential for soil
contamination and shall identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any
potentially significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at high
concentrations in the soil.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
17 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
. 5/99' Date 1
18 Rev. 03128196
ENVIRONMENTAL MIT &ION MONITORING CHECKLIST&e 1 of 1
d
m Q)
3
n
0 n
9
n
\ 7
Q, m
3 $ 7 d,
n
v)
n
irj w W a 2 3 z
W
LL
m
=!
p! W F Z W 0
c3 z z
p!
-
4
a
n
3
w 2 6 Z
I-
1
W p!
0 p! W
z
2 6 w n
sxa
.P+ E
0 $6 +-= 0
mrn
rma, €22;
& .r z
620
$ €5
uo
3Q
.5 g 8
+-
.- c '$ 20 QZ 2 mc .E .P 0 C .? E '€2 p I: '5
-OD :$2
222 .E
a22
.. 000 0; m$€ w E"".) 0 :gux -cJ a, .= 6 c 0 .- &; g 0'"s 27 m d +m, = 005 s? Z22& I- "U 0 uE-~ 6 moo 22€
0 ~6 c 6 O2
OQ) oajE .r 0 a, asg & 2 .- 3.z7n m.Pmq
3 .- .?e 03 2 EI:r
$5 3: a,"aN ESjSS ca, Qg
.=moa, 0 Eo
m om .- os K a, "0 a,u €500 - con0 :g:g a," 2 pg3
g$$ w .sEmQ I- craw a, g €2 s 0-5 sa c c.22 $ '$a,,-
0 % .a, :e a3 C U-k
D- a,cm- +E;;;
n La.-= 6 I"n$ia
+
01
a+ '
U-x c
-
0-0 00
v) E z 2
c 0 .- +- p? .- c %a, &€ >a,
E -
S
:2 3m IK hll IUI I
c a, .E . .- :'j -rc (I: m
.- a 8 &a a, .G .r a, .- cc ac cs WL
st-
-
e 3 u) m Q) B
S 0
m a
.- 4-l .- 4-l 5
EE& gs- Sam ma0
y*b a, nE '"0 0 -0 a, 0 a, 52%
c%m2.E 0 ex =m +5=522 algz E E (0 m m 5m3 'nn a5 E 5: 5 I) .- 22lm a, .- 2 a, 0n.GE. 0 mU- hmo5 s mw u @J a,- '3
moca,o
-tl6 QU.=~ os
QQ)
C fjU2byIS
.k .E CU .s .& a, n Q 0 q-iE-;yEi
.E 0 .- $2 $= I -1 .E
I: Oa,3,XO' $jZ"Q'"" 0
Qmg: ha, s.2 a, ;_- -5 - Q-nL Ob
I: 0 em: m -N u)
m+.gL+ c $5
a,-mo a, SE
Q-r, :E.z g Lag 0 E.r sa,'3m Sj €22 o-x$z ;g
n ou m co.r m m a, 2.s €220 u) a,
a, kg?.& s" 2 :.E +.ED% 3 C0.G 62
'- + m 0.-
c
- -5 -5 m 0 u) a, m>a,2-
~,,Xom~ >a : pu2 (rJ ='
-Y- .- a,+-= 222 J!lc% 0 Q) Q) n3 3m- ux2 u)mZ s .co
+-a a,Gz.a, 0 3s
.-pESp &-a a, I a, om 3 E nnr m't: 6 a, m (0'5
.E '3 m" s a, = 3 mmnzz a, Ye2 LID12 n0mac-m m ghE.55 > &'s.- ea
0.E Qe.r E-
a, m m a, pcm 0 '"s 5 2 ggU.5 u)
3 mz $u c gU.E swr .-sou zg
n22 z 2ii0k
(II + QB a m
ms u QC
mQ) a,
OL
+- om'gm mo2.r >E
'SO cE .- 0 '= u .E ' m" mm oc s3a,
a, 2?2? s-tj g
QZL
u) c .- Gg
QO ?= u u). h3=
mQ)
g)c 0 0 c mT? u, Sags +
m .cJ -c .G
gy!.E $225
- 0.- ES a, 2 SS m mm 8 2 a,C
c 3I.m m $.OC UEz .- $ E &
.ccso .- 0 m3 Ez.2 a, 2 .- s m Dku
o.= m2
0 Ez m
Uk m
9 Q-$
-+ 0
U
+ m ++ a,
II II i IA II I' I1 I I1
5 &
- a,P $6
0
TIL
- $g
.- E; =E a, Bg
J= .F 2 .- 3E ;p a, '6
Ed F z+jz 5s 0
._ mu Lo
E mz cnz a,g [3)
Lo .= mm .-
CC3
zgg
; :& i; g:
c .-
CZ v)
z .=
II .- &
0-$
EgQ; Ern"; ,z9: Em &E .-
>!Y
- z z 3 0
n m
UJ 8
0
C
.- I + .-
E
L P
P a
Lo C
-
g Lo ?? >; 0 C a, cn
cjo - m-
$2
i%
g.PE2
m 00 E g P II 3s-S
Li 2-i f
0; 8
.- - c) Iii' 2 a,., II ,o
ml-I