HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 49771
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. 4977
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A GAS
STATION, MINI-MART, HOTEL AND TWO RESTAURANTS
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF CANNON ROAD AND
INTERSTATE 5 IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 3.
CASE NAME: CANNON COURT
CASE NO.: CUP 99-30
WHEREAS, J. A. Buza Corp, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by West Development, Inc., “Owner,” described
as
That portion of Lot “H” of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Petition Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of
the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,1896
(APN 210-010-38)
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of May, 2001, 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
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 Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to
Exhibit “ND” dated February 26, 2001, and “PII” dated February 6, 2001,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findiws:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration and
the Cannon Court Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
B. The Mitigated 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.
Conditions:
1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Cannon Court
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. * .
. . .
PC RESO NO. 4977 -2-
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 Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of May 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
L’Heureux, and Trigas
Commissioner Nielsen
QQ
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4977 -3-
City of
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: APN 210-010-38
That portion of Lot “H” of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
Map thereof No. 823, tiled in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, November 16, 1896.
Project Description: Development proposal for an 86 room hotel, two restaurants, and a
gas station/food mart on a 6.51 acre site.
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 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 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4626.
DATED: FEBRUARY 26,200l
CASE NO: SDP 00-09/CUP 99-3O/CUP 99-31/PUD 00-109/MS 99-16
CASE NAME: CANNON COURT
PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 26,200l
MICHAEL J. HOLmILI&R
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: SDP 00-09/CUP 99-3O/CUP 99-31/PUD 00-109/MS 99-16
DATE: February 6,200l
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: CANNON COURT
2. APPLICANT: West Development. Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P. 0. Box 676066 Ranch0 Santa Fe,
CA 92067 (619) 756-5338
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 17, 1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a site development plan. conditional use
permits, minor subdivision, and non-residential planned development permit to allow grading
and construction of two restaurants, a hotel, and a gas station/food mart on a 6.51 acre lot
located on the north side of Cannon Road between I-5 and the AT & SF Railroad right-of-way.
&4PN 210-010-38).
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.
0 Land Use and Planning lxl Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
El Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
III Water
q Air Quality
0 Cultural Resources
0 Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03128196
-’ -’
DETERMINATION.
0
cl
III
El
cl
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 significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 Mitigated
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 avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Impact Review (MEIR 93-Ol),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
2 151ol
Date ’
Date
Rev. 03/28/96
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.
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 &I 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.
Rev. 03128196
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part 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 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.
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
d) 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)
e) 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:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6)
c) 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)
c>
4
e>
r)
s>
h) i>
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #4, Pgs 4-21)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-5; ##4, Pgs
4-2 1)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l :Pgs
5.1-I - 5.1.-15; #4, Pgs 4-21)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5. l-l -
5.1-15; #+I, Pgs 4-21)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-,15; #4,
Pgs 4-2 1)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #4, Pgs 4-215)
Subsidence of the land?(#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #4, Pgs
4-21)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #4, Pgs 4-21)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l :Pgs 5. l-l -
5.1-15; #4, Pgs 4-21)
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; #5, Pgs l-7)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5,.2-l 1)
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than No Significant Impact
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q IXI
q lxl
q lxl
q lxl
q lxl
q El
q ta
q lxl
q q lxl q q El
0
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q lxl
q lxl
q lxl
0 El
q w
q lxl q IXI
El q
q El
5 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c)
s>
h)
9
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11; #5, Pgs
l-7)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
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..2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11; #5, Pgs l-7)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 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-l
- 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a>
b)
cl
4
e>
f)
s>
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22; # 6)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
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 turnouts, 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; #2, Pg 2)
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q
q
0
q
0
q
IXI
q
q
q
lxl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Less Than Significant Significanl Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated q q
q q
q q
q q
q q
q q
q q
No Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
u
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q IXI
0 lxl
q lxl
q q
q IXI
q lx
q lxl
q IXI
q lxl
q w
q El
Rev. 03128196 6
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
c)
4
e)
VIII.
a>
b)
cl
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2, Pg 2)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
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- 1
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
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 7)
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
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a>
b)
c>
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 - 5.10.1-5;
#3, Pgs l-3)
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-I - 5.10.1-5; # 2, Pgs l-
10) Increase fire 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; # 7, Pgs. l-7)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
4 b) c> 4
e>
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 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 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Other governmental services? (#l :Pgs 5.12. l-l -
5.12.8-7)
7
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0 q q q
q
Pzntially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated q q lxl
q
q
q lxl
q q
q q IXI
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
lxl
0 lxl
q IXI
0 lxl
lxl q
q lxl
lxl q
q IXI
q lxl
q IXI
0 0
q q lx.l q 0 IXI q q lxl q q El
q q IXI
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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)
b) Communications systems? (#l: pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c> Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
4 Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e> Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f-J Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
s> Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a> Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l :Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
c> Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a> Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5%
10)
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
4 Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
e> Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
4
b)
XVI.
a>
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l :Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 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?
8
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
PZntially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
q q IXI
q q IXI q q lxl
q q q q
q w q El q IXI q IXI
q
q
q
q
q
q lxl
q lxl
q w
q lx
q w
q q lxl q q lxl
q
q
q
q
q w
q lxl
q lz
q lxl
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
c>
XVII.
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)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially PGntiaIly Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated q q q IXI
q q q IXI
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:
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.
4 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.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIROkENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Environmental SettinP/Site Description
The project site is a 6.51 acre lot designated T-R (Travel/Recreation Commercial) by the General
Plan. The rectangular shaped site is generally flat and is bordered by Cannon Road on the south,
the I-5 Freeway to the east, the AT & SF Railroad right-of-way to the west with the Encinas
Power Plant beyond, and the SDG&E storage yard, substation, and high tension power lines to
the north. Eucalyptus trees border the perimeter of the site and the majority of the property is
vacant and undeveloped. About 10% of the property was formerly developed with structures
located near the southwest corner. Concrete foundations and a concrete driveway currently
remain at the southwest corner. The property was used for agricultural purposes until about 1967
and since that time has been used to store equipment and materials for SDG&E. For a short
time, the property was also used to store new automobiles for a local dealership.
Proiect Description
The development proposal will result in the construction of an 86 room hotel with 105 space
underground parking garage located near the north end of the site, a 7,770 square foot restaurant
located west of the hotel, a 4,800 square foot restaurant located near the center of the site, and a
16 pump gas station and with a 1,500 square foot food mart located at the south end of the site.
The entrance to the project will be via a new signalized intersection at Cam-ion Road and Avenida
Encinas. The north extension of Avenida Encinas will be constructed as a private road and the
various uses will be accessed by three entrance points off this private street. The project is
proposed as non-residential planned development with individual ownership of the buildings and
joint use and ownership of on-grade and underground parking spaces. Associated landscape
improvements are included as part of the development proposal. Grading for the project will
consist of 28,800 cubic yards of cut, 1,800 cubic yards of fill, and 27,000 cubic yards of export.
The proposed grades are within 0 to 3 feet of the existing grades.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1. Land Use and Planning
The site’s C-T-Q (Commercial-Tourist/Qualified Development Overlay) zone designation would
allow the restaurant and hotel uses with approval of a Site Development Plan. The gas station use
requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, due to the site’s inclusion in the
Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone, approval of a Conditional Use Permit will be
required for the project. The site is located in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan Area and will
require approval of a Coastal Development Permit by the California Coastal Commission.
2. Population and Housing
The project will not impact or affect population patterns, projections, or affordable housing
provisions.
10 Rev. 03128196
3. Geologic Problems
A preliminary Geotechnical Report was prepared by Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
for the project site. This study concluded that the project site is appropriate for the proposed
development, subject to the recommendations included in the study. Since no fault crosses the
subject site, the risk of ground rupture was considered remote. Due to the soils types present, the
potential for liquefaction was found to be low. The site contains no known or suspected
landslides. The site does not contain any unique geologic or physical features.
Grading activities for the proposed project would be subject to the City’s adopted grading
regulations and the Landscape Guidelines Manual, which would include requirements for
implementation for all necessary erosion control methods. In addition, because of the site’s
location within the Coastal Zone, a mitigation measure has been included which will prohibit
grading activities during the winter months (October 1” - April 1”).
4. Water
The project is located approximately 1,700 feet south of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and 1,800
feet east of the Pacific Ocean. The Geotechnical Report indicated that groundwater was
discovered approximately 16 feet below grade in two locations. Groundwater is not expected to
affect the proposed development if proper drainage controls are implemented and maintained.
The project will result in increased surface runoff due to the addition of impervious surfaces
required for the development of the structures and pavement areas. The fuel dispensing area will
be designed to ensure clean storm water discharge from fuel dispensing areas and will minimize
the potential for gasoline runoff. Development of the site will be required to comply with all
applicable City regulations regarding drainage and runoff, including compliance with NPDES
regulations/requirements and Best Management Practices. The site is not within a flood hazard
area and will not result in exposure to water related hazards.
The site currently receives drainage from the parcel to the north and a 24” RCP drainage outlet
pipe at the CalTrans r.o.w. The flow from the CalTrans pipe is conveyed across the property via
a drainage swale and a shallow steel pipe. The entire site (and off-site contributing) drains to a 5’
x 5’ railroad tie culvert at the AT & SF railroad. The proposed drainage will be connected to the
existing outlet via a series of pipes/inlets. The proposed development will not impact
groundwater flow or quality; or change the flow of surface run-off; or impact public water
supplies.
5. Air Quality
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of 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 build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
11 Rev. 03128196
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, 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 projects covered
by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This
document is available at the Planning Department.
6. Transportation/Circulation
A traffic report was submitted for the proposed development. The report addresses two
circulation issues that need to be analyzed. First, the report analyzes the impact of the project
traffic on existing city streets. Additionally, the report analyzes the access requirements of the
45-acre parcel directly north of the project.
When the vacant 45-acre parcel north of the project is developed, it will take access through the
project site. Accordingly, the access road needs to be designed to handle the potential future
traffic. In order to establish the ultimate width of this access road, and since uses are not
currently planned for the 45 acres, two alternative land use assumptions were made. Alternative 1
assumed 15 acres for a high technology power plant plus 30 acres for the utility corporate
headquarters. This alternative results in a traffic generation of 3,450 ADT. Alternative 2 assumed
15 acres for a high technology power plant, 17.5 acres for corporate headquarters, and 12.5 acres
of visitor commercial use. This alternative resulted in a traffic generation of 7,200 ADT. To
accommodate both alternatives, the project proposes to build two lane improvements through the
project, with widening to four lanes at the intersection with Cannon Road. These improvements
would meet the requirements of alternative 1. To meet the requirements of alternative 2,
additional right-of-way would be reserved for the potential widening of the street to a four-lane
road.
The project itself will generate a total of 4,793 ADT; including 308 AM peak-hour trips and 401
PM peak-hour trips. The traffic analysis indicates that the additional traffic generated by the
project does not significantly affect the levels of service of the existing streets. However, the
intersection of Cannon Road and Avenida Encinas will need to be signalized once project
occupancy occurs. Additionally, due to the proximity of the I-5 Cannon Road freeway ramps to
the east and the railroad crossing to the west, some traffic operations measures need to be
implemented. The following specific measures will be incorporated in the design of the
intersection:
1. Interconnect the new Cannon Road/Avenida Encinas traffic signal with the existing
12 Rev. 03/28/96
freeway ramp signals.
2. Railroad preemption for the new Avenida Encinas traffic signal.
3. Signing and striping with “KEEP CLEAR” notices to assure intersections are not
blocked during railroad signal preemption.
4. Special preemption phasing for the new Avenida Encinas traffic signal to permit
south to east, west to south, and north to east movements during preemption.
5. Dual west to southbound left turns on Cannon Road at Avenida Encinas.
With all the above measures incorporated into the project design, the traffic analysis shows that
the project traffic does not significantly affect the levels of service of the streets or intersections
in the existing, short-term (year 2005) and build-out (year 2020) conditions.
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
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 build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate 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 build-out 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 projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning
Department.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
13 Rev. 03128196
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
7. Biological Resources
The site will not result in an impact to biological resources. The site does not contain any
identified sensitive resources. It contains no designated natural communities or wetland habitat
and does not serve as a migration corridor.
8. Energy and Mineral Resources
The site contains no identified natural resources and will not conflict with any energy
conservation plans. There are no known mineral resources on the site.
9. Hazards
Compliance with the California Health and Safety Code and Rule 20 of the Air Pollution Control
District Rules and Regulations as stated in the required regulatory permits for the construction
and operation of a gasoline dispensing facility will reduce the risk of explosion and release of
hazardous substances to a level of insignificance. Engineering and Fire Department review of
the project will ensure that typical safety features and provisions are designed into the project.
There will be no interference with emergency response or evacuation plans as the site will be
developed in accordance with all applicable City regulations, including placement of the
structures on the site and public/private improvements sidewalks, drainage facilities). Therefore,
the proposed development of the site will not result in the creation of any hazards.
Since the property had previously been used for agricultural uses, a limited Phase II
Environmental Assessment was conducted to evaluate the possibility of agricultural chemical
residue in the soils. The analysis detected the presence of toxaphene, however, it is anticipated
that grading activities (mixing and blending of the soil) will further reduce the levels of
toxaphene to a level of insignificance. Once grading is completed, it was recommended that
additional soil samples be collected an analyzed to determine their concentrations of toxaphene.
If additional actions are required, they can be implemented at that time. Examples of additional
actions would include thicker concrete slabs or the placement of vapor barriers.
10. Noise
The project is subject to the City of Carlsbad adopted interior noise standards of 45 CNEL for the
hotel use and 55 CNEL for the commercial uses which include the restaurants and food mart.
The City does not have exterior noise standards which apply to these uses. The site is subject to
noise impacts from I-5 and the Amtrack, Coaster, and freight train operations on the AT & SF
railroad. An acoustical analysis was submitted for the project which analyzed the impacts from
these noise sources on the proposed development. The report indicates that the building surfaces
of the hotel will be exposed to worst case noise levels of 77.7 CNEL, and will therefore require
at least a 32.7 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise
standard. The recommended mitigation measures include building upgrades for a number of
units within the hotel. The area of most concern is the east end of the building that faces the
freeway. The building upgrades consist of upgraded windows, attachment of an additional layer
14 Rev. 03/28/96
-’
of gypsum board to walls of specified units, and baffled attic vents, and mechanical ventilation.
Standard constructions methods will provide adequate noise attenuation for the restaurants and
food mart, with the condition that all buildings are required to have mechanical ventilation in
order to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve the required interior noise
attenuation.
The future development of the site is not anticipated to increase noise levels or expose people to
severe noise levels. 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.
11, Public Services
The eventual development of the subject site will not result in a need for new or altered
government services beyond what was already anticipated by the City’s General plan. The
project will be conditioned to comply with all applicable requirements of the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 3 to ensure that all necessary facilities are provided prior to or
concurrent with development.
12. Utilities and Service Systems
The eventual development of the subject site will not result in a need for new systems or supplies
or substantial alterations. The site is an infill site readily serviced by existing systems. The
project will be conditioned to comply with all applicable requirements of the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 3 to ensure that all necessary facilities/systems are provided prior to
or concurrent with development.
13. Aesthetics
The project site is located within the Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone and is subject to
standards which insure that the development will adhere to a high quality of architectural design.
The project utilizes a “Village” architectural style, and is consistent with the overlay zone
standards. The project observes a 30 foot landscape setback from Cannon Road and the setback
area is landscaped consistent with the Scenic Corridor Guidelines for Cannon Road. In addition,
the Scenic Corridor Guidelines apply to the railroad corridor, and the project has been designed
with pleasant building facades and landscaping which faces the railroad right-of-way.
The proposed hotel is the tallest building with a height of 45 feet to the peak of the roof. The
peak elevation will be approximately 28 feet above the elevation of the freeway. The height of
the restaurants are approximately 26 feet to the roof peaks and the highest points of the food mart
and gas station canopy, respectively, are 23.5 feet and 33.5 feet. Since no views of the coastline
are present from the freeway in either a north or southbound direction, the primary aesthetic
concerns are in regard to any negative visual impacts of exposed roof equipment or utility areas.
The roof equipment for the hotel will be ground mounted in an equipment room. The roof
equipment on the restaurants will be located within a mechanical equipment well and screened
with trellis screen panels painted to match the building. The food mart mechanical equipment
will be ground mounted and screened by an enclosure to complement the building. Views of
trash areas will also be screened from view with decorative enclosures and landscaping.
Standard conditions of approval also require submittal of a lighting plan with future submittal of
building plans. The lighting plans will be reviewed to insure that light fixtures are shielded so
15 Rev. 03/28/96
that there is no spillover of light or glare onto adjacent properties.
The perimeter of the site is surrounded primarily by Eucalyptus trees, with additional species
including Acacia, Pepper, Myoporum and Palm trees intermixed among the Eucalyptus. The
trees were evaluated by a certified arborist and the majority of the trees were found to be
suffering from either insect borer activity and damaged root systems, or were found to be
hazardous due to prior pruning activities. The majority of the trees will be removed due to the
poor health of the trees or potentially hazardous condition. New landscaping around the
perimeter of the site will consist of a more suitable mixture of trees and shrubs for screening or
enhancing the appearance of the site.
Therefore, no significant negative visual impacts will result from the proposed project.
14. Cultural Resources
No cultural resources (paleontological, archaeological, or historical) have been identified on the
project site. The site also does not serve as a site for religious or sacred uses. Therefore, there
will be no impact to cultural resources.
15. Recreational
The project will not affect existing recreational opportunities, as it does not currently serve as a
recreation site. The project will also be conditioned to comply with the requirements of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3 for park and recreation facilities.
16 Rev. 03128196
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 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report for proposed Cannon Court Development,
dated June 18, 1998, Converse Consultants.
3. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for proposed Cannon Court Development,
dated December 10, 1999, Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
4. Geotechnical Investigation for proposed Cannon Court Development, dated December 10,
1999, Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
5. Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations Cannon Court # 21 O-01 O-38, dated December 8,
1999, O’Day Consultants, Inc.
6. Transportation Analvsis for Cannon Court, dated revised January 4, 2001 Urban Systems
Associates, Inc.
7. Noise Analysis for Cannon Court, dated February 11,2000, Mestre Greve Associates.
8. Letter from Jim Thompson, Certified Arbor&, dated January 29, 1999, Butlers Mill, Inc.
17 Rev. 03128196
LIST OF MITIGATING M;ASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”, April 1 to October 1. The City
Engineer may permit an extension of the grading season until November 15 if all
precautionary measures regarding erosion, consistent with the City’s grading
ordinance, have been put into place by October 1.
2. Prior to completion of grading activities, additional soil samples shall be collected
and analyzed to determine their concentrations of toxaphene. If additional actions are
required, implementation of these mitigation measures shall occur prior to issuance of
a building permit.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structure, the Developer shall submit
a letter from the acoustical engineer attesting that the recommended noise mitigation
measures have been incorporated into the construction documents.
4. Design and build a two-lane street through the project site for access to the property
to the north. Widen the street to four lanes at its intersection with Cannon Road.
5. Reserve additional right-of-way for the potential widening of the street through the
project to a four-lane road.
6. Design and build a traffic signal at the intersection of Cannon Road and Avenida
Encinas.
7. Interconnect the Cannon Road/Avenida Encinas traffic signal with the existing I-5
freeway ramp signals. Coordinate with Caltrans.
8. Incorporate and coordinate the railroad preemption for the new traffic signal.
9. Incorporate traffic signal phasing, signing and striping measures to assure the free
flow of traffic during signal preemption.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
See Attached.
18 Rev. 03128196
APPLICANT CONCURREkE 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.
&&a IV, 2001
Date Signah&
19 Rev. 03128196
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIL-TION MONITORING CHECKLIST: r-age 1 of 1
. . r 2
a)- x
go= E :s tJl al
Eq$
o 8a '50 &) .r =
egg 03Q
a$ .-
5 Eg
.$ g '2
CL.= fJJ aIE .!4 ms,a) 5 '5 E
i
Ea, r .k
ii is s
>02
OL03 2ie .E
$g .g
+Y c ago
2zE co .g -0 -A
-O e.5 s .P
oq
e ul 5 CUE -
SBIC' .r 5 u
0=5
2E t-0 0 d &"a, pa2
8 2 .G 8s
!EiE a, ii= .- 3’EU . ds g.z . L cc7 3 .- .e a3 Z% 30 (u--oKI E!$gc a, a.o s-E5 ‘c;moo) a 0 “co .F+ YE (/y gg ESao amu m Qy) EEm$ ;,; g CE =J 0 gan/Jg ‘5 E gg : g E.o 0-5 szj .s c.22 3acu- OU.Po = au- 0 .- .- u-g E- w=,2 g-g-gz
=
d b E A!
-
: 8’ is’ .= aI ~ >;
-
s, s 3 Oi %
- d F’i ‘S I 21 E1 -c -
P 2; :I- E
-
z! 2 L P
E ‘E 8 :E I
-
0-J p.E
‘E %
jjJ .g
vi
C E %b (LlQ
e i.E
0 3; ‘S ul a .E 6-l
-
I I ‘i
c
-
i
ENVIRONMENTAL MITluTION MONITORING CHECKLIST: ege 1 of 1
'MAR-z?-Oi TUE 4114 PM CALTR"" UELIC TRANS FAX NO. El! 4293 P. 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NOSINESS, TRANs~GRTA~IoN AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11
P.O. BOX 86406, M.S. 50
SAN DIEGO, CA 92 186-5406
PHONE: 1619) 698-6954
FAX: (619) 688-4299
GRAY DAVIS. Governor --
March 27, 2001 1 l-SD-005
PM 47.8
(K-P. 76.5)
Mr. Scott Morgan
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Morgan:
Draft ND for Cannon Court - SCH 2OOlO21109
Caltrans District 11 comments are as follows:
General Comments
l The Traffic Study should assess the cumulative impacts of all existing and future
projects in the vicinity of the proposed project.
l Caltrans requires l&e1 of Service (LOS) C or better at State owned facilities, including
intersections. If an intersection is currently below LOS C, any increase in delay from
project generated traffic must be analyzed and mitigated.
4 If certain traffic mitigation projects are identified as appropriate, then Caluans supports
the concept of “fair share” contributions on the part of the developer.
Specific Comments
l he 7-6 Table 7-2, Note 4; Dual right turn lanes WB to NB assumed. Please explain the
basis of this assumption.
l Page 8-2 Table 8-l; LOS for AM and PM Peak Hours differs from Table 7-2. Please
explain.
l Section 9 Conclusions and Recommendations; Mitigation measures must be included in
the Traffic Study. If the impact is completely mitigated, please describe how.
Our contact person for I-5 is Erwin Gojuangco, Route Manager, at (619) 688-6610.
Sincerely,
BILL FIGGE, Chief
Development Review and Public Transportation Branch
April lo,2001
Caltrans, District 11
Erwin Gojuangco, Route Manager
P. 0. Box 85406, M.S. 50
San Diego, CA 92 186-5406
RE: DRAFT ND FOR CANNON COURT - SCH 2001021109
Dear Mr. Gojuangco:
Thank you for your comments regarding the traffic study for Cannon Court - CUP 99-30. I
asked the traffic consultant to address your comments and their response is included as an
attachment to this letter. In addition, David Stillman, City of Carlsbad Traffic Engineering
Department, reviewed the response from USA and feels that it adequately responds to your
concerns. Should you have any additional questions, please feel ti-ee to contact me at 760-602-
4626.
Sincerely,
-=&a%
Barbara Kennedy, AICP
Associate Planner
Bkcs
Attachment: Response from Urban Systems Associates dated 4/6/01
c: Bill Figge, Chief Development Review and Public Transportation Branch
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us a9
flpr 06 01 02:OOp Urban Systems Assoc. Inc. (8'=f$1560-9734 P- 1
WturE t-0 MmaEssEK: YELLOW TO flS ?wlc l-0 t4AuAGEu
A7TN: Barbara Kennedy m fax: v ,
%
phone : r
COMPANY City of Carlsbad (760) 602-4626 (760) 602-8559
FROM: Jim Lundquist, Senior Project Mana TOTAL PAGES : a
DA7E April 6, 2001 TZME: 1:56 p TRANSMITED VIA= Fax
WJEU: CALlXANS COMMENT LEi7ER - CXNNON COURT
We are sending you the following information for our:
0 use 0 for submittal l as requested 0 approval d review & comment
Barbara:
We have reviewed the Caltrans comment letter and offer the following comments:
1. See Page l-l. The report examines Existing, Short Term and Buildout
scenarios. The SANDAG traffic forecast model was used for the Short Term
and Buildout scenarios which account for all future projects in the vicinity of
the proposed project.
2.
3.
See pages 3-8, 5-6, 6-7, 7-l and 7-6. The City of Carlsbad follows the
procedures outlined in the “SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies
(TIS) in the San Diego Region”, dated March 2, 2000. That report, reviewed
by Bill Figge of Caltrans, states: “In general, the region wide goal for an
acceptable level of service (LOS) on all freeways, roadway segments and
intersections is 0”.
The project does not significantly increase the delays at any intersection
examined.
See pages S-1,5-7,5-8,6-4 and 6-8. The project proposes to install a traffic
signal at Cannon RoadlAvenida Encinas, the widening of Avenida Encinas at
Cannon Road to four lanes, signal interconnect with Caltrans ramp signal,
railroad preemption, keep clear signing and striping, preemption phasing and
dual west to south bound left turn lanes on Cannon Road at Avenida Encinas.
If enclosures are not as noted, please noti+ us at once.
MS98 i C\OFFZCE-~~VS98-4o601-aps/disk
4340 ArEARAw F%Li ROAD, sbmz 1w l SMI zll.mo* CA 9212~lS?3 l lRstz1 .wfL4011 - PAW IDCOb c&-a Ma a
Rpr 06 01 02:OOp Urban Systems fissoc.‘~nC. (F-91 560-9734 P.2
Barbara Kennedy -
April 6, 2001 Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
4. See Page 7-6. This improvement is required as traffic volumes approach
buildout forecasts. The project adds zero additional trips for this movement.
Without the improvement, the LOS is F with or without the project. The
improvement is planned to be done with development of the SDGErE property
located to the northeast of the ramp signal.
5. See Page 2-2, Section 2-4; Intersection Level of Service Los Procedures. To
determine an intersection peak hour level of service (LOS) as required by the
City of Carlsbad Growth Management Plan Guidelines, the Intersection
Capacity Utilization (ICU) method was used (summarized in Table 7-2). For
Congestion Management Program evaluation purposes, intersection levels of
service were calculated using the latest Highway Capacity Manual (KM)
computer software methodology (the 1997 update to the 1994 HCM) as
summarized in Table 8-I. The two different analysis methods vary in
assumptions and do not always yield exactly the same results; acceptable levels
of service are achieved however.
6. See responses to question/comment #3 above. The project does fully mitigate
the significant traffic impacts with these mitigation measures.
Please let us know ifyou have any questions or need any other information.
Cc; John Buza, J.A. Buza Corporation ..................... (858) 756-2891
Dennis Cunningham, Planning Systems ................ (760) 931-5744
#i?S98 2 C:\OFFXCE2lXW\2SP8+06Ol-aps/dik
Sf enclosures we not as noted, please noti+ us at once.
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Edwin F. Lowry, Director
Winston H. Hickox
Agency Secretary
California Environmental
Protection Agency
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630 Gray Davis
Governor
March 19, 2001
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
City of Carlsbad -bee.‘ y
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CANNON COURT - SDP 00-09/CUP 99-
31/PUD OO-109/MS 99-16 - 2001021109
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Negative
Declaration (ND) for the above-mentioned Project.
Based on the review of the document, DTSC’s comments are as follows:
1)
2)
3)
5)
The ND needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the
Project site have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances at the
Project area.
The ND needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated site within the
proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the ND needs to evaluate whether
conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment.
The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and/or remediation for any site that may require remediation, and which
government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight.
The ND indicates that the property had previously been used for agricultural
uses and the Phase II Environmental Assessment conducted at the site detected
the presence of Toxaphene. The ND proposes the grading activities (mixing and
blending of the soil), and if needed, additional actions such as thicker concrete
slabs or the placement of vapor barriers. Pursuant to the California Code of
Regulations, Title 22, Section 66268.3, no generator, transporter, handler, or
owner or operator of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility shall in any way
dilute a restricted waste or the residual from treatment of a restricted waste as a
The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption.
For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at wnw.dtsc.ca.gov.
8 Printed on Recycled Paper
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
March 19,200l
Page Two
substitute for adequate treatment to achieve acceptable standards. The
treatment measure proposed at the site, mixing and blending of the soil, is a form
of dilution and that it is not acceptable to DTSC. Therefore, DTSC recommends
further assessment and a removal/remediation of the site. Further remedial
action proposed such as capping or placement of vapor barriers shall be
implemented after a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, which includes a
Human and Environmental Health Risk Assessment. After the Risk Assessment,
if the proposed remedial measure is feasible, it can be implemented with the
approval of a regulatory agency. Therefore, proper investigation and remedial
actions should be conducted at the site before initiating grading activities.
6) If during construction of the project, soil contamination is suspected, stop
construction in the area and appropriate Health and Safety procedures should be
implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil exists, the ND should
identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and
which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight.
DTSC provides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA)
preparation and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For
additional information on the VCP or to meet/discuss this matter further, please contact
Ms. Rania A. Zabaneh, Project Manager at (714) 484-5479..
Sincerely,
Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E.
Unit Chief
Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch
Cypress Office
cc: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief
Planning and Environmental Analysis Section
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
city of
April 19,200 1
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E.
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
RE: DRAFT ND FOR CANNON COURT - SCH 2001021109
Dear Mr. &$!&&&&:
Thank you for your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Cannon Court. I asked
the consultant to address your comments and their response is included as an attachment to this letter.
Regarding comments #3, 5, and 6, the project will be conditioned to submit a detailed soils testing and
analysis report to the City and County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health for review and
approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. The condition will read as follows:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be
prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to the City and County Department
of Environmental Health for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential
for soil contamination due to historic uses, handling, or storage of agricultural chemicals
restricted by the San Diego County Department of Health Services. The report shall also
identify a range of possible mitigation measures designed to remediate any significant
public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected in the soils at concentrations
which would have a significantly adverse effect on human health. The Developer shall
implement one of the mitigation measures identified in the report prior to the issuance of
building permits should mitigation be necessary so as to reduce the impact to below a
level of significance.
The City and County Department of Health Services will provide the appropriate regulatory oversite to
monitor the required soil remediation for the project. Should you have any additional questions, please
feel free to contact me at 760-602-4626.
Sincerely,
Barbara Kennedy, AICP
Associate Planner
Attachment: Responses from Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. dated 4/12/01and 4/l 8/01.
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
,,rK-lJ-&k,l k~ (:%lf4 FRCWPLFINNING SYSTEMS 760 931 5744 TO : 602855Y T.C.d
’ 0442 ‘01 1725 ID:CTF -~IDO F&4:760-746- -6 Fclfx 1
. -
ENGINEERING, INC.
CONSTRUCTION ~NG& ENGINEERINGJNC.
fi4N OJWO, CA l RJwR!!P);,cx l b-kmuM,CA l TMCXCA * JANCASJ’Fs8,U ’ ~CMbJENTth~A
2414 Mmqd he 4~LF3imd?s6ci. 16%mfJkAm %aw.lamh 421% LW8.w. J626hlbuiank
sdkc mlrJo3 s4ditu
LidyacA92lm ~cml9 ommdprAmu iF&Lm i!zitQum 6lmuJISWb
vm 14bal 49091 YlJ.JBBQ m94swM?J wwsB= WI)I#wH f9lCmlu,
llt4) M&%06 t-As (909) 5)1.1166 fax W)Ml6nr cw9w3aJsmx N6l)lZ64WnU EJ6lJZldWRx
AJwir 12,2001 CTE? 3ob No. IO-3715
AtdMJd6C~
plranhngw- 1530 Fmnday Ammae, Suite 100 tzdsw-92008
Itew Rev&by Statcofcali~~ofToxicSubapncts~~ N8g6tive~onfbrthecMnoD~ SDP-OOXWCUP ~3liPuC 00409A5S 99-16 - 2oOmlfO9 ated l4lalmk 19,2001
1. ?hsDTsCwrote:‘sheM)nocdstoidanti~aaddctcrmincw~owentar hbtodc w sr the proj6ct 6itr h6v8 relwhwi in 8fp nlwae of lumrduw wsl8w6ub6buJM6attkcRojcct8ru&”
olpr~~:wc~w~~~thbphoBcI~~~~sitc~~ this rite (Commme COIW&IMS, 1998). Based on this docmmt, it appears that
~6it-Wl68dEba~~purplwcSfram~\mbstsn\fnad d8tciatRcp86t thmq#b tbc 19708. liistorical)y 6griculhnsl u6e6 of 6itm have xemlted~to accuJnulstioaaoforgiul~pesticidesorotbsr~~chamlcsl.
2.nleDTscwrot8:YIlrtNDD88d8toldeDtifyMykaowarpobmfirlly
~6itedthtkppossdPqjectae8. Forollid&fiod8itsqt4eND aeadstoswluatewhethet~~itianarrcthtPidCPOS48~tobumanh~or tbt8nm ”
our rMpoDs8: RcgioD 9 of rho unItcd state6 EDvlNmlDMmI RotcctioD Agomy
has issued PI-&D- Rmediath Goals (PROS) a tooh fbr evrhuting nnd
-.---b GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERINq TESTlNG AND INSPECTJON
QPR-13-2@@1 a7:5QQ FRON:PLf+NNIffi SYSTEMS 760 931 5744 TO:6828559 tJ: 5’3
u4/ II VI lf;zD IlJ;Llt s5GlmJIlJu mx:760-746-m PAGE 2
Additional Infmtion Rquested by DISC J4xposd cann~,court Dtvelopm?nt cark~califd
Apofl12,2001
praert2
C’IE JobNo. 10-3715
clau~ing up contaminated sites. The PRGa a~ risk-basad concentz&xu daived from sitandardizad cquat.iolw, combining expanrrr i&mution aaumjaions and EPA toxicity data, PRGs m regulatory guidelines. Ihe PRG for loxa&ane conoent#rions in soil * indll8lriali sites is 22 xng/kg# Rcun our prwious work at tt4J9 rite toxaphene concentrations rangod fkom 4.54 to 222 m&Jig. l-bwewf, our work was conduoted solely far soreening purpose, Recamtly the DTSC ha8 issued (June 28,2000) an interim guidmoe for sampling of agficultural soik. Wc -end hhat a sampling of the site be amducted using the newly issued D’JX gllidelims.
3, NocommentbyC’IE.
5. D’I’SC! (~aur@rar+ed) wrote: GradJag a&it&a are propo& ap a iwnediotjoDl methodology and this is umxeptable to the DTSC. The DISC also -conduotingfurtha assesmcnte ofthc die.
Our response: CTE did not recommendgnrdingesameanrofdil~thesitc soils It is our experience that aoils -ta&ted with @cultural &c&c& arc generally~cfedtotheupperfioottothFeefaetofthesoil~~~ Duringthe construction process, tJkaw upper 8oil mfiteriule arc geaemJJy roved (they ofteD contain topsoil whfcb is uaacccpbrbl e in buikliq foundations) and hauled Fran the&c. Itwssourexpectetion~ttheuppwfoattothrrsf;irotofsoilswouldbc remmd CTE oatl provide additional rmwments as mquested by rhe TJTSC, We ete mmently working with the DTSC on similarpjtc$ in the site area.
6. NowmrnentbyCTE.
If you have any questions rcgardii Ms transmittaJ, pJcasc do not he&ate to contact tis offioc. The 0ppMnmity to be ofserviw is appreciated.
~~~ 6-B
CONSTRUCTION TESTIN & ENGINEERING, INC,
Gtmdmdm, RG, REA II #20137
WL)/lY WI lY:.JY
ENGINEERING, INC.
1D:CTE ESCONDIDO F6#:760-746-9806 FQGE 2
d
(‘JBNSTRUXWN ~STING a ENGINEERING, INC.
MN DlEGO. CA * KIVEWslDE, CA * VENl’PK.&CA * mACY.cA l LANCrnJ,CA ’ SACRAbft:SlU. CA
244 Wneyard Aw. 49dE.PliareLadcl. 1645 hdflt Arc 242wLmh 42156 10th SL HI 361 Mdiaun ABC
sunt G Suirt 1 Sukr 105 Suhr F L’dl K saile 7.2
thmiida CA 92929 t:oronu,CAYl7lY Ommd, CA Y3O.V Tracy, CA 95W LmcMitr, CA ?.w N.&hb?&C4QSW(I
~76lll746-4U~5 mYl371. te!N w314664475 m5Y 83943m (661) ?2b%l6 (9161 JJMaW
f760) 74bao6 t*x (Y6Y) 371.2168 FAX MLl5~ 48mib m mY1 u39.2695 FAX f661) 7WU4b hx 191~1~&f16J] FAX
April 18,ZOOl CTE Job No. IO-371 5
Mr. Dennis Cunningham
Planning Systems
1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carl&ad, Califonria 92008 . . de: 760.93 1.57fjfj
Subject: Response to Memo of April 17,200 1
From Dennis Cunni~
Proposed Cannon Court Development
AJW 223-051-12 Carlsbad, California
Mr, Cunningham:
To clarify, organic-containing soils are anticipated to be removed. However, based on
our observations organic-containing soils are not present throughout the site. As
explained previously, the depth of these soils is variable across the site. Locally, some
arws may require only blading off. However, other areas may require removals of up to three feet. I anticipate that an average of six inches of soil needs to removed,
If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, plye do not hesitate to con&u% this offke. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated.
Rcspectfi~lly submitted,
CONSTRUCTiON l-EWING & ENGINEERING, INC.
RG, REA II #203 37
GEOTECHNlCAI~ ANI) CONSTHUCTION JENGINEERi$~ 1’ESTING AND INSPECTION