HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 48621
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. 4862
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO OPERATE A CHILD DAY
CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 6451 EL CAMINO REAL IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: ONTOGEN CORPORATION CHILD
CARE FACILITY
CASE NO.: CUP 00-09
WHEREAS, Sam Zien, “Developer”, has tiled a verified application with the
City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as trustee of the
Harold F. Hutton Trust, “Owner”, described as
Lot 3 of Carlsbad Tract No. 79-01, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map
thereof No. 9389, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, September 26,1979
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of November, 2000,
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 testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
“ND” dated September 11, 2000, and “PII” dated September 5, 2000, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
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
Findines:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
B. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
D. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of November 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairper&
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL .I. H-dZMtiLER
Planning Director
PC RBSO NO. 4862 -2-
City of Cklsbad
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
6451 El Camino Real ~ Project is on the west side of El Camino
Real and just south of Camino Vida Roble, in the industrial zone.
Construction of a 3,200 square foot childcare facility within vacant
space of an existing concrete tilt-up industrial building. The
project also includes the removal of existing parking spaces to
accommodate an exterior play area with landscape improvements.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on tile in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on tile in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from 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 Van Lynch in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4613:
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
SEPTEMBER 11,200O
CUP 00-09
ONTOGEN CORPORATION CHILD CARE FACILITY
SEPTEMBER 11,200O
MICHAEL J. %LZMILLER ’
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602.4600 - FAX (760) 602.8559
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: CUP 00-09
DATE: September 5.2000
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
CASE NAME: Ontogen Corporation Child Care Facilitv
APPLICANT: Sam Zien
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 6451 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA
~7601930-0100
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 8,200O
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a 3,200 square foot childcare faciliv within vacant
space of an existing concrete tilt-up industrial building. proiect also includes the removal of existing
parking spaces to accommodate an exterior plav area with landscape improvements.
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.
IXI Land Use and Planning !xl Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources cl Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards cl Cultural Resources
q Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03128196
-
DETERMINATION.
!a
0
cl
El
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a signiticant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier 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.
1 Da?xO-oO
9-I-o-a
Date
2 Rev. 03128196
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 identities 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.
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.
“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.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but 4 potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
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.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
. 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.
. 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 II 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 signilicance.
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. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
4
b)
Cl
4
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community) ? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
4
b)
C)
Cumulatively exceed official regional OI local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l 5.5-6)
Induce substantial growth in an xea either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrashuchre)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
Cl
4
e)
cl
8)
h)
i)
expose people to potential impacts ;I&lving:
Fault ~pture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l :Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1
5.1-15)
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-l - 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5.,2-l 1)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1)
5
Significant l”lp.Xt
Potentially
Significant UlllesS
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
cl
El
cl
El
0
17
q
El cl
0
B
0
El
0
0
q
Less Than
Significant
l”lpkXt
Rev. 03128196
NO
Impact
0
[XI
0
Esd
El
IXI
!a
E3
1
[XI
[XI
El
1
[XI
Ed
[XI
IXI
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d
h)
9
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-I 1)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1)
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-l - 5.,2-l 1)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l :Pgs
5.2-l - s..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
Cl
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3.
1 - 5.3-12)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
4
b)
Cl
4
4
t)
8)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. shalp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus hunouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
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-l - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24)
0
0
0
cl
q
cl
tzl
cl
cl
0
[XI
cl
cl
0
0
cl
III
0
0
0
El
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
cl
cl
III
0
q
El
El
III
NO
1lTpZt
IXI
IXI
IXI
El
[XI
[XI
q
[XI
IXI
IXI
cl
!zl
IXI
[XI
IXI
[XI
El
[XI
IXI
[XI
6 Rev. 03/2X/96
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
hcorporated
III
cl
0
Less Than
Signiticm
IITlpaCt
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
e)
VIII.
a)
b)
Cl
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-l - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
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-l - 5.12.1-5
855.13-l - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
Cl
4
e)
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-l - 5.10.1-S)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l 5.10.1-5)
Increase fne hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l 5.9.
15) b) Exposure of people to .severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9.
1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
a)
b)
Cf
d)
e)
upon, or result in a need for new 0; altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -5.12.X-7)
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l
5.12.X-7)
XILUTILITIES 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-l 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
7
Potentially Significant
Impact
cl
El
Potentially
Significant
UlllCSS Mitigation
hxoqwrated
cl
cl
Less Than
Signiticarl
Impact
0
0
NO
IlllpaCt
!a
IXI
IXI
[XI
tzl
IXI
El
IXI
[XI
IXI
[XI
IXI
El
El
El
[XI
Rev. 03128196
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
4
4
e)
f)
g)
XIII.
4
b)
C)
XIV.
a)
b)
Cl
4
e)
Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-l - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-S)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.1243)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1-5.11-5)
Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect?
(#l:Pgs 5.11-l -5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8.
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.X-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
9
b)
XVI.
4
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-l -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
Potentially
Significant
1lllpXt
Potentially Significant
UIlkSS Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
El
El
Less Than Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
i
Ei
I#
IXI
IXI
El
[XI
[XI
I!3
!a
[XI
IXI
IXI
8 Rev. 03128196
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
Cl
Potentially
Sieniticant
Potentially Less Than No
Sienificant Significant lnmact
Ynlpact U”kSS Mitieation impact
h&orated
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? q q q
(“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)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, q q q
either directly or indirectly?
[XI
9 Rev. 03128196
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
4 Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
cl Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project involves the construction of a childcare facility within an existing multi-tenant
industrial building. The one-story building is of a concrete tilt-up design and has fire sprinklers
installed. The facility is to be used initially by a nearby business that wishes to establish an on-
site childcare facility for employee use. Interior improvements consist of Lobby, Reception,
Kitchen, Lounge, Toddler room, Preschool room, Infant room, Nap room and Diaper room.
Exterior improvements consist of the removal of approximately 16 parking spaces and installing
a child play area. The play are will be enclosed by a 5’ 4” masonry wall and wrought iron fence.
Play area will have hardscape, turf and sand area, and play equipment over Fibar material.
Additional landscaping of planters and trees is also proposed. Parking lot drainage will include
the use of fossil titters at catch basin to collect pollutant runoff,
11 Rev. 03/28/96
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Environmental Impact Discussion
I. Land Use and Planning
I(a). The proposed Child Care facility is not a use that is permitted by right within the
industrial zone, but one that requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
I(c). Pursuant to the City’s Child Care ordinance (Section 21.83), a CUP is required to locate a
childcare facility within the City’s industrial zone. The ordinance includes a comprehensive set
of guidelines to ensure a safe child care environment and to maintain compatibility between
child- care facilities and the surrounding industrial land use. The development standards which
will reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance include; an ongoing evaluation of health
and safety risks associated with the childcare center; setbacks from surrounding uses which
contain hazardous materials; safely located outdoor play areas; and a safe loading and unloading
area.
IV. Water
IV (a,c) The project has the potential to improve the water quality of runoff water by decreasing
the amount of impervious surfaces and by installing fossil filters to screen parking lot runoff.
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
12 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
The project has the potential to improve air quality by reducing vehicle trips by locating the
childcare facility adjacent to the work place of the child’s parents.
VI. Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
The project has the potential to improve circulation by reducing vehicle trips by locating the
childcare facility adjacent to the work place of the child’s parents.
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on tile in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4613.
1. Final Master Environmental Imnact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
13 Rev. 03128196